Mothering Forum banner

I really hate PETA... Another low for this group.

10K views 201 replies 51 participants last post by  Ilaria 
#1 ·
You know, I really hate this group. They make Howard Stern look respectable.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-...03&ID=s1452714

>>The Spokesman-Review

Tuesday, December 9, 2003

Spokane, WA

Group's Santa ad goes overboard

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals doesn't believe in the ethical treatment of other humans.

Consider.

In its headlong pursuit of animal rights, PETA proved its indifference to decency by comparing the Jewish Holocaust to slaughterhouses. Earlier this year, Spokane got a dose of this strange ideology when PETA brought its "Holocaust on Your Plate" display to the courthouse. Apparently, PETA can't distinguish between the systematic slaughter of a race of people and meat production.

At times, PETA has inaccurately painted Jesus Christ as a vegan, dubbing him the "Prince of Peas." And has stepped on the toes of Mothers Against Drunk Driving with a campaign that claims beer is better for health than milk.

Now, PETA has gone overboard again, reprising the role of an unconverted Scrooge with a billboard on East Trent. The mean-spirited sign features Santa Claus looking down the front of his pants and the message: "Santa's not coming this Christmas." For the adults that don't get the double-entendre, small-hearted PETA gives another hint in smaller type: "Milk can make you impotent. Soy brings joy."

We're aware that PETA embraces controversy as a means to drive home its extreme message. And that we're playing into the organization's hands by taking this space to denounce its latest affront. But we have a responsibility to do so. PETA doesn't represent the standards or viewpoint of this area and should be shunned by reasonable people.

A PETA official told Spokesman-Review reporter Kevin Graman that the Santa Claus campaign is "a light-hearted thing that we're having fun with." Try telling that to children passing through the 5000 block of Trent. Santa's not coming? Only a holiday party-pooper of the first order would pull the rug out from under families after weeks and even years of good-natured Christmas make-believe.

At another level, the message is sophomoric and slightly pornographic.

The attention PETA gets from its outrageous acts probably serves a purpose, that of fund-raising and getting its name out to the public. But we wonder how over-the-top campaigns, such as Spokane's Santa, affect the work of legitimate animal-rights activists and groups. Such tactics can marginalize well-meaning people who work hard to adopt dogs and cats at animal shelters.

Extremism hurts legitimate causes. Anti-abortion efforts are hindered by the fanatic who terrorizes abortion clinics or doctors. Earth First!ers marginalize environmental efforts when they sabotage timber equipment and spike trees. PETA's lack of discretion turns off the public, too.

• "Our View" represents the editorial voice of The Spokesman-Review. It is written by members of the editorial board, who are listed on this page. <<
 
See less See more
#52 ·
lorijds,

Hey, nothing that I have written here has been written with any malice or angry and offensive intent. I think it's refreshing to have your views questioned by others as it makes one *think*. When one must explain why one feels the way she does, it reaffirms to oneself (in this case, moi
) why one holds these beliefs in the first place. In the end, most of use will agree to disagree and that's fine. It's sometimes annoying to me that people feel an 'argument' always is accompanied by anger. Intelligent arguments should ideally (yeah, I know, I know, yeah right
) be void of emotion. That is the only way to be objective. That said, we are emotional beings by nature, so 'ideally' doesn't really work here.

Anyhow, enough rambling. The quote was meant to be ironic AND funny AND unsettling, just as the PETA bilboard was meant to make me think. I'm not explaining the quote here, just the my intent in posting it. So, I hope no offense has been taken, as none was intended and I certianly haven't taken any! Enjoy your Baileys and Coffee
.
 
#53 ·
I always found PETA to be a tad gross, but then how else do you think people get the idea that certain conditions on factory farms are not totally horendious? I mean, they can tell you gentally in a nice little flier that de-beaking is wrong and that it is painful, but do you really get it? Do you get it until you see it? I mean heck... what is "de-beaking"? Until you see it... UGH!
Also, alot of times it is the "in your face, down right nasty stuff" that gets you thinking. My mom takes Premerin. (Hormone replacement do to menopause, made from pregnant mare urine) I told her, "Your taking pills derived from horse pee" She didn't believe me, I explained the whole thing. She said she NEEDED to take it, that there was no other way. I suggested LOADS of natural plant base things she could take, but no. She asked me for proof that it was made from horse pee. So I sent her a few threads to site that where pretty tame, but went into the whole thing about how the mares are treated. She was pissed, she was so mad at ME, for sending her all this negative "crap" (her words) on her wonder drug. Plus then she tells me her Doc only wants her on it for 6 months. I said, then you go into menopause again!!! UGH!
Not really sure if this story has a moral, I mean I tried the gental way, sent her the "gross stuff" yet still she refusses to listen.

Back to the topic... I like the ads! Even if they go a little over board. I think that maybe in this day and age it has gotta be in most peoples faces. They can't "see" it otherwise.

H
 
#54 ·
I would like to point out that just b/c people are talking about this billboard does not mean that it has done "it's job" or intended purpose, people on here are not talking about milk causing impotence, they are talking about wether or not they like an organization, and how the organizations ads make them feel about the point they are trying to get across- which I still think is lost.

When a group that you view as "extreme" attempts to "educate" you, very often- you simply say "what a crock of $*&^", you don't think, "well, I have always thought those people were off the wall, but maybe milk really does cause impotence"

FTR- I agree with what PETA is trying to say, and I think they are right most of the time, but I think they go about it in such ways that they win no one who didn't already supprt their cause.

Again- b/c people are talking about it, does not necessarily make it effective.
 
#55 ·
ITA with jess--the tactics might get you talking, but about the tactics, not the issues.

Yesterday I had to walk across the campus where I work to get into the student center. There was a large demonstration set up by some christian right to life group with enormous full color gory posters that you had to detour around to get into the building. In the lobby of the building, people were talking. Not about the issue, but about the inappropriateness of the demonstration.
 
#56 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by 3boys4us
I take offense to the use of Gandhi and MLK as an example of "pacifists" - they both certainly used demonstrations and outrage to show the injustice in the systems they were trying to fight - remember Gandhiji's salt march? Remember the black sit-ins at lunch counters.

A pacifist is by defination is someone who opposes violence and/or war
HUH??? A peaceful demonstration is hardly an act of war! Marches and sit-ins at lunch counters are hardly acts of violence! So what is your problem with Gandhi and Martin Luther King being called pacifists?? They were pacifists!!

I also agree with jess -- the signs get us thinking, but not about what they want to get us thinking about. The focus becomes the sign itself, and Santa, and sex, and PETA's tactics, and we are distracted from the issue of animal abuse. The sign does not serve its purpose.
 
#57 ·
PETA uses the the shock tactics because they are effective. How many of you have heard of PCRM, VRG, or EarthSave? They educate people too but they are relatively obscure organizations compared to PETA. The reason is that they use a gentle approach whereas PETA definitely gets in your face using humorous truth, mostly naked women, etc. Which approach is more effective? Obviously PETAs.

PETA sent Jason Alexander information about KFCs practices with their chickens and he was so appalled he asked KFC to honor PETAs request to treat the animals more humanely. Jason Alexander was dismissed as the KFC spokesperson.

PETA sent Ben Affleck a video about how fur is made after he bought JLO a fur coat. He was so moved by what he saw that he made a sizeable donation to PETA and promised not to ever buy fur again.

In my opinion, PETA is doing for the animals what the abolitionists did for the slaves. They have a mission and I think it's a good one. Education. Bringing the truth to light. Just like we're doing with the war on tobacco and those The Truth ads. They don't have time to mess around. Millions of animals are slaughtered every day. There's no time to waste being sweet and gentle.
 
#59 ·
the signs get us thinking, but not about what they want to get us thinking about. The focus becomes the sign itself, and Santa, and sex, and PETA's tactics, and we are distracted from the issue of animal abuse. The sign does not serve its purpose.

I hope your speaking for yourself and those that agree with you only. Because I am not part of your collective "we".

actually, I think this thread is a perfect example of how once you've made up your mind, it's closed. If you don't like PETA (for whatever reason) when you see any billboard from them your unlikely to see past the name, and probably going to assume the ad is offensive. But lots of people aren't and are capable of seeing the message. Just because some don't doesn't mean all don't. This says more about our individual values than PETAs advertising decisions. Everytime I see a PETA ad I give them a mental high 5.

I personally change the channel anytime Bush is on TV, so not saying I'm perfect in this dept.
 
#60 ·
Question- what did they send to Jason Alexander and Ben Affleck? Information, and an informational video, yes? Not pictures of Holocaust victims and Santa looking down his pants, right? Truth is one thing (to an adult who clearly needs to be shown), but "clever" ad campaigns like the one's which get all the press, IMO do nothing for their cause.
 
#62 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Arduinna
I hope your speaking for yourself and those that agree with you only. Because I am not part of your collective "we".
I'm referring to the comments that several people have made to the effect of, "look, the sign got us talking, obviously -- so it worked." But this thread has not been discussing animal abuse ... or... what was the point the sign was trying to make? Something about milk? (You see what I mean?) This thread has been discussing, instead, PETA's controversial approach, and whether or not kids who believe in Santa can read, and so forth. The issue that PETA intends to promote discussion about has not been the focal point of the discussion.
 
#63 ·
I totally agree - couldn't have said it better!

aw, shucks. i cant help myself. i love peta. guess i never will get rid of that soft spot i have for extremist, underdogs, and people who are unaffraid to be totally offensive for a good cause. the fact that so many hate them just makes em seem more cuddly to me.
 
#64 ·
Considering that this thread was started to discuss PETAs advertising decisions (not it's activism for animal rights) it's hardly surprising that the focus has been the ads. I generally like to stay on topic in threads.

In fact the OP is a perfect example for my previous post.

I'm sure that many many people have been curious as to the controvery over PETA ads and gone to their website to find out what they really do stand for. Who are they? They are the people that have limited info on PETA as an organization, and that haven't already decided to write the group off as "extremists".
 
#65 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Erin Pavlina
PETA definitely gets in your face using humorous truth
There's no time to waste being sweet and gentle.
I'm not saying they have to be sweet and gentle. There's nothing wrong with getting in people's faces and using humorous truth. I just think it's possible to do so while keeping the focus on the issue and without offending women and holocaust survivors and upsetting small children. I'll bet those of us in this thread could get together and come up with a truthful, in-your face message that attacks the factory farming industry without offending those we don't want to offend, and create a more effective sign than PETA's.
 
#66 ·
Hey, I consider myself to be an animal rights activist, but this doesn't mean I have to like PETA. As I have said in previous posts, I applaud their ideals and support their intent.

Quote:
They don't have time to mess around. Millions of animals are slaughtered every day. There's no time to waste being sweet and gentle.
I am in agreement but it's one thing to have this philosophy but quite another to plaster it up on a billboard for everyone to see. Why not have 'em in late night commercials, in magazine ads, saturate every talk show and news broadcast! Call me crazy, but I'd like to choose the time I feel is most appropriate when it comes to educating my son about the evils of commercial meat processing and the fur industry. I can turn off the TV, I can not buy certian magazines, but it's kinda hard to keep my kid from seeing a HUGE bilboard! They have every right to spread their message but not when it threatens the innocence of my son and his peers! THERE IS A BETTER WAY!
 
#67 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Arduinna
Considering that this thread was started to discuss PETAs advertising decisions (not it's activism for animal rights) it's hardly surprising that the focus has been the ads. I generally like to stay on topic in threads.
But don't you see? Someone read the ad, and then came here and, instead of posting "hey! I just saw a great ad that taught me something I didn't know about milk!" they posted "ugh! how inappropriate!" and then a bunch of us joined in saying that our reaction to the ad is the same. This thread represents a reaction to the ad which is not exactly the reaction that such an ad should be trying to produce.
 
#68 ·
Quote:
HUH??? A peaceful demonstration is hardly an act of war! Marches and sit-ins at lunch counters are hardly acts of violence! So what is your problem with Gandhi and Martin Luther King being called pacifists?? They were pacifists!!
Then what is the problem with the billboard? They are not advocating war - and most kids probably won't understand the double entendre of the billboard.

They got you to think about animals at a time when animals are traditionally not thought of at all - except for the meal or as a gift.

A pacifist may oppose violence and war but they do not oppose confrontation and IMO that is what this is about.

Gandhiji also said that you can judge a nation by how well its animals are treated.

Further I have never seen PETA advocate violence on this issue.
 
#69 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Devrock
I'll bet those of us in this thread could get together and come up with a truthful, in-your face message that attacks the factory farming industry without offending those we don't want to offend, and create a more effective sign than PETA's.

I am sure that PETA could also do the same, if they wanted too, some groups want press whether it actually works to further their cause or to educate or not.
:

I am sure they could come up with ads that made a very clear, very stong point (as I said before- show the pics of animals, and leave out the Holocaust victims), but they obviously are looking for something other than education, IMO
 
#70 ·
no, actually someone read an op ed piece about PETAs ads and came and posted a copy of it. And it's clear from their choice of title for this thread that they already have a bias against PETA (again supporting my contention). Not the same thing. And considering the focus of Mothering and many MDC members on natural living, vegetarianism ect and the fact that not one person posted about not understanding the Santa ad, it's clear that we understood the link between milk and impotence so what is there to discuss??

There were posts btw about animal rights, but they were from people who already had made a decision. We that same old same old stuff of "well what about the poor vegetables" in essence saying that any activism is usless and hypocritical. Hardly stuff for an open minded discussion. And again off topic for this thread about ADS.
 
#71 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by 3boys4us
Then what is the problem with the billboard? They are not advocating war - and most kids probably won't understand the double entendre of the billboard.
No one has claimed that the billboard is advocating war or that children will understand the sexual reference. The expressed concern is that children will be upset by the suggestion that Santa Claus will not be visiting their house this year.

Quote:
Originally posted by 3boys4us
They got you to think about animals at a time when animals are traditionally not thought of at all - except for the meal or as a gift.
No, they didn't get me thinking about animals. They got me thinking about a bunch of little kids who are going to be uspet by the suggestion that Santa Claus will not be visiting their house this year.

Luckily, I don't need PETA to make me think about animals. I think about animals regardless of PETA. Good thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by 3boys4us
I have never seen PETA advocate violence on this issue.
I don't think anyone has been claiming that PETA advocates violence on this issue.
 
#72 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Arduinna
no, actually someone read an op ed piece about PETAs ads and came and posted a copy of it.
I believe that was the original poster's way of saying "ugh, how inappropriate."

Quote:
Originally posted by Arduinna
And it's clear from their choice of title for this thread that they already have a bias against PETA
I don't think you need to be biased to notice a certain pattern in this particular group's advertising.
 
#73 ·
I may not agree with all of PETA's tactics, which is why I stopped financially supporting them years ago (not to mention that i'm broke
: ) , but I am VERY glad they exist nevertheless.

The mass droves of people do not stop and think what is wrong with milk... what is wrong with snapping chicken's beaks off.... what is wrong with mass pumping of antibiotics, ect.

This ad makes us uncomfortable, and IT SHOULD!!!! The amount of resouces this contry consumes in the name of eating animals/animal products is sickening. The health threat, the environmental threat, the lack of ethical consideration.... PETA shocks and introduces eye opening
discussion.

Once upon a time something called the ERA was considered extreme. Guess what, it still is by many. But I will support the ERA until it one day passes. Likewise, I will support veganism until we embrace compassion for those who can't speak for themselves.

Great thread.

 
#74 ·
Devrock... PETA's ads aren't offensive to everyone, so saying they can make ads that don't offend people really isn't under their control. People will either choose to be offended or not offended by what they see. What some see as offensive to women or holocaust survivors, other people will see as a perfect example.

Here is something I wanted to point out...

If you were a slave in 1859 in the south and you were suffering terribly (as they all were), would you want some nice people from the north to have some tea parties with a few people who paid to be in attendance listening to their thoughts and views on why the slaves should be freed? Or would you want those people marching in the south, putting up signs showing whipped backs, abused bodies, and cowering people and bringing to light the true atrocities that were committed against these slaves? If you were a slave in 1859 would you care if some southern slave owners were offended by those signs?

If you were a slave in 1859 would you be wishing with all your being that someone, somewhere would save you, no matter the cost, no matter the threat to the economy of the south, no matter who had to be shaken awake so they would finally see that it is not right to treat any living being so cruelly?

No animal should suffer such cruel treatment to be a delicacy on someone's plate. It's murder, it's wrong, and in my humble opinion, there is simply no justification for it. So I applaud and support PETA for their efforts and their tactics. More power to them.
 
#75 ·
The above poster reminds me why I would never give $$$ to PETA.

Do I think animals should be fed well, not tortured...? Yes. Do I think all people should be vegitarians? No. Do I think that people should be able to wear leather? Yes.

For me, I totally support PETAs attempts to have animals treated in a *humane* manner. I cannot support, though, assertions that it is reasonable to care for an ANT as much as your own child, or if you were driving and there was a person in front of the car you WOULDN'T swerve if you had to hit an animal to do so. That's just off the deep end for me.

Totally OT--- When DD was just becomming a good reader, we passed an adult superstore called "Peeps"--- she thought that it was the factory where *all* the Easter candy peeps were made and kept asking if we could go there. She knew we couldn't go *right then* because the windows were dark--- obviously they were closed, lol.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top