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



## grahamsmom98

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. <<


----------



## grahamsmom98

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


----------



## Arduinna

Well, neither link worked so I can only go by the snippet you posted.

************************************************** *

Would that be the same Howard Stern that has stood up for genital integrity for all children?? Yes it would, I guess we have different values then.


----------



## Elphaba

:LOL
I guess I am a sick bastard because I think that ad sounds funny!


----------



## Arduinna

I think it's freaking hilarious too Elphaba.

Although I once lived in the conservative farming boonies and I'll guarentee they don't take kindly to their farming practices or products getting negative press. Doesn't change the fact that many farming practices are horrible. I'm so glad I don't live there anymore.


----------



## Sustainer

That article didn't mention the time PETA pissed off feminists, including myself, with an ad that said "Fur trim: not attractive" under a cartoon of a woman wearing underwear (or a swimsuit bottom, whatever) with her pubic hair sticking out on the sides. A representative from a feminist group wrote a letter to PETA complaining about the ad, and a PETA representative wrote back a really nasty reply, which the feminist representative made public.

Seems like there was a thread on here about it...


----------



## journeymom

PETA sucks.







uke


----------



## sunbaby

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.
and are there kids who are old enough to read and still believe in santa? i am guessing that most kids who still have a total belief in santa arent gonna be able to deciefer the ad.
and let us all remember that it is not so very long ago that the idea of women and minorities as worthy of equal consideration was considered outrageous by the mainstream. thankfully, things keep on a'changin.


----------



## Arduinna

a sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste


----------



## eilonwy

T Are there kids old enough to read who still believe in Santa? Absolutely. Not that I even celebrate Christmas, but I read well enough at 2 to decipher that ad. My niece learned to read fairly well last year in Kindergarten; I'll wager that 90% of the students in her class could decipher that ad, and that at least 75% are believers in Santa Claus. Kids are much more able than you're giving them credit for.


----------



## guestmama9924

Ah well, I guess I can join the ranks of the tasteless too, I love PETA!








I love the breastfeeding campaigns, the 'milk sucks' and "fish are friends, not food" campaign, and the fact that humans and animals all deserve humane treatment- even if consumed for food.


----------



## lorijds

I thought it was funny, too!

I liked the fur trim one, too, though I call myself a feminist. I guess I am a feminist with a funky sense of humor!

Sunbaby said it for me; I just have a soft spot for them. For me they are the Saturday night live of the activist world.

Lori


----------



## momto l&a

There was an animal "rights" group who burned down I think a BLM building in Oregon with the animals IN it. I first read about it on some donkey list I was member of.

Hows that for ethical?

I agree with NM their shocking tactic do backfire so badly in fact they I feel that it makes those groups look like a bunch of rabble rousters that are just in it for attention getting.








T Nobody seems to care about the poor feelings of all those veggies we eat. Do you really think they like being torn off the vine or out of the ground and eaten?







:


----------



## Charmie981

Quote:

Nobody seems to care about the poor feelings of all those veggies we eat. Do you really think they like being torn off the vine or out of the ground and eaten?
Yes, there are people out there. They're called fruitists and only eat things after they fall to the ground.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

PETA doesn't condone those acts of violence like blowing up lab facilities. Those are acts committed by animal liberationists, SOME of whom might be members of PETA (which makes sense) but they are not supported by PETA in any official capacity. It's like saying the Pope condones Christians blowing up abortion clinics. Or something like that.

PETA is about educating the public of the horrible atrocities inflicted daily upon millions of sentient beings who feel pain and suffer. Some of their members do take things too far. I totally agree with that. But most of their members are simply trying to end the suffering of noble creatures. Let's not lump them all together.


----------



## AmandasMom

Quote:

elevate animals to the level of humans
What is this supposed to mean? Don't animals have feelings? Don't they feel pain? Don't they feel happy? Dont they feel sad? Don't they have a will to live? Don't they protect and love thier young like just like humans are supposed to do? The only difference I see between animals and humans is that humans can talk. So just what is that statement supposed to mean NM?

Quote:

Nobody seems to care about the poor feelings of all those veggies we eat. Do you really think they like being torn off the vine or out of the ground and eaten?
Oh please, really, is this supposed to be a joke?

Quote:

You know, I really hate this group
Wow, such a strong word for an organization whose only purpose is to stop the exploitation of animals.

What is so wrong with trying to change the way animals are treated? Is everyone so cold hearted they just don't care how animals are treated? Why doesn't anyone care????? I don't understand how people can just not care! I just don't!


----------



## oatmeal

Peta is one of the few purely altruistic organizations in existence today.

They may put up billboards in poor taste or offend meat eaters with their less than gentle message.

But if you look in the face of a race - the human race- of which 90 percent condone the whlesale torture and killing of animals for human gratification, then maybe you can understand their politics and their psychology.

That Seattle editorial was ill-advised and they are very unaware of the real creed of the animal rights movement. Calling Peta an illegitimate organization is evidence of that.

Until people face the reality of what they are really doing when they support factory farming by buying meat and dairy products, there will be people like Peta and me fighting the fight for the animals. They have no voice. And they have aright to life without being torture and killed for human consumption.

The social hypnosis to eat meat without asking any moral questions about it is ingrained in people from such an early age. The shock campaigns Peta uses are a reaction to that. they are radical because people refuse to be enlightened. I agree their campaigns and tactics sometimes turn me off and I have protested to them on many occassions about it.

But if I have to choose between no voice for the animals and their voice, I will continue to support them.


----------



## oatmeal

PS

Some "highs" for this group:

1. Their four year long campaign that used grassroots methods to get Mc Donalds to reform their utterly barbaric farming practices to include more human conditions for cattle and the termination of "de-beaking" chickens and throwing away baby chicks to suffocate in the trash

2. The end result of that campaign resulting in Mc Donalds offering a vegetarian menu in its restaurants, including the Mc Veggie burger

3. A year after Mc Donals chose to work with Peta, Burger King followed suit, resulting in the second largest barbarian on the block quitting de-beaking, slaughtering conscious pigs and keeping cattle in disgusting conditions until they die a painful and inhuman death to make $2 burgers

4. their campaign against KFC for their practices of pumping chickens so full of growth hormones that their legs break under the obscene weight of their deformed bodies, de-beaking, and monstrous conditions where they were cramped in cages so small they could not sit or turn around.

Wake up people. Doing these things to animals is a debased practice and a real sin.

Animals have feelings, they love their young, and they love their lives.


----------



## NocturnalDaze

Quote:

_Originally posted by eilonwy_
*







T Are there kids old enough to read who still believe in Santa? Absolutely. Not that I even celebrate Christmas, but I read well enough at 2 to decipher that ad. My niece learned to read fairly well last year in Kindergarten; I'll wager that 90% of the students in her class could decipher that ad, and that at least 75% are believers in Santa Claus. Kids are much more able than you're giving them credit for.*
I have to say my DD is 2 and I don't think she or a kindergartener for that matter would understand the play on words in that ad....

I think their ads are pretty funny...they certainly get people's attention!


----------



## BusyMommy

Well, I do think the Santa ad is funny and I don't know many little kids that would "get" the joke.

I do respect their ideals. I just think they'd be more respected as a group if they tried to make their ideals work in our world.

1. I think their Iditarod stance is absurd.
2. Gotta agree w/them re: aerial wolf hunting.


----------



## isleta

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*a sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste







*








So true!!


----------



## Jennifer Z

Quote:

_Originally posted by momto l&a_
*







T Nobody seems to care about the poor feelings of all those veggies we eat. Do you really think they like being torn off the vine or out of the ground and eaten?








:*
You have got to hear the song "Carrot Juice is Murder" by the Arrogant Worms. Here are the http://www.letssingit.com/arrogant-worms-carrot-juice-is-murder-sdnfw88.html]lyrics[/URL] . It is sung like a passionate folk song, very tongue in cheek.


----------



## simonee

I think it's hilarious. And I love hte idea of the flustered parents trying to explain what the ad means









Why do so many people have a problem with PETA? They're funny, and they have a conscience. Is it out of guilt? I know my animal product tastes a little less yummy after I'm confronted with where it comes from and how it's made.

Would it be easier to eat the stuff if we were lulled into a belief that a cow is almost the same as a tomato, conscience-wise, and that a chicken wing doesn't need a beak anyway?

It the nameless deaths that are really sick, not PETA. jmo


----------



## corrie43

I don't think anyone thought the kids who can read would understand the play on words, but the message "santa is not coming this year" would mean exactly that. He won't be bringing presents. I don't live anywhere near PETA billboards thank goodness, but I also don't push the santa issue in our house. I do feel badly for the kids who still believe in santa that see this.

I think it's fine to post any billboard they want that might piss off an adult, but to screw with children's feelings, who don't understand it's supposed to be about drinking milk, is a little cruel.


----------



## simonee

it would offer a great opportunity to teach kids not to believe everything they see on a billboard?


----------



## EFmom

My six year old believes in Santa and can read. She would be upset by the billboard.

I think PETA is plain stupid. They tried a campaign where I live a few years back to get the name of a river changed. It's the Fishkill, and they objected because it advocates violence against fish. Pleeeeeeze. The "kill" part comes from the Dutch for creek.







:


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by momto l&a_
*







T Nobody seems to care about the poor feelings of all those veggies we eat. Do you really think they like being torn off the vine or out of the ground and eaten?







:*
My father once said the only difference is you can't hear the carrot scream.

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmandasMom_
*quote: elevate animals to the level of humans

What is this supposed to mean? Don't animals have feelings? Don't they feel pain? Don't they feel happy? Dont they feel sad? Don't they have a will to live? Don't they protect and love thier young like just like humans are supposed to do? The only difference I see between animals and humans is that humans can talk. So just what is that statement supposed to mean NM?*
I think the point is that PETA seems to think that other animals should have the same rights that humans have -- which would include the right to not be eaten.

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmandasMom_
*What is so wrong with trying to change the way animals are treated? Is everyone so cold hearted they just don't care how animals are treated? Why doesn't anyone care????? I don't understand how people can just not care! I just don't!*
There is nothing wrong with trying to change the way animals are treated. I think most of us are aware of animal cruelty and the need to eliminate it. I think most of us care, and want animals to be treated humanely. However, PETA's attitude seems to be that anyone who eats meat is a murderer.

They also need to take responsibility for their advertising. Offending factory farmers is one thing and I'm all for it. But there's no need to offend, for example, women by suggesting that our body hair is ugly.

Quote:

_Originally posted by emysmum_
*I have to say my DD is 2 and I don't think she or a kindergartener for that matter would understand the play on words in that ad....*
I don't think they would get the sexual reference. I think the concern is simply that kids who can read will take it to mean that Santa Claus isn't going to show up at their house this year.


----------



## guestmama9924

Quote:

_Originally posted by simonee_
*I think it's hilarious. And I love hte idea of the flustered parents trying to explain what the ad means








*
me too














T I go through this all the time when I drive through the weird area of central Florida with all the graphic anti-abortion billboards, and the b/w God/Christian/damnation billboards and having to try and drive fast past them so my child can't read them! And what about driving past the Adult store near my neighborhood ( only 1 road, so no there is no alternate route!) and having my child ask me what is a "love toy"???


----------



## Peppermint

I think PETA has a noble cause that many of it's ads do nothing to promote. They could very well show the pictures of slaughter houses (and slaughtered animals) without having to show pictures of the Holocaust.

Also, I am very anti-abortion, but do not think that children should be exposed to images of aborted fetuses, even though it is simple truth, same goes for pictures of dead animals.








T Out of curiosity, is there anyone on here who thinks that PETA's ads are great, and also think that pictures of aborted fetuses should be plastered on billboards?


----------



## Arduinna

I'm really surprised at all the posts about poor Santa, are so many really raising their kids to believe everything they see and read?? Shoot my dd completely understands that advertising is an attempt for someone to tell you what to think and what to want. And I would hope that all kids would trust their parents more than any billboard. I pass billboards everyday that don't reflect my views. I don't freak about it though.

I found the fur ad quite amusing.


----------



## pumpkinhead

I too am PETA hater. I applaud what they are trying to do, but I think they are going about it in the wrong way. It must be exhausting constantly trying to find new and exciting ways to piss everyone off. One of my fave quotes: "All extremists should be taken out back and shot" :LOL.

p.s. I really would rather not explain the concept of impotance to a 2 or 3 year old. Call me crazy, but I think there is a better age to get into the intracies of masturbation and sexual dysfunction. C'mon people!


----------



## cat_astrophe

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamapenelope_
*
The ad may have been funny in a low-humor way, but it would have been more appropriately placed in a grown-up publication, not plastered on a billboard for little kids to see.
*
I agree with you on that one. I think their ads are funny, but they often go about them in the wrong way. I even took the pubic hair one as more of a slam on the fashion industry and their weekly bikini waxes more so than on women in general. I can just picture that ad in the middle of "Vogue". :LOL I just have a sick sense of humor, don't mind me.....

As far as raising animals to the level of humans, I once read one of the spokesmen for PETA said that an ant's life was as valuable as his own child's life to him. I'm all for animal rights, but that's taking it a bit too far for me. If it came down to my son or an ant, the world would be short one ant. I guess that makes me selfish or cold hearted.... Oh, well....


----------



## Arduinna

She is a teen now, but she was once a toddler too. And controversial ads are not something that just popped up in the last year. Where I live there many many controversial ads, in fact the PETA ads would be considered tame by many to what we have here. But I can definately see how they would be more shocking if you aren't used to billboards at all.


----------



## 3boys4us

I like PETA - I am a member and have been for years.

Re: the bombing of the lab that used animals was NOT PETA but the Animal Liberation Front. They do advocate violence to liberate animals.

It's funny to see so many PETA haters but without them who would watch out for abuses in the circus and entertainment indurstry? Who would argue with them regarding fur coats? Who can argue about the good they have done and continue to do regarding animal abuses in laboratories?

The fact that you are discussing this proves that the billboard worked - it got you thinking.


----------



## AmandasMom

Quote:

All extremists should be taken out back and shot" .
Gosh, I read this and I feel like there is absolutley no hope for the human race. How sad that people are stuck in their little world and resist seeing the bigger picture. So are you going to take me "out back" and pull the trigger since I'm a card-carrying member of PETA? Kinda harsh treatment for someone only crime is caring about animals, and not wanting to see them hurt. But then again if you only see animals as non-feeling furry things that can't think then I suppose its all the same to you.

And by the way, PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. What does that have anything to do with abortion???

This makes me so sad, and I'm just still in shock that these hurtful cruel heartless comments come from this community! I may not post much, but I've been here almost since day 1, when this message board was just 1 long thread, over 3 years ago. I've seen it go through alot of changes. Seen alot of arguments, arguments that split the community in 2. But I've never seen such heartless comments come like I have in this thread about animals.

So, guess it's time to take this mama out back and shoot her! After all, I'm no better then that cow over there who is having her throat cut while still alive!

Quote:

If it came down to my son or an ant, the world would be short one ant.
If it came down to my daughter or the ant living it would be my daughter. If it came down to my daughter or my husband living it would be my daughter. The point is not who you would chose to live, the point is that everything that exists has a right to live its life


----------



## Sustainer

Of course we are not raising our children to believe everything they see and hear. That's not the point. I can teach my child not to believe everything she sees and hears and I can also criticize the messages that she is subjected to. I don't have to choose one or the other.

I am glad there are animal rights groups working to end cruelty. I appreciate the good they do. I just wish they could do it without going to extremes (like calling omnivours murderers) and without offending groups of people who have nothing to do with hurting animals. I don't have to love everything about an organization or hate everything about an organization. I can like the good things they do and criticize the things they do that I don't like.

Amandas mom, the "all extremists should be taken out back and shot" is a JOKE. It's an extremist thing to say -- the person saying it would be an extremist and would be saying that he himself should be taken out and shot. Get it?


----------



## guestmama9924

Quote:

_Originally posted by pumpkinhead_
*I: "All extremists should be taken out back and shot" :LOL.
*
hmm, how extreme







:
What cracks me up, especially with THIS board of mamas is that by the very nature of mainstream thinking, we are all extremists just by reading Mothering and being on this board.
One thing I notice too is that it is only an 'extreme' view if you don't agree with it!










Peace love and save the chickens....









PETA rocks


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmandasMom_
*The point is not who you would chose to live, the point is that everything that exists has a right to live its life*
That's not the point that other man was making. He was saying that the ant's life was AS VALUABLE TO HIM as his own child's life.


----------



## lorijds

Quote:

_Originally posted by 3boys4us_
*

The fact that you are discussing this proves that the billboard worked - it got you thinking.*
Bingo!

And as for the fact that all extremists should be taken out back and shot, well, they sometimes end up in that exact situation. Martin Luther King, Jr, Jesus Christ (no guns in that time, but they got him anyway), and Malcom X come immediately to mind, but there are 1000s of others.

I am an activists for women, for their right to choose for themselves and their babies an unmedicated, natural pregnancy and a gentle, loving birth. I hope no one wants to kill me because of that!

And, my kids know that billboards aren't the truth. I live in Kansas. We drive by all sorts of billboards about abortion, extolling the virtues of meat eating, and inviting us to see the 20 foot tall prairie dog. They know, at the tender ages of 8 and 5, that billboards aren't the word of God, so to speak.

Anyhow, even if I don't agree with everything that PETA says or does, I still have a soft spot in my heart for them.

Just like I do for the Catholic Workers Movement. I'm not Catholic, but I support them. I don't agree with everything they say or do (beings that I am agnostic....) but I still admire their work and their message, and am very supportive of them.

It takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Lori


----------



## Peppermint

Devrock- thanks for pointing out to those who have a better sense of humor the "all extremists should be taken out and shot" quote, and what it means







I guess some can't see the irony of that statement, but find santa being impotent very amusing







:

BTW- people can care deeply about animal rights, without thinking that PETA does everything right all the time, that is how I was connecting this to abortion, you can be pro-life without thinking that everything certain extremist groups do is right to further the cause.

It is possible to love animals and dislike PETA, or at least I thought it was







:


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by lorijds_
*I hope no one wants to kill me because of that!*
You caught my post about how it's a joke, right?

Let me just repeat it:

Quote:

_Originally posted by Devrock_
*Amandas mom, the "all extremists should be taken out back and shot" is a JOKE. It's an extremist thing to say -- the person saying it would be an extremist and would be saying that he himself should be taken out and shot. Get it?*


----------



## pumpkinhead

Quote:

*"All extremists should be taken out back and shot" . :LOL "*

Okay ladies, you're missing the point of the quote. I really didn't think I'd have to explain this, but I will. The point of the quote is *Extremism for extremism's sake just get us all dead* . Didn't you see the irony in the quote? One extreme act for another? Two wrongs making a right? I wasn't insinuating that I thought all extremists should be shot, I was saying I liked the quote. I think it sums things up quite nicely myself. Here's another one "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind. And I would HARDLY call Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist! And this is TOTALLY untrue *"we are all extremists just by reading Mothering and being on this board."* Just because one has opinions about childrearing that are not 'mainstream' does not make one an EXTREMIST! The extremist would be the one wearing only sack cloth and living off tree roots alone all in the name of proving a point! There is a HUGE difference between *ACTIVISM* and *EXTREMISM*

Who was it who originally said "A sense of humour is a terrible thing to waste"?

Thanks for clarifying stuff Devrock


----------



## brookely ash

Things need to be shaken up a bit from time to time in order to create change. And I think that we could all agree that there are many things that need to change if we want to survive. (environmentally, ethically, nutritionally, etc. etc.)
PETA put up a billboard that says Santa isn't coming. Big deal. I have been teaching my children from the time they could listen that advertisements are false. That they tell you things that are not true. This would be one more example of that. I would take this oppurtunity to talk with my children about what the ad really means,(that milk is not that good for you and it may have negative medical impacts on people) although it may make them sad to think Santa isn't coming, I think that the impact of finding out how animals are treated and slaughtered on mainstream farms would be much more devastating to them then the possibiilty that they would get no presents for xmas, (which of course would be proven untrue on xmas morning.) Atleast I hope so, and if they don't quite understand it right now, at some point they will.

Just my 2 cents,
-brookely ash


----------



## flutemandolin

Some thoughts on extremism...and I did fully appreciate the irony of that remark.

It may be thought of as noble to be a pacifist, to try to get your message across and change the status quo by gentle means, by meditation, prayer, living your own life as an example etc. But does it really work? Does it get the corporation's attention, the one whose factory farms are invisibly torturing animals from birth, the one whose pesticides are poisoning the land?

I don't think so.

Read anything by Derrick Jensen, especially _A Language Older Than Words_ or _The Culture of Make Believe_. He relates the atrocities of society to his own experience with an abusive father. One passage that sticks out in my mind was when he was attending a conference discussing solutions to global problems. He shocked many in his discussion group by stating that if he had his life to live over again, and he knew he could end the pain and horror his family was going through by doing it, he would have killed his father. No moral qualms about it whatsoever.

I disagree with PETA's stance on many issues, but I believe they are acting out their frustrations with a society that just won't listen to reasonable, polite messages.


----------



## lorijds

Quote:

_Originally posted by pumpkinhead_

And I would HARDLY call Martin Luther King Jr. an extremist! [/B]
Tell that to my racist grandfather (whom I love, and had tons of other great qualities; but his ingrained racism was there, nonetheless).

I get the point of your quote.

My point is that different words mean different things. Many people do *not* see a difference between Activist and Extremist.

And I also think we all here in Mothering dot com world live in a little dream world that people actually think like us!









I *know* that the chief obstetrician in the largest OBGYN group in our area has referred to our practice as the "natural birth nazis." He did it during a hospital staff meeting, and got quite a positive response from many of the other OBs at the meeting. I'm assuming that he means that we are extremist.

Ever heard of La Leche League, an activist league if I ever saw one, referred to as the Breastfeeding Nazis? Spend a little time in the break room on a L&D floor and you will.

The definitions of Activist and Extremist are different for everyone.

My PETA activist is your animal rights extremist, for example.

I understand your quote was made tounge in cheek; I have heard my grandfather make almost the same quote, but he wasn't joking. In a world where extremist/activists ARE being taken out back and shot, the quote is unsettling to me.

However, your "I liked the quote I think it is ironic and funny" quote is my "Joh Ashcroft scares the hell out of me, I wonder if he likes this quote (but obviously for completely different reasons than you do!)" quote.

One more example of how we all interpret things differently.

And, just to get back on topic, the PETA board sure made you think, didn't it, whether you liked it or not! Once again, they have succeeded.

Lori


----------



## pumpkinhead

The inherent problem with extremism is that, in many cases the extremist becomes the very thing he is trying to stamp out. LIke the anti-abortion extremist killing the abortion doctor. Taking a life trying to prevent the destruction of human life. The animal rights extremist buring down the animal research lab to prevent the slaughter of defenseless animals. I know, I know, PETA was not responsible for this, I'm just using it as an example.

Do you see now why the quote was so apt? Like I said, an eye for an eye leaves us all blind. There ARE other ways! Propaganda is the tool of a weak mind. If the objective is to create something thought provoking, it can be done in less offensive ways.

*"It may be thought of as noble to be a pacifist,..."*

Weren't Jesus, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr. pacifists? Isn't the Dali Lama a pacifist?

*"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. "*

ever heard the phrase "You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar"?


----------



## guestmama9924

Quote:

_Originally posted by KeysMama_
*by the very nature of mainstream thinking,* we are all extremists just by reading Mothering and being on this board.
pumpkinhead- you did not quote my whole sentence- my point being,
(which lorijds articulated better-)
is that what is extreme to one is just activism to another.
Yesterday, my neighbor stopped by and I told her we had the flu so that she would step back from the door. She felt that my "extremism" of not wanting to do flu shots was very very wrong. Extremism to her is informed consent to me























Extremism is in the eye of the critic, activism is in the eye of the beholder


----------



## pumpkinhead

lorijds,

Actually, the ad didn't really make me think. It made me laugh and then it made me mad. I laughed cuz it IS funny. I was mad because I thought the venue innappropriate. It didn't make me think about animal rights, but then again, I don't need provacation to think about that. Like I quoted in my previous post, extremist's hurt causes by making everyone think that extreme acts are the only thing these groups do! I think the only thing the PETA boards are succeeding in doing are pissing off and alienating people!

I agree with you that certian terms mean different things to different people. THis is also define by the time in which we live, but these terms DO have basic definitions.

Please don't misread me. I do not think that ALL members of PETA are extremists. I actually don't even think that I outright called 'em all extremists. I said that I support their cause, but believe they are going about getting their point accross in the wrong way.


----------



## 3boys4us

Quote:

Like I said, an eye for an eye leaves us all blind. There ARE other ways! Propaganda is the tool of a weak mind. If the objective is to create something thought provoking, it can be done in less offensive ways.
Sorry but I am not sure I get what you are saying - PETA doesn;t go around breaking into and releasing captive animals or use "propaganda" - perhaps you should read a PETA mag. - PETA uses education - - take the billboard - did you know that milk could cause impotance? The milk people didn't tell you that. Which is the bigger organization?

PETA people show up to deminstrate - sometimes using shock tactics it's true but they are fighting the mainstream press. Do mainstream press report about animal abuse and neglect by corporate America?

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


----------



## lorijds

Quote:

_Originally posted by pumpkinhead_
*The inherent problem with extremism is that, in many cases the extremist becomes the very thing he is trying to stamp out.*
See, this is the crux of the issue.

You and I disagree about the definition of extremist, so of course we aren't going to agree on whether the quote is simply funny and ironic, as you think (which is fine, it's a free board, John Ashcroft isn't monitoring it yet >>>Just for the record, since we are all missing irony this am, I am being funny here<<<<) or if the quote is unsettling, however tounge in cheek it was meant.

Okay, I am done with this. You don't need to try to explain your quote to me any more. I am actually a person who has a very dry and odd sense of humor. I got the irony the first time. It just also struck a cord in me that was unsettling, and I was trying to express that. I have been directly called an extremist for what I think is my activism in the birthing arena, and that is what came into my head when I read that quote.

I'm not responding to this thread again until I have some Baileys and coffee. I suggest that you all consider doing that as well!

Lori


----------



## pumpkinhead

3boys4us,

Peaceful protest and demonstration (salt march, black sit-ins) are a FAR cry from war and violence! MLKJ and Ghandi did not advocate violence and war.

KeysMama,

I'm sorry if I misquoted you. I still feel the same tho. I agree that we aren't all working with the same definitions here, but there ARE set definitions to these terms! They're right there in the dictionary!

*"Propaganda is a sustained effort by an institution to manage public opinion".*

So, propaganda is a hugely open word. So I guess one *could* say that one person's propaganda is another persons education.

I do understand and appreciate your points.


----------



## pumpkinhead

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







.


----------



## mamaofthree

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


----------



## Peppermint

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.


----------



## EFmom

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.


----------



## Sustainer

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.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

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.


----------



## pumpkinhead

BTW it was Ghandi who said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".


----------



## Arduinna

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.


----------



## Peppermint

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.


----------



## brookely ash

Quote:

There's no time to waste being sweet and gentle.
Exactly.


----------



## Sustainer

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.


----------



## BrooklynDoula

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.


----------



## 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.

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".


----------



## Sustainer

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.


----------



## pumpkinhead

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!


----------



## Sustainer

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.


----------



## 3boys4us

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.


----------



## Peppermint

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


----------



## Arduinna

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.


----------



## Sustainer

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.


----------



## Sustainer

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.


----------



## Mona

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.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

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.


----------



## TiredX2

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.


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by TiredX2_
*The above poster reminds me why I would never give $$$ to PETA.
*
I have to laugh, because Erin Pavlina's post is making me think that maybe i WILL start to give PETA some money again (if I can find some).
:LOL


----------



## TiredX2

Well, it was definatley eloquent!

Quote:

It's murder, it's wrong, and in my humble opinion, there is simply no justification for it.
See, I do think there is *justification* that is quite adequate for animal death. Drug research, disease research, etc... And when you get right down to it, I feel the animals should be treated well but that it is "okay" to eat them or wear them for that matter.

For me, the fact that Blacks should have the same rights as Whites is just as obvious that animals should NOT have the same rights as people.

And one thing I don't understand, and I'm not being sarcastic here. If we are going to no longer eat meat or use any animal products--- what do we do with the animals? Let them go free? Would it be someones responsibility to feed them? I'm serious here, whats the solution?

Kay


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Erin Pavlina_
*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.*
I think it is. I think their basic attitude on it has been that they know their ads are offensive and they don't apologize and they intend to keep doing it.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Erin Pavlina_
*If you were a slave in 1859 would you care if some southern slave owners were offended by those signs?*
The people that PETA is offending are not analogous to the slave owners. If PETA were simply offending people who are cruel to animals, then I would say what you are saying: More power to them!


----------



## gaffa

I went strait to PETA's website after reading this thread, and picked up info on many more issues and their agenda.

You talking about it does work. Regardless of what aspect you are talking about. You're increasing exposure.

Sparked my curiosity, I'm sure I'm not the only one


----------



## gaffa

I went strait to PETA's website after reading this thread, and picked up info on many more issues and their agenda.

You talking about it does work. Regardless of what aspect you are talking about. You're increasing exposure.

Sparked my curiosity, I'm sure I'm not the only one


----------



## AmandasMom

Why shouldn't animals all have the same rights people? The right to live as nature intended, the right not to become someones dinner or someones belt. I'm pretty sure if cows could talk they would NOT want to be killed for your pleasure. Really, I fail to see the difference between people and animals. We are all alive. We all breathe the same air. They have their own agenda in life as do we. Really TiredX2 what makes your life so much more important then that of another living, breathing creature on this earth?


----------



## Arduinna

gaffa: even if you don't change one thing or you disagree with all the PETA stands for being informed is always a good thing

Dev, I'm confused how you can say that the ads are offensive to EVERYONE, especially when so many people (me included) have said they are not offended. If your offended fine, you have a right to your opinion. But you don't have the right to speak for EVERYONE.


----------



## oatmeal

I just wanna say I love you Erin Pavlina!









The brainwashed masses continue to eat meat, support factory farming, support medical testing on animals, support the torture of animals to get skin in their cars and on their feet - because they are brainwashed. It's too uncomfrotable to look at the truth, to face the reality of what they are doing to animamls with their financial support fo the institutions who torture them.

How hypocritical is it to take our kids to the zoo in admiration of the animals, or to take them to the petting zoo in the same kind of mood, then serve them up the dead remains of an animal on their plates for dinner? An animal who has been enslaved and tortured its entire life?

It has been medically proven that testing drugs on animals is not effective medicine for humans.

It has been medically proven that meat causes disease in humans.

It has been scientifically proven that meat farming destroys the environment.

It has been scientifically proven that animals have feelings, are bonded in a family structure and love their young. Read "When Elephants Weep" to see the social destruction of the elephant heard when one of its family members is killed. Wake up and smell the roses.

See the truth about the torture of animals at www.peta-online.org

And Kay - your concern for how the animals would all eat if we stopped killing them is touching. you needn't worry though - that's no reason for you to continue eating them and feeding them to your family. They would be taken care of - I guarantee you. And all the feed used to pump them up for slaughter could be redirected to feed people who are going hungry in this world.

Meat is murder, eating it is unconscionable if you know what factory farming is, and Peta, Last Chance for Animals and whoever else is willing to devote their lives to this cause are heroes.


----------



## oatmeal

One last thing:

Are you _REALLY_ open minded?

Then go to this link and watch a FREE VIDEO

http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

It's free, doesn't cost you a dime, so why not?

then, after you have watched it, I challenge you to go anywhere in the world and find a film about how lovely, sweet and kind factory farming and the slaughter of animals is.

Folks this is an issue that has one reality, and one reality only
the farming and slaughter of animals is barbaric

Secondly, I repeatedly see outraged people who are mad because they think us activists feel animals have the same rights as humans. the right to life is a lot different than the constitution of the United States including all animals. We don't think animals have the right to bear arms, we don't think they have the right to free speech, since - ahem, they can't talk.

So I thought I would copy Peta's mission statement here to clarify what rights we think animals do have - for the record.

*PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights-consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use-for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, or for any other reason.*


----------



## jeca

I thought is was funny but I do realize that their ads are sometimes tasteless, some are good and some are bad. I just brace myself and Take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## amymarie

Awesome post oatmeal...I am really enjoying the passion of this thread...I found no offense but I do not offend easily...I love the fact that it offends so many people and makes them uncomfortable...I think PETA is doing a marvelous job and I hope they keep up the good work.


----------



## burritomama

I just want to say that Martin Luther King Jr. was considered an "extremist" - violence isn't the only gesture that can earn one that tag. Granted, it's a perjorative term and not one I would apply to him because of that.

King was even considered an "extremist" by people who were sympathtic to the cause because of the tactics he chose - direct, nonviolent resistance. (Read his "Letter from the ********** Jail" - written to confront the criticism thrown at him by otehr clergy - black and white.) He broke laws - repeatedly. He went to jail. He said things about racism, poverty and war that made many people uncomfortable. He confronted the power structure at great personal risk in order to create the tension to inspire true change. Ghandhi called this "soul force" - or satyagraha. He spoke truth to power.

Okay - off soap box. Back to the regularly scheduled programmming.

It does seem to me that PETA chooses tactics to create that kind of tension. They choose to exercise the rights granted to people in this country to express their views -- at, no doubt, risk to themselves.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by gaffa_
*I went strait to PETA's website after reading this thread, and picked up info on many more issues and their agenda.

You talking about it does work. Regardless of what aspect you are talking about. You're increasing exposure.

Sparked my curiosity, I'm sure I'm not the only one*
I think the ad causes more people to turn away from PETA than turn toward PETA.

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmandasMom_
*Why shouldn't animals all have the same rights people?*
Vegetables are living and breathing, too. Where do you draw the line? We have to eat something. It isn't black and white: Animals vs. vegetables. It's a sliding scale, all gray, with the lowest animal forms being only marginally higher on the list than the highest vegetable forms. (Did you know there are certain plants capable of a low form of communication?) I have an ethical problem with killing other primates, and I'm starting to add certain other mammals to my list. I'm not too careful about stepping on ants, though. We all draw our line in a slightly different place, depending on our own personal ethics.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*Dev, I'm confused how you can say that the ads are offensive to EVERYONE*
I'm sorry, when did I say that? Can you quote me, please?

Quote:

_Originally posted by oatmeal_
*eating it is unconscionable if you know what factory farming is*
I don't eat meat from factory farms. I buy only free-range meat.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

Continuing to eat meat just because you're not sure what would happen to all those animals if we stopped is like saying we should keep smoking because what would we do with all that tobacco.

Animals are forced to bear children to meet the demands of our society. If the demand were decreased, the farmers (and I use that term loosely) would stop breeding so many. Natural selection would again prevail.


----------



## momto l&a

Quote:

_Originally posted by Jennifer Z_
*You have got to hear the song "Carrot Juice is Murder" by the Arrogant Worms. Here are the http://www.letssingit.com/arrogant-worms-carrot-juice-is-murder-sdnfw88.html]lyrics[/URL] . It is sung like a passionate folk song, very tongue in cheek.*
The link is not working...


----------



## lovinmama

Wow...I watched the video and am totally horrified. Veganism is definitely calling my name! Thanks for sharing the link.


----------



## MelMel

i am not vegan or even veg, but i thought that comment/question was the silliest thing I ever read, TiredX...(what would the animals do? where would they go? what would they eat? or something like that)

animals live on the earth along with us, they have been around as long as us....or even longer, they naturally occur, much like us. we didnt invent them, they always had enough to eat before we started breeding and harvesting them, I am sure we they would be fine

:LOL

i should watch that video.
but i am afraid to, i like butter (organic, of course):LOL


----------



## Arduinna

here is the quote Dev

Erin to Dev:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Erin Pavlina
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dev to Erin:

I think it is. I think their basic attitude on it has been that they know their ads are offensive and they don't apologize and they intend to keep doing it.

If you didn't mean to infer that the ads are offensive to everyone I stand corrected. No problem.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Really TiredX2 what makes your life so much more important then that of another living, breathing creature on this earth?
Uhmmm, the fact that I am *human.* That does it for me. If you don't see it the same way, fine. But I do. I would kill ANY non-human animal to save the life of a human. To ME, human life is inheirantly more valuable than animal life.

Quote:

animals live on the earth along with us, they have been around as long as us....or even longer, they naturally occur, much like us. we didnt invent them, they always had enough to eat before we started breeding and harvesting them, I am sure we they would be fine
My question about what to do with the animals was not meant to be a "Joke". Sorry so many people are responding to it that way. Yes, animals survived for a long time without people taking care of them, but there is not "supposed" to be 5000 chickens in an industrial farm. I'm serious. Lets say everyone decided to go vegan. What do we do with those animals that have been bred specifically to be eaten. Just let them "free" (where they would quickly die of exposure or starvation)? Do the people no longer farming have to take care of them still? What? Please talk to the cows in India about how good life is for animals if they are just left to wander on their own. If farmers (or whatever you want to call them) suddenly were only growing veggies/grains I can guarantee you they would all have fences around them to make sure these new "wild" animals did not make away with their livelihood.

Please, show me where it has been "medically proven" that animal research has NO medical benifit. I'd *love* to see that!

And, as for how hypocritical it is to take your kids to the zoo and then feed them an animal--- I'm pretty sure PETA thinks zoo animals are being exploited as well.

So, how about breeding programs for endangered animals? Are those okay? Exactly what role should people play in other animals lives?

There, I guess PETA got me questioning at least.

I eat very little meat, not because of animal creulty, but because it makes me ill to think about the inheirant waste of raising animals. Of course, I realize that world starvation is NOT a problem of lack of food, but of distribution, so even that argument falls a bit flat.

Well, that certainly was incoherant at best


----------



## cottonwood

Quote:

Uhmmm, the fact that I am *human.* That does it for me. If you don't see it the same way, fine. But I do. I would kill ANY non-human animal to save the life of a human. To ME, human life is inheirantly more valuable than animal life.
But in the context of this thread, that's not even the issue. The issue is whether you would torture a non-human animal for the pleasure of a human. (In our society, for most people, the eating of meat is not for health reasons.)

Quote:

Lets say everyone decided to go vegan. What do we do with those animals that have been bred specifically to be eaten. Just let them "free" (where they would quickly die of exposure or starvation)? Do the people no longer farming have to take care of them still? What?
I don't know. But if everyone went vegan at least future generations of animals wouldn't have to suffer.

Quote:

So, how about breeding programs for endangered animals? Are those okay? Exactly what role should people play in other animals lives?
I don't know that either. It *is* a bit of a different issue, though, since breeding programs for endangered animals are done for their benefit, not to make them suffer and die so we can eat them.

I don't care for PETA's ads. But that's irrelevant to what I think about cruelty to animals. PETA is juvenile. But the exploitations of sentient beings for the sake of a human having something tasty to eat is sick and perverted. You can probably guess which I think is worse.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*here is the quote Dev

Erin to Dev:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Erin Pavlina
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dev to Erin:

I think it is. I think their basic attitude on it has been that they know their ads are offensive and they don't apologize and they intend to keep doing it.

If you didn't mean to infer that the ads are offensive to everyone I stand corrected. No problem.*
I answered "I think it is" meaning "I think it is under their control whether or not they make ads that offend people." Then I said they know their ads are offensive. I did not say offensive to everyone.

Hope I cleared that up.

Quote:

_Originally posted by blueviolet_
*The issue is whether you would torture a non-human animal for the pleasure of a human.*
Not all animals are tortured before they are eaten.


----------



## oatmeal

Quote:

_Originally posted by TiredX2_
*

Please, show me where it has been "medically proven" that animal research has NO medical benifit. I'd *love* to see that!t.
*
Kay, I'll address one little nugget of your rather faulty logic here, since you said you would "love to see"

There are endless reams of medical research available online and in any medical libarary in the country which prove animal testing and research for the medical benefit of humans is highly faulty and doesn't work. Would you take your child to the vet to be treated?

Our GENES are different.

Here are a few little tidbits to whet your appetite, but this is only the tip of a very big iceberg which the medical industry in this country refuses to acknowledge today becasue they beholden to drug companies. the articel at the end encapsulated the basic reason why animal testing doesn't work for human medicine. It's a fascinating transcript of a medical report done in the parliament house in London.

http://www.petapsa.com/facts/fsae11.html

Drug Testing: Pain, Not Gain
------------------------------------------------------------------------

More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year (1), most after undergoing the most archaic and unreliable testing methods still in use: animal studies. The current system of drug testing places consumers in a dangerous predicament. According to the General Accounting Office, more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 1976 and 1985 caused serious side effects that later caused the drugs to be either relabeled or removed from the market. Drugs approved for children were twice as likely to have serious post-approval risks as other medications.(2)

Dangerous Differences

Many physicians and researchers publicly speak out against these outdated studies. They point out that unreliable animal tests not only allow dangerous drugs to be marketed to the public, but may also prevent potentially useful ones from being made available. Penicillin would not be in use today if it had been tested on guinea pigs--common laboratory subjects--because penicillin kills guinea pigs. Likewise, aspirin kills cats, while morphine, a depressant to humans, is a stimulant to cats, goats, and horses.

Human reactions to drugs cannot be predicted by tests on animals because different species (and even individuals within the same species) react differently to drugs. Britain's health department estimates that only one in four toxic side effects that occur in animals actually occur in humans. Practolol, a drug for heart disorders that "passed" animal tests, causes blindness in humans and was pulled off the market.

Arsenic, which is toxic and carcinogenic to humans, has not caused cancer in other species. Chlomiphene decreases fertility in animals but induces human ovulation. The anti-inflammatory drug phenylbutazone breaks down nine times faster in humans than in rhesus monkeys.(3)

http://www.stopanimaltests.com/r-facts.html

Alternatives: Testing Without Torture
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Products Without Pain

Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technologies in the process of drug development and testing. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect these genes or the proteins they make. While some companies have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues. "If you have information on human genes, what's the point of going back to animals?" says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter.(1)

Instead of dripping chemicals into animals' eyes to test toxicity, researchers can now grow a thin layer of cells on a membrane and monitor changes in electrical resistance in the cells as they are exposed to test chemicals.(2)

http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsae8.html

http://www.iahf.com/research.html

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/dlrm/3rdcongr.html

excerpt from medical testimony in British Parliament
1705. That is a purely factual question, so we will proceed to the next question. What are the principal aims of DLRM and, in particular, what do you mean by "Responsible Medicine"? Do you consider that there is a need for any animal research?
(Dr Reiss) We consider that medicine should take advantage of the last progress, the last knowledge which has been obtained from science to improve the way people are cured and the way people are treated. But, with this point of view, I think responsible medicine is a medicine which sticks to rational, logical procedures, so that the people who are treated, the patients, can have the best treatment possible.

*Why is the animal model not acceptable in this frame? The reason is quite simple. As I started to say earlier, no species can be considered as a biological model for another species.*

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...99/2050802.htm


----------



## Jennifer Z

T

Ok, well this seems sort of weird in the middle of what has become a totally serious and intriguing conversation, but I posted a link earlier and it didn't work. The site I linked to has a jillion pop up ads, so I found another page with the lyrics. I wish I could post them because they are really interesting. On the surface, it is a really funny song, but when you listen to it a lot, you really start seeing a lot more in it (or at least I did) For me, it got me thinking a lot about animal rights in a non-confronational way.

"Carrot Juice is Murder" lyrics For those that missed the original post, it is sung very tongue in cheek in a folk /protest song style. While you are at the site, it would be worth your time to click on the "Arrogant Worms" link on the top to list a bunch of their songs...Cows with Guns would be particularly relevant to this discussion. If you feel like googling, ya gotta look for the lyrics to "Baby Poo" too...all of us mamas will appreciate that.


----------



## AmandasMom

I guess that song is supposed to be a parody (I can't spell this morning forgive me) of "Meat is Murder" by The Smiths? Here are the lyrics to the real song http://www.davemcnally.com/lyrics/Th...ATISMURDER.asp . I just don't see how anyone can find the carrot song funny after knowing the lyrics to the real song.


----------



## TiredX2

Oatmeal---

Quote:

Kay, I'll address one little nugget of your rather faulty logic here
I didn't say that some *drug* research is unapplicable. I said that there is *some* medical worth brought out of animal research.

For example, while I was at the UO, they did the first succesful full scale genetic map of the zebrafish. This helps immensely in the fight to identify genetic markers for different human traits/diseases. Once identified, it can help it easier to treat. Genetic studies like these would be impossible to do on humans who do not reproduce for generally 20 years and then only have few offspring.

In addition, the alternatives to animal research being mentioned are all NEW proceedures. Should they replace old ones? Of course, but even removing the questionable ethics of animal research they should do so because they are *more effective.* Its easy to point out that *asprin* wouldn't have been approved based on certain animal reactions, it's harder to say what a better alternative for testing would have been in the past--- straight to human testing? No testing?


----------



## AmandasMom

This answers an earlier question, taken from http:// www.goveg.com . Also answers to other veggie questions there too.

"What will we do with all those chickens, cows, and pigs if everyone becomes a vegetarian?"

It's unrealistic to expect that everyone will stop eating animals overnight. As the demand for meat decreases, the number of animals bred will decrease. Farmers will stop breeding so many animals and will turn to other types of agriculture. When there are fewer of these animals, they will be able to live more natural lives.


----------



## pumpkinhead

Wow, you leave a thread overnight and suddenly it's got 3 more pages!









So, a couple of things I wanted to address. Someone said "If cows could talk, I'm sure they'd say they don't want to be eaten". Well, that's just it isn't it? They CAN'T talk! Animlas and people ARE NOT the same! I agree, a life is a life is a life, but animals are NOT sentient beings! What separates them from us is that they are NOT aware in the same sense as humans are and they cannot manipulate their environment in the way that we can. Does this mean we have the right to mistreat them? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

I work in a research lab and I have used white mice in my research. Do I like putting animals down? Hell no! Do I think it benefits research? An EMPHATIC YES! What do you think the test subjects for the safety and efficacy of probiotics, and echinacea, and raspberry leaf tea, and EVERYTHING ELSE comes from? WHITE MICE! Bred for a single purpose, kept in scrupulously clean environments with their peers. Coddled, and well fed and well taken care of until they are HUMANELY put down. No suffering involved. I still cry everytime I have to do it. But I think that is GOOD! It should never be easy! This is called RESPECT. I have respect for that life and I treat it with respect, bottom line. The USA sends soldiers into war! Some of them are killed in the name of protecting a country. We have RESPECT for these soldiers, but we still ask them for their sacrifice. This is how I view my lab mice.

I eat animals and animal products, but I only get them from establishments I have visited and inspected. I have seen how their animals are taken care of and I have witnessed their deaths. Not something I relish, but something I feel is important. If you wanna eat it, you should at least have the guts to kill it or watch it being killed. I feel confident that the practices are quick and humane. The same goes for dairy. The cows at this particular place are treated as cherished pets and are brushed daily and are well loved.

But back to "a life is a life is a life". WEll, I agree with previous posters. Vegetables ARE alive too! Just as algae and sea vegetables were once alive. The question is: where do you draw your line? I think it is hypocritical to say "Every life is precious" and fail to acknowledge plants as living things. A tree is alive!! It si a beautiful and magestic living thing!! What is the house you live in made out of? The paper your read and write on? Something died to provide you with that!

What about domestic pets? Why leave them out? No, we don't tend to eat them, but they are, in a way, enslaved. They had no choice about coming to live in your house. They don't get to choose where they sleep or pee. Why is this different? Why ignore these things?

Everyone has lines....the difference is where we draw them.

So yes, carrot juice consitutes murder is a joke, as well as "Give Peas a Chance" :LOL but it can still be funny as hell and TRUE! I have a friend who once said "Eating vegetables is the cruelest! They don't even have legs! They can't run away!!!" Meant as a joke...but give it some thought. There is some truth there. Lines people, LINES!


----------



## whateverdidiwants

double post


----------



## whateverdidiwants

Sure, life is life, but I disagree that animals aren't sentient. You honestly dont' think they feel pain and emotion? I'm the vegan that I know of in my workplace and I always tell people that I don't eat anything that runs away - that if something has enough of a brain to know that it doesn't want to be eaten that I have to respect that. I had one woman try to tell me that "fish are different - they come to you", to which I replied 'So, if I tell you I have a candy bar for you and you come over to my desk to get it, does that mean I get to kill you and eat you?"

Maybe I'm making too broad of a comparison here, but the way I see it, it's like people who say it's ok to let babies CIO because "they won't remember it when they're older". I tell them that you shouldn't do anything to a baby that they wouldn't do to your bedridden grandma. That usually opens their eyes at least a little bit.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that just because I'm a walking talking person I have the authority to use and abuse people or animals who are "less" than me because they don't possess those same abilities. That's pretty arrogant in my book.


----------



## AmandasMom

Quote:

So, a couple of things I wanted to address. Someone said "If cows could talk, I'm sure they'd say they don't want to be eaten". Well, that's just it isn't it? They CAN'T talk! Animlas and people ARE NOT the same! I agree, a life is a life is a life, but animals are NOT sentient beings! What separates them from us is that they are NOT aware in the same sense as humans are and they cannot manipulate their environment in the way that we can.
There are unfortunately alot of humans who can't think, can't talk, aren't aware of whats going on around them, and they can't manipulate their environment. Since they don't meet your "criteria" what shall we do with them? Funny, as I sit here typing this and looking out my window at my busy bird feeders, I see plenty of ways in just my backyard that animals have "manipulated thier environment". Birds nest in the trees, holes from Mr. Mole, and a few skunks have made their home in a brush pile. Ok, so they can't type or use the telephone, but does that make their life any less important?

This is actually all a waste of breath. After all, anyone who can watch their dinner being killed and not have any problem with it really can't undertand no matter how many different ways you try to explain it.


----------



## guestmama9924

Quote:

Vegetables ARE alive too! Just as algae and sea vegetables were once alive.
Many non-veg folks bring this stuff up. So I answer that some of us DO advocate for the ethical/proper/healthy treatment of all living things, including veggies and plants! Hence the organic farming movement, the anti-GMO movement, etc...The "broccoli is alive too" is almost as annoying as "where do you get your protein??"

I choose to be a Veg'n, but as a member of PETA, I advocate humane treatment of living things ( including plants) - I don't expect everyone to be an ethical vegetarian, but I can be active in promoting positive change towards our gluttonous consumption of animals and animal products.

For me at least, it all comes down to karma. If something was horribly mistreated in this world, and then I consume it, I can expect no good to come of it ( physically or spiritually).

So bravo to PETA for taking a stand for animals.

Quote:

"If cows could talk, I'm sure they'd say they don't want to be eaten". Well, that's just it isn't it? They CAN'T talk!
dear goddess! babies can't talk either! As mothers we become super IN TUNE to other forms of communication besides VERBAL. I guess you are trying to make a point, but that one is lost on me...

...


----------



## Destinye

I drove by this ad the other day, and it struck me as a little bizarre, and perplexing. The ironic thing, and I am sure no co-incidence is it is by a huge feed mill for commercial animal food, which definitely often involves animals not being treated well.

I used to belong to PETA but I do feel they carry things a little too far sometimes, and decided I could do more in other ways. I am glad there are people out there making a stand though and everyone has to what they can do for what they believe in, as long as it does not hurt others, in my opinion.

Destinye


----------



## pumpkinhead

Amandasmom
I may not agree with or share your beliefs but I respect your right to have them. Please afford me the same courtesy and keep this an intelligent discussion. I do not know you and do not cast aspersions upon your character. Nor do I make assumptions about you. Again, please afford me the same courtesy. Just because you believe something does no make it right, just as my beliefs aren't necsessarily right, but the are right for me, just as yours are right for you. Get it?

*"This is actually all a waste of breath. After all, anyone who can watch their dinner being killed and not have any problem with it really can't undertand no matter how many different ways you try to explain it."*

I found this offensive.

If you read my post carefully, you'll find that I did not say that animals DO NOT manipulate their environment. I said they don't have the same capabilities to do so as humans. I didn't say that animals don't have feelings, I said that they aren't sentient beings. There is a difference.

Anyhow, ladies, lets not make this personal, ok? One can have an intelligent discussion without emotions getting in the way.

Great thread!


----------



## Destinye

If animals are not sentient beings does that not make it even more important that we treat them ethically and with dignity?

And here is the if:

Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers:

sentient

adjective
1 having the power of sense perception, or sensation; conscious

noun
2 (rare)

a sentient person or thing
[ETYMOLOGY: 17th Century: from Latin sentiens feeling, from sentire to perceive]


----------



## pumpkinhead

Destinye,

I agree with you that animals should be treated ethically and with dignity. We differ in our opinions of what 'ethically and with dignity" are.

Animals do not percieve their enviroment in the same way as humans do. This is what I mean by them not being sentient.

Animals raised for the purpose of being eaten should be treated ethically and with dignity. That said, they exist for a purpose and would not have been brought into exsistance otherwise.

On another note, most of the money put into animal conservation is done so that the populations can be perserved so people can shoot 'em. Left to their own devices, animal populations naturally peak and crash. It's cruel, but it's nature's way. In the wild, they starve to death, are eaten by other animals. If it were me I'd prefer a humane, quick and painless death rather than be eaten alive by a predator or left to starve during a harsh, cold winter. Hey, animals eat other animals of the same species as well as other species. They do it for survival, and given the chance, I'm sure a hungry wolf would look at me as a tasty meal. The difference with animals is that they have no guile. They don't pretend to be ethical or to treat other animals with dignity, because they don't!!! They're mean and cruel and they TAKE what they need w/ out thought. But you have to respect that don't you? They don't say one thing and do another. They are honest.

Getting back to PETA, I agree with their stance on most things(I.E. Fur, aligator and crocodlie products etc, etc.), just not the way they go about getting their point accross in some instances. I agree with Devrock in that I don't think these bilboards are doing them any favors. If it's offending and alienating *some* of the people who support you in the first place, I think it's time to choose a different tactic.


----------



## pumpkinhead

Keysmama,

You've taken that one quote a little out of context. I don't mean to suggest that just because a being can't talk means that it can't feel pain, or that it's less of a life.

*Well, that's just it isn't it? They CAN'T talk! Animlas and people ARE NOT the same! I agree, a life is a life is a life, but animals are NOT sentient beings! What separates them from us is that they are NOT aware in the same sense as humans are and they cannot manipulate their environment in the way that we can. Does this mean we have the right to mistreat them? ABSOLUTELY NOT!*

So, the point here is, animals and humans are not the same. Given the chance, a wild animal, be it herbivore, carnivore or omnivore would attack or eat you if you stood in it's way or it was hungry without thought for your dignity or ethics. Again, no malice or disrespect intended







.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

Pumpkinhead,

You said:
If it were me I'd prefer a humane, quick and painless death rather than be eaten alive by a predator or left to starve during a harsh, cold winter.

But the animals slaughtered for food are not given a quick and painless death. First they are caged for years, debeaked, declawed, driven insane with their captivity. Forced to eat things that are not natural for them like their own feces and the ground up remains of other animals. Then they are taken to slaughter. Some are scalded alive. Some hang by broken limbs while their necks are slit. Some are beaten to death.

An animal in the wild lives a natural existence. If it becomes the victim of a predator, so be it. Until that moment, it was free to live how it wanted, as nature intended. Free to raise its young and care for its offspring. Free to roam where it wants to. And when a predator does hunt it down, the predator kills it quickly. To me, that is more humane than what humans do.

Animals who kill other animals for food do so to survive. They take only what they need. They do not kill for pleasure. Humans kill animals for food for their own pleasure.


----------



## Destinye

Dear Pumpkinhead

I do agree with you about PETA, in fact I used to be a member but some of their methods alienated me, so I joined other groups and did what I could personally.

I do think animals killed for food commercially are not treated ethically or with dignity in general though, and they do perceive more than we realize. I had to spend time in a slaughterhouse as a veterinary student and the animals arriving definitely sensed the distress and fear of the animals in there and being slaughtered. The reality is far from humane and thats what I personally object to. It was so distressing I could not finish my time there and have not eaten animals raised that way since. I have known farmers though who genuinely loved their animals and treated them with kindness and compassion.

I know nature is not always humane but I am not sure what gives us the right to decide what to do in such an extreme manner as it is these days. I do believe we were given dominion over animals but it us up to us to choose how we treat them wisely,. They are sentient beings though, aware of pain, terror, other animals distress, and even grieve for one another, to list but a few, Animals in nature and captivity can also be genuinely altruistic too. The more time I have spent with animals the more sentient I think they are though. Yes I agree maybe not sentient in not the same way as humans, but in their own way, and they deserve to be treated with dignity, and there are many ways that the situations of animals in many places could be radically improved. I wish I knew how to achieve that. Sadly we have interfered so much in nature, and the environment, and eliminated so many species already, it would be a wonderful thing if we could do something to reverse and change that.

Destinye


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Animals who kill other animals for food do so to survive. They take only what they need. They do not kill for pleasure. Humans kill animals for food for their own pleasure.
There are many omniverous animals that do not *need* to kill other animals to survive. I fail to see how the murders they commit to eat for their own pleasure (and survival) is somehow "better" than people who eat mean for their own pleasure (and survival).

Quote:

But the animals slaughtered for food are not given a quick and painless death. First they are caged for years, debeaked, declawed, driven insane with their captivity. Forced to eat things that are not natural for them like their own feces and the ground up remains of other animals. Then they are taken to slaughter. Some are scalded alive. Some hang by broken limbs while their necks are slit. Some are beaten to death.
And that is WRONG. (not your assertion, the behavior). I'm just saying that PETA alienates a vast number of people who would support the dignity of animals, and yet still use their products and eat them. I would totally support an organization that supported "humane" treatment of animals (and all that entails--- keeping, feeding, not genetically modifying, etc...) but I can't support one that puts my child's life on the same plane as an ant.

Further, even if everyone in the world became vegan, I would still support animal research.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Erin Pavlina_
*But the animals slaughtered for food are not given a quick and painless death. First they are caged for years, debeaked, declawed, driven insane with their captivity. Forced to eat things that are not natural for them like their own feces and the ground up remains of other animals. Then they are taken to slaughter. Some are scalded alive. Some hang by broken limbs while their necks are slit. Some are beaten to death.*
This is true of most animals killed for food, but not all. It is not true of organic, free range meat. Also, I'm not sure what the rules are for Kosher, it might be more humane as well.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

98% of animals are killed inhumanely. Only 2% of the meat in this country are the free-range animals you're talking about.

Though I DO applaud people who eat free-range animals as opposed to the ones kept caged.

Animals killed in the Kosher manner suffer more, I believe, as they are not allowed to be stunned or knocked senseless before they are killed. Not 100% sure on this, so I am not going to say this is fact, but I seem to recall reading this somewhere.


----------



## 3boys4us

Quote:

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
Actually if your kids watch TV or read magazines/comic books or attend school - they are bound to see or receive mixed messages about Santa. IMO this is an excellent time to teach them about advertising.

I have great regard for PETA - they may seem extreme to some of you but all ideas at one time or another have seemed that way. The idea that it offends your sense of decency is great. What would life be if we were not offended once in a while.


----------



## Raven67

Peta does a great job of calling attention to the exploitation and abuse of animals in our culture. Sometimes, campaigns need to be "not nice" and "in your face" to get their point across. Most people don't want to acknowledge how horrible animals are treated so that we may enjoy chomping on their putrid, charred flesh. All movements need a "radical fringe" group to bring the issues into focus. For every person Peta "alienates," another person reads their literature, learns the truth about animal abuse, and becomes vegetarian. Go Peta! They will always get my contributions!!!


----------



## AnnMarie

I'm sorry but I :LOL at that ad. I see everyone's point about kids seeing it, but as an adult I found it funny.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by 3boys4us_
*they may seem extreme to some of you but all ideas at one time or another have seemed that way. The idea that it offends your sense of decency is great.*

Quote:

_Originally posted by Raven67_
*Sometimes, campaigns need to be "not nice" and "in your face" to get their point across. Most people don't want to acknowledge how horrible animals are treated so that we may enjoy chomping on their putrid, charred flesh. All movements need a "radical fringe" group to bring the issues into focus. For every person Peta "alienates," another person reads their literature, learns the truth about animal abuse, and becomes vegetarian.*
Once again, it isn't just their extremism about animal issues. It's advertising campaigns that are offensive in ways that have nothing to do with animals. They aren't just offending people who disagree with their animal extremism -- their ads are offending all kinds of different groups of people -- for reasons that don't even have anything to do with their animal extremism.

As I said before, it's possible to be "not nice" and "in your face" about factory farming without declaring female body parts ugly, without announcing to children that Santa isn't coming, withoug offending hollocaust survivors, and so on and so on. In my opinion the PETA ad failed to get its point across or bring the issue into focus. Some animal rights activists have come into this thread and made sure that the animal rights issue actually does get talked about (which is a good thing!) but the PETA ad itself actually obscured the issue. Most people, in my opinion, do not walk away from that ad thinking about the issue. I think most people are more likely to walk away from the ad thinking about little kids being upset about Santa, or some other aspect of the ad. I still think they are alienating more people than they are educating.

I would welcome an ad that actually taught people about the horrible way that animals are treated.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

I agree that PETA should post more ads and billboards showcasing animal cruelty. I'll bet some people would be horrified to see that while they are driving home. The problem they often encounter, though, is their inability to get those types of ads on the billboards due to censorship of their material.

PETA has a lot of videos and literature showcasing the horrors of the slaughter industry, but few people would willingly pick it up and look at it. Perhaps this is their way of at least getting people to talk about it.

Like I said before, most people have heard of PETA but far fewer have heard of Farm Sanctuary, Last Chance for Animals, EarthSave, and the like.


----------



## AnnMarie

Quote:

_Originally posted by Devrock_
*
As I said before, it's possible to be "not nice" and "in your face" about factory farming without declaring female body parts ugly,*
I didn't see that one. What was it?


----------



## candiland

Sorry, but there's always going to be a group of these people or those people or the other people who get offended by something someone has to say. It's a fact of life.
I totally dug the "Got Beer?" campaign. It really is the truth; milk is not good for us. At all. Would they have made national news with some dinkity little article about how milk is bad for you







: Nope, they would have been totally ignored. If they do *not* go out on a limb and do some more extreme things to garner national attention, they would never get any attention at all. Period.


----------



## Ruth

I am a vegetarian, and I know very little about about PETA.

However, their "extremist" tactics work I guess. Why else would there be some much discussion everywhere about their billboards?

Even if you disagree with PETA's cause, at least you have given it some thought. Most people go on eating dead beings without EVER thinking about the pain they are causing, the families they are destroying, or the uselessness of it all.


----------



## merpk

Have always found PETA's ads featuring animals to be very effective, arresting, and downright intense.

Once they start doing ads with people is when they start getting into trouble. And actually once people get into their equation at all, they get lost in their shallowness/offensiveness quagmire ...

As an example, the letter PETA wrote to Yasser Arafat protesting the use of a donkey as a "suicide bomber." No comment made of the young people who are sent as suicide bombers, not even to mention a comment made of the young and old people who are the victims of the suicide bombers ... just a request stop using animals.

Not that people-killing is their issue, I do understand that, but an acknowledgment under the circumstances would have shown a depth of morality that might sway more minds. And that is, after all, the point of their advertisements.


----------



## pumpkinhead

Destinye,

Quote:

*I do believe we were given dominion over animals but it us up to us to choose how we treat them wisely,. They are sentient beings though, aware of pain, terror, other animals distress, and even grieve for one another, to list but a few, Animals in nature and captivity can also be genuinely altruistic too. The more time I have spent with animals the more sentient I think they are though. Yes I agree maybe not sentient in not the same way as humans, but in their own way, and they deserve to be treated with dignity, and there are many ways that the situations of animals in many places could be radically improved. I wish I knew how to achieve that. Sadly we have interfered so much in nature, and the environment,and eliminated so many species already, it would be a wonderful thing if we could do something to reverse and change that.*
Well said, and I *mostly* agree with you. We humans, in our infinite and great wisdom (these words are meant to be DRIPPING with sarcasm here







) have done much to screw up nature in the name of bettering our lives. We perserve some species at the expense of others. We've introduced species into areas where they have taken over and threatened the indigenious wildlife (i.e. the introduction of rabbits, mice, cats, goats etc to Australia). So then these animals take over and the popultion explodes as they have no natural predators. So then what do we do? Do we allow these populations to be 'culled' or do we let them stamp out the other speices whose niche they are exploiting? How would PETA go about righting this situation ethically?

As far as animals feeling pain, stress and having emotions, ITA. As I said before, I don't believe they are *sentient* in the same way that humans are sentient. They do not look at a field and ask themselves how many condo would fit on it. They don't have stock portfolios. They are driven by instinct but, in being so driven, they can be altrustic and kind and loving. Like my Mama said, "Even ugly naked mole rats still love their babies"







. You gotta respect that.

That said, I think what PETA is doing is the equivalent of 'trying to remove a fly from you friend's head with a hatchet'.


----------



## pumpkinhead

merpk

Quote:

As an example, the letter PETA wrote to Yasser Arafat protesting the use of a donkey as a "suicide bomber." No comment made of the young people who are sent as suicide bombers, not even to mention a comment made of the young and old people who are the victims of the suicide bombers ... just a request stop using animals.
I'm right with you there, especially when they're so quick to compare animals and people with regard to fur and the Holocaust.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

So PETA wrote a letter about the donkey and not the humans. How many letters do you think were written on behalf of the human suicide bomber where no mention was made of the poor donkey's life?

PETA cares about humans and animals. They choose to give their voice to the animals where so few others do. Don't fault them for that.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Erin Pavlina_
*I agree that PETA should post more ads and billboards showcasing animal cruelty. I'll bet some people would be horrified to see that while they are driving home. The problem they often encounter, though, is their inability to get those types of ads on the billboards due to censorship of their material.

PETA has a lot of videos and literature showcasing the horrors of the slaughter industry, but few people would willingly pick it up and look at it.*
The ads don't have to be graphic to be effective.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Erin Pavlina_
*Perhaps this is their way of at least getting people to talk about it.
*
It's the animal rights activists who came in here to defend PETA who got us talking about animal rights. The PETA sign itself just got us talking about Santa and little kids.

Quote:

_Originally posted by AnnMarie_
*I didn't see that one. What was it?*
They did an ad that said that a woman's pubic hair is unattractive.

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Sorry, but there's always going to be a group of these people or those people or the other people who get offended by something someone has to say.
It's a fact of life.*
I'm aware that there are always a few people who are so sensitive that anything could offend them, but you don't have to be sensitive to be offended by PETA's ads. They go out of their way to be offensive. PETA has admitted this.

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*I totally dug the "Got Beer?" campaign. It really is the truth; milk is not good for us. At all.*
Unfortunately, beer isn't that great for you either, and this country already has a huge problem with people drinking too much beer and then getting into cars and killing people.

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Would they have made national news with some dinkity little article about how milk is bad for you Nope, they would have been totally ignored.*
Unfortunately, the news stories, and the conversations most people had about the news stories, weren't about milk. They were about beer. And how PETA shouldn't be encouraging beer consumption. And what the effect is going to be on college kids, etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't have to be some dinky little article. It can be a big bilboard. But it can be about MILK. They don't have to bring other issues into it that are controversial and have nothing to do with their cause. Big national debates about beer and pubic hair and Santa do not help their cause, you know?

Quote:

_Originally posted by Ruth_
*However, their "extremist" tactics work I guess. Why else would there be some much discussion everywhere about their billboards?*
I don't think these particular tactics work. They initiate a discussion of the billboard itself, but not about animal rights. Other animal rights activists have to come along and try to turn the discussion around to animal rights.


----------



## Peppermint

Quote:

_Originally posted by Devrock_
*
It doesn't have to be some dinky little article. It can be a big bilboard. But it can be about MILK. They don't have to bring other issues into it that are controversial and have nothing to do with their cause. Big national debates about beer and pubic hair and Santa do not help their cause, you know?

I don't think these particular tactics work. They initiate a discussion of the billboard itself, but not about animal rights. Other animal rights activists have to come along and try to turn the discussion around to animal rights.*
This is the point a few of us have been trying to make this whole thread- if they put up billboards which actually inform (like if they put up a billboard that says- "milk causes impotence") people might learn something more- esp. if they put up a link to info. about that.
IMNSHO-*most* people who did not know about the dangers of milk- have not learned anything from this ad- I also venture to guess that more people were focused on the Santa issue, and PETA's advertising techniques, than were focused on milk causing impotence, but I am sure all those who avidly support PETA already, don't want to hear that what they are doing is likely not working.

PETA can continue on with these ads, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I am also going to choose not to support them financially until they start using their money to educate more than to "get attention" which many of us have pointed out does not always lead to education, as they hope it will.

IMO people are also more likely to listen to what a group has to say, and believe in their claims, if they do not find the message offensive in other areas. It has been said before- go ahead- offend people who eat meat, wear leather, etc.- but- offend women? Jews? Mothers riding in the car with their children?

They have a point to make and IMO, they are missing more people than they are hitting with these type of ads. Does that matter?


----------



## pumpkinhead

Just a note,

I think adds can be extreme and still be effective. For example, has anyone every seen that 'Give Blood' add that has a picture of a teeny babe all hooked up to wires and tubes and stuff? It's a black and white photo. The caption simply reads 'Give Blood'. No gore, nothing offensive, just plain, BLUNT and simple. It made me think.

There are all sorts of adds that get their point accross w/o being obscene or offensive. Heck, one good example is the whole 'Got Milk?' campain. Perhaps PETA should take another page out of that book. Maybe instead of 'Got Beer?', 'Got Brain?'then use it! or something







. THe possibilities are ENDLESS!


----------



## AmandasMom

Actually they do. "Got Sick Kids", "Got Zits" , "Got Heart Disease", and a few others in addition to "Got Beer". Can all be found at http://www.milksucks.com .


----------



## Erin Pavlina

Jess, you said:

I am also going to choose not to support them financially until they start using their money to educate.

They spend millions of dollars on education. You simply haven't been the recipient of any of it. It's out there, it just doesn't get press like their other ads. Go to the PETA site and look at their financials and you'll see what they spend their money on.


----------



## AmandasMom

Interesting to me that the president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, earned $28,500 during fiscal year ending July 31, 2002. That is a very low salary. I wonder how her salary compares to other charity or welfare organizations. How much does the president of the Red Cross make? Or the March of Dimes? Is there a website that says cause I can't find it. The only thing I could find is FOX News talking about how a CEO from teh Red Cross San Diego/Imperial County chapter in Southern California makes $309,000+ salary and benefits. I'm glad to see the majority of money given to PETA goes to work for PETA.


----------



## candiland

Quote:

Unfortunately, the news stories, and the conversations most people had about the news stories, weren't about milk. They were about beer. And how PETA shouldn't be encouraging beer consumption. And what the effect is going to be on college kids, etc. etc. etc
Yup, it got everyone talking! My point exactly. And, come on, I had to laugh out loud at the thought of a silly message such as this one encouraging anyone to drink more beer than they already do







: That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. "Ooooh, did you see the 'Got Beer' campaign? I think I'm going to start drinking..." Or, "I'm gonna drink MORE now!"
People who don't like PETA are gonna make a hullaballoo over anything that isn't totally PC and totally clean. Simple as that.
As for the Holocaust comparison...... who's sig line says something to the effect of "Holocausts happen when people are looked at as nothing more than animals?" The philosophy behind it - it has a famous quote, but again, I can't remember it exactly - is that the health of a society can be measured by how that society treats its animals. Something like humans being tortured and/or killed isn't really too much of a leap from the way we treat our animals. Look at our wars... we murder, maim and kill thousands of people on a regular basis........


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Yup, it got everyone talking! My point exactly.*
Talking about BEER, instead of talking about MILK -- that was MY point.


----------



## candiland

BUT IT STILL GOT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*BUT IT STILL GOT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT*
YEAH! ABOUT BEER!


----------



## pumpkinhead

Quote:

*And, come on, I had to laugh out loud at the thought of a silly message such as this one encouraging anyone to drink more beer than they already do That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. "Ooooh, did you see the 'Got Beer' campaign? I think I'm going to start drinking..." Or, "I'm gonna drink MORE now!"*

Yeah, and violent video games don't cause violent behaviour in kids? Same goes for violent T.V. and advertising campains? Give me a break! The power of the media is the power of suggestion.


----------



## candiland

Quote:

Yeah, and violent video games don't cause violent behaviour in kids? Same goes for violent T.V. and advertising campains?
Okaaaaayyyy..... compare a child who plays violent video games for four hours a day to some people who were exposed once or twice to a PETA campaign







: If they were flashing "Got Beer" all over the television all of the time, I'd be like, chill out with it a bit. But if we were to get this extreme, maybe people shouldn't compare anything to anything because it might get misconstrued and make some kid somewhere do something stupid:LOL


----------



## mamabeard

i don't understand why some keep saying we're not talking about the real issues, the treatment of animals.







:

whether or not the ad/s converts 1% of those who see them to vegetarianism or 100%, the fact is, they do have some effect. i doubt the animals care if joe bilbo and his brother were offended. i'm guessing, [if cows/chickens etc. were psychic, not saying they aren't] they'd probably only care that mary gweeber had a revelation and called up the slaughterhouse to cancel her order.

to some of us, that's what matters. there are millions of billboards and commercials and people and toys i find offensive and annoying on a daily basis, each of which are opportunities to teach my child. but (when i used to eat meat), the realization that i was shovelling chunks of dead bodies into my mouth was incomparably more offensive and horrifying.

if you were an animal with a mother and/or children, i'm sure you'd give a damn too.


----------



## alie

I havent had time to read all the posts, but I do believe that as one poster said in the beginning, that vegetables and plants are alive, just as animals and we humans are. I eat meat, organic and I say thank you. I eat vegetables and say thank you to the vegetables. We must eat food to survive, and this involves killing of some sort. You cant get away from it. So to think you are better or more knowing for just eating vegetables ( or meat for that matter) is not right in my opinion. NO personal attacks, just a way to change thinking here. Vegetables are alive, just as alive as animals. Trees are alive. So no one is better for eating or not eating meat. Just being aware of what you are doing; consciously taking a life. /mistreatment of animals is another matter. PETA is doing its best it seems to get attention and they do. Though annoying in their tactics ( funny to some), they are effective.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*i don't understand why some keep saying we're not talking about the real issues, the treatment of animals.







:*
We have talked about the treatment of animals, because people have brought it up; I'm just saying that that's not the conversation that the billboard initiated.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

Alie, you said:

We must eat food to survive, and this involves killing of some sort. You cant get away from it.

The difference is that when you kill an animal you end it's life. When you harvest fruit, the tree lives on to bear more fruit. When you harvest a vine of its food, the vine lives on to bear again.

Also, just want to throw this in... we vegans don't just eat vegetables... we eat grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fruit, and pulses as well..









Trees are alive... yes. We don't cut down the tree though to eat the apples. When the apples are ripe, they fall from the tree, they are gathered by animals, eaten, and the seeds are spread around to grow new trees. That's nature and how the tree survives.

But an animal... I mean, herding and caging an animal and plumping it up so there's a lot of meat when it's slaughtered... not at all natural.


----------



## Sustainer

It's true that you can eat an apple without killing the apple tree and you can eat a grape without killing the vine, but what about individual vegetables that grow in the ground, like carrots and potatoes? When you pull it up and eat it, you're killing a life form, right?

Also, couldn't harvesting apples and grapes be compared to taking milk from a cow and letting the cow live? As a vegan, you don't drink milk, right? Isn't it (at least partly) because you have an ethical problem with taking the milk away from the cow?


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Erin Pavlina_
*But an animal... I mean, herding and caging an animal and plumping it up so there's a lot of meat when it's slaughtered... not at all natural.*
Hunting is natural though, isn't it?


----------



## merpk

Amandasmom, agreed, that's a very good point about the low salary for the president of PETA. Very unusual indeed. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

*Hunting is natural though, isn't it?*

Well when a carnivore hunts its food, yeah, that's natural. But a gun in the woods? Not natural at all. We didn't have guns 10,000 years ago.

A human being could not kill anything with its bare hands. Before fire and spears we ate fruit and anything else standing still. We couldn't catch a deer or elk. We couldn't bite into it with our little teeth. We couldn't rip it apart with our bare hands. We couldn't cook it without fire. And we would become violently ill if we ate raw deer.

*Also, couldn't harvesting apples and grapes be compared to taking milk from a cow and letting the cow live? As a vegan, you don't drink milk, right?*

I wouldn't compare the two and here's why.
1. A cow only produces milk after she gives birth. Once her nursling is weaned, her milk should dry up. The cows living in today's agribusiness are injected with drugs to keep their milk flowing and are pumped every 10 minutes, automatically by a machine, not their nursling. They are forced to be pregnant so they will continually lactate.

2. An apple is going to fall off the tree when it's ripe. The tree is happy when this happens so the weight of the apples doesn't break its branches. It lives on to produce thousands of apples if left to its own devices.

3. A tree growing naturally in the orchard is not injected with drugs, forced to withstand harsh conditions, left to stand in its own waste, forced to eat disgusting things, and then slaughtered a mere 3-4 years after it's born when it should live 16-20 years.


----------



## Mona

From an ethical and philosophical standpoint, no one is REALLY comparing the way carrots are grown/killed to the way factory farm animals are "grown"/killed, are we?








:


----------



## Sustainer

We're not saying that plants are mistreated the way that animals are mistreated (although when Erin said "trees are not forced to eat disgusting things," it reminded me of all the toxic pesticides and fertilizers and herbicides and fungicides etc. that are used on crops), we're just saying that animals aren't the only things that have to be killed in order to be eaten. The argument some people have been making is that 'no one has the right to take the life of another living thing.'


----------



## pumpkinhead

Erin Pavlina,

Quote:

*A human being could not kill anything with its bare hands. Before fire and spears we ate fruit and anything else standing still. We couldn't catch a deer or elk. We couldn't bite into it with our little teeth. We couldn't rip it apart with our bare hands. We couldn't cook it without fire. And we would become violently ill if we ate raw deer.*

Actually, this is inaccurate. We did eat meat before the advent of fire. Yes, to bring down something as large as a deer or an elk, one would need a spear or a knife. What about a mouse? Or a rabbit? Not a problem. But, in these days and in harsh, cold condiditons, man couldn't survive on veggies alone. We needed MEAT and FUR and HIDES to survive. Vegetables and fruit don't grow in the winter and they certianly couldn't last the whole season thru. Man did and still does eat raw deer! The Inuit still eat raw meat! Caribou, whale etc. It's considered to be a delicacy. Do we not eat raw fish? These things will not make us sick as long as they are eaten very fresh.

Also, if the apples on a tree or berries on a bush are not harvested, the next crop will be smaller and less in number. Eventually these trees stop producing and succumb to natural succession. They die, and are replaced by new trees. It IS very much the same as taking a cows milk. If you keep harvesting the apples, the tree keeps producing them in the same number (more or less).

Quote:

*A tree growing naturally in the orchard is not injected with drugs, forced to withstand harsh conditions, left to stand in its own waste, forced to eat disgusting things, and then slaughtered a mere 3-4 years after it's born when it should live 16-20 years.*

Very few trees grow 'naturally' in what is known as an 'Orchard'. Whether organically or commercially grown, they are planted and cultivated there under very unnatural conditions. In nature, apple trees do not grow in 'orchards'. Because we are growing the same species of tree in such high concentrations, we have brought about the need for fungicides and pesticides. These fungi and pests that specialize in apples can multiply to their hearts content as there is no lack of food. (and yes there is such a thing as an 'organic' pesticide or fungicide) When these trees reach the age of natural succession and stop producing 'prime' apples, YES! They are killed! Chopped down, culled and burned before their time in order to make room for the next generation.

*Mona*

A life is a life is a life. What makes a vegetable or fruit's life any less important than an animal's? Is it not still alive? Is an ant's or a cockroach's life any less valuable than a rabbit or a chicken's life? Sure, a puppy is a helluva lot cuter than a cockroach, but is it any less alive just because it's not as cute?


----------



## Kylix

Another vegetarian/pseudo-vegan stepping in...

I think PETA is doing its job and doing it well...

Yes they use shock tactics in the name of humor but something has to get the public's attention. There are far too many people who eat meat without a second thought as to how it got on their plate. They don't WANT to think about what happens in factory farms. They don't want to consider how unhealthy meat, milk, and eggs are that are pumped up on hormones.

The treatment of animals is very real. It is painful and gruesome and shocking to the ANIMALS and we poor pathetic humans can not stand to watch an ad that turns our stomach here or there? Gimme a break!

I think that people are just LOOKING for a reason to hate PETA. They stand for something that many people can't admit to themselves is happening.

As for the vegetables versus animals... I don't understand why it is not clear that we are talking about treatment here. Whether or not you eat meat, you have to think about how that animal was treated in order for you to get that meat. Animals are sentient beings. They have nervous systems. They feel pain. I'm sorry but carrots and potatoes and tomatoes simply do not. They don't have central nervous systems and they can not feel pain.

As for hunting, when you get down to the basics...some forms of hunting, I do not have much of a problem with. If I were to choose for someone (other than myself cuz I will not eat meat) how they would get meat, I would choose hunting over factory farming. I'm not talking about trapping. I'm talking about the instanteous ending of life that involves no suffering. I'm talking about how that animal up until that point has been allowed to roam free in its environment and live how it was meant to live..not crowded and caged and sick from being prodded and beaten and pumped up on drugs.

I have no problem with the animals as entertainment slogan stating that the Slave Trade is still alive and kicking and I'm an AA with abundant ancestors who suffered through slavery here. i understand how horrible that treatment was to humans. I also see that animals also care for their young, they fight for their survival, they feel pain and suffering. We can understand that dogs and cats feel basic emotions but we seem to be ignorant of this fact regarding cows, chickens, elephants, tigers etc. I can't speak for a Jewish individual and the Holocaust campaign however. But I will say this: Human suffering isn't lessened by the acknowledgement of animal suffering.

Kylix


----------



## Kylix

This website was posted before in this thread, but I'm going to post it again.

This is a free video..it's only 13 minutes long. It shows the cruelty that occurs in the meat industry.

Meet your Meat video

Kylix


----------



## Kylix

One more post, I promise









As has been said in previous posts, every movement starts off as offensive and shocking and people can not understand how others can view something so differently as it has previously been viewed before.

Just as all over Mothering.com and in GD, many individuals have embraced the idea that hitting is hitting whether it be between a husband and his wife, and young person and an elderly person or a parent and his/her child. Many people would like to create a euphemism for this "unique" relationship and call it spanking. When asked the difference, they will say I am an *adult*. I am hearing the same false logic here. When asked why animals should be allowed to suffer when it is seen as inherently wrong to force cruelty and suffering on a human, the reply is 'because I am a *human*.

Hitting is hitting is hitting is hitting. It is wrong.

Torture is torture is torture is torture. It is wrong.

No feeling creature should be forced into either one of these things. That is the difference. To try to set up a relationship where it is okay for torture and suffering to occur is the same as setting up a relationship where hitting is wrong. We now know that husband should not be hitting their wives in the name of a controlling a marriage. We are beginning to see that parents should not be hitting their children in the name of raising them/discipling them. We understand that humans should not torture and be cruel to other humans for power or financial gain (i.e. slavery, the holocaust). Why is this not clear for animals?

I am not going to make the case that animals should not be killed or eaten. Right now that is irrelevant. But tortured???!! Hell no.

To state that because we are human, we are inherently more valuable is folly. God created all creatures...we all have unique value.

To borrow from a movie, "We humans walk too proudly on this Earth."

Kylix


----------



## mamaofthree

When my family first started looking into vegitarianism 4 years ago, I had a talk with my father. He was very upset about some story he heard on the news about Japanese fishing boats that took dolphine and either sold them to aquariums or killed them to eat. He was agast because "dolphines are smart!" Yet he sat down to eat a hamburger. Now a cow is smart. Just because they don't do "tricks" for people on a regular baises doesn't make them dumb. But in his thinking, if it is dumb you can eat it. SO, that being said, I asked him, "Is it OK to eat a "dumb" person?" And I am not talking about just people who are born with some kind of birth defect. I mean anyone you see a being dumb. Because it is subjective. I mean with the rare excetion, most parents with children who are born with some form of mental birth defect will tell you flat out how wonderful their child is.

Now, I am trying to make a point. And that is, it isn't the ablity to "think" like a person that makes something sentient. I mean, NO animal will look at a field and think "Lets put up a condo". BUT they will lookk at it and see food, and nesting materials and places to burrow. Which is better? Well, I would have to go with nature. I mean I would rather see a feild with burrows, then a huge condo complex.

ALL life needs to be treated with respect. And we as the humans need to stop being so selfish as to think that all life is ours to do with as we please. It isn't.

I am not sure who said this but someone wrote that a herbavore would kill a person for food??? (or something like that...) I am going to have tio disagree. I mean how many times have you seen wild yak take down a person, in lue of a clump of grass? I haven't.

H


----------



## momto l&a

Quote:

1. A cow only produces milk after she gives birth. Once her nursling is weaned, her milk should dry up. The cows living in today's agribusiness are injected with drugs to keep their milk flowing and are pumped every 10 minutes, automatically by a machine, not their nursling. They are forced to be pregnant so they will continually lactate.
A cow will contiue to produce milk as long as she is milked. I think a cow can be milked for about 2 years before having to be freshened (bred) again.

Cows are milked twice a day.

The reason they are injected with hormones is to make them produce more milk not to keep it flowing. I do not agree with giving hormones at all.

I dont agree with commercial dairies but I do with private small farms or" the family cow".


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*It is painful and gruesome and shocking to the ANIMALS and we poor pathetic humans can not stand to watch an ad that turns our stomach here or there? Gimme a break!*
In this thread we have not generally been complaining about animal cruelty ads. We've been talking about ads that make issues out of Santa and pubic hair and beer and we don't understand why PETA is making issues out of these things that have nothing to do with animal cruelty.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*I think that people are just LOOKING for a reason to hate PETA. They stand for something that many people can't admit to themselves is happening.*
You don't have to look too hard. It certainly isn't PETA's stance against animal cruelty that turns me away from them. They are being as offensive as they can be about issues that have nothing to do with animal cruelty.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*As for the vegetables versus animals... I don't understand why it is not clear that we are talking about treatment here.*
Because some people in this thread are not just talking about treatment. It has been argued in this thread that animals should have all the same rights that humans have, including the right to not be eaten, and that no one has the right to kill any living thing. Those are the comments that some of us are responding to.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*Whether or not you eat meat, you have to think about how that animal was treated in order for you to get that meat.*
Absolutely. I don't think anyone in this thread has said that it's ok to treat animals inhumanely or to torture them before they are killed.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*Human suffering isn't lessened by the acknowledgement of animal suffering.*
No it isn't, but I can understand a victim of human suffering feeling offended by the implication that the suffering of other animals should be met with the exact same AMOUNT of outrage as the suffering of humans. I have to admit I am even more disturbed by accounts of human mistreatment than I am by accounts of animal mistreatment. Please don't flame me -- I am outraged by BOTH, and NEITHER should be allowed to happen. I think we're all a little more disturbed when "one of our own" is hurt -- one of our own family as opposed to a stranger -- one of our own species as opposed to another species. I think we have an instinct to look after our own.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*As has been said in previous posts, every movement starts off as offensive and shocking and people can not understand how others can view something so differently as it has previously been viewed before.*
Again, that's not the issue. I'm not shocked by PETA's aggressive opposition to animal cruelty. The things in their ads that offend me have nothing to do with animal cruelty. See above.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*I am hearing the same false logic here. When asked why animals should be allowed to suffer when it is seen as inherently wrong to force cruelty and suffering on a human, the reply is 'because I am a *human*.

...

Torture is torture is torture is torture. It is wrong.*
WHERE have you been hearing that??? NO ONE on this thread has said that it is okay to torture animals or make them suffer before they are killed. The only thing we have been debating is whether or not it is okay to kill animals and eat them. Everyone on this thread, I believe it is safe to say, is in agreement that animals should not be tortured or made to suffer before they are killed. Can you quote someone as saying differently???

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*We understand that humans should not torture and be cruel to other humans for power or financial gain (i.e. slavery, the holocaust). Why is this not clear for animals?*
It IS clear that cruelty to animals is wrong. Who has said differently?

To Mamaofthree: It is true that dolphins are more intelligent than cows. My ethics, as far as intelligent species, would not allow me to kill a dolphin. I don't think you can compare eating a cow to cannibalism just because some people are no smarter than cows.

I certainly agree with you that putting up condos does not make us a superior species.

I don't remember anyone saying that an herbavore would kill a person for food. I think I remember someone saying that a *wolf* might do that if it was hungry enough.


----------



## pumpkinhead

Yeah, the issue at hand here is not about how animals should be treated. Like Devrock said, I'm pretty sure we ALL agree on that. The issue is how PETA is going about soliciting it's followers.

Incidentally, a herbivore might not kill you to eat you, but just get between a mama moose and her babe and see what happens







.


----------



## mamabeard

nakking- forgive [m]any loose ends..

well, i, for one, believe that making a life and death discision for an animal is an issue of "treatment". one that i feel nobody has any right to make for anybody else (animals are bodies, don'tcha know).

devrock, you almost get me everytime, but your logic is puzzling. it still seems to me you keep trying to carry the argument away from where peta in fact intends it to go. even if you don't agree with the method, i'm confused as to why you seem to be trying to invalidate them and their work at a fundamental level. which, to me, translates as your not *actually* caring what happens to the animals..

and, also, the issue is not humans vs. animals. it is animals. again, you reasoning (in my cloudy little mind) is faulty.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*it still seems to me you keep trying to carry the argument away from where peta in fact intends it to go. even if you don't agree with the method, i'm confused as to why you seem to be trying to invalidate them and their work at a fundamental level. which, to me, translates as your not *actually* caring what happens to the animals..*
I do, in fact, care what happens to animals. I wish PETA would focus on what happens to animals, and leave my pubic hair out of it. It is PETA itself that is directing the argument away from where they intend, or should intend, it to go.

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*the issue is not humans vs. animals. it is animals.*
I do make a distinction between humans and other animals. I react differently to humans being killed vs. other animals being killed, for instance. I think it's a reasonable distinction for a human to make.


----------



## candiland

I just don't know....... where DO you make the distinction?
It's okay in America to torture chickens and cows, but abuse if you harm a dog or cat. Who here eats hamburgers but wouldn't eat your family pet? Or who here eats chickens but wouldn't eat a family pet?
Anyway, yes, yes, yes, we have all agreed that we don't agree with torturing any animals... so off to the OP....
Milk, health-wise, is actually worse for you than beer. Harvard scientists have even said so! What is wrong with translating this shocking message into a very catchy advertising slogan that has everybody talking???? If they would have simply distributed some lit. about it, millions of t.v. viewers would have NEVER EVER been exposed to it....
Same with the Santa ad. C'mon, I'd laugh... and if my daughter got upset, I'd explain the joke and she'd laugh, too!!! Would a child really believe an ad. versus their own parents??? If all this is so offensive, we should ban nearly every billboard or advertisement ever created. Because the majority of 'em are just as offensive, for different reasons.


----------



## Kylix

Ok, ok...you make a valid point, Devrock. You want to talk about PETA's tactics and not what it stands for.

But PETA's ads DO illustrate what they stand for. PETA is also making a stand that the consumption of milk, as well as supporting cruelty of cattle, is also highly unhealthy. Cow's milk obtained from factory farms is packed with hormones because this is what the factory farmers give their female cows in order for them to mass produce milk . They are trying to force a cow that should only be producing milk for her single calf into producing mass quantities of milk to sustain several human beings.

Furthermore, just as human milk is designed for human babies, cow's milk is designed for calves. It is designed to make a creature grow to be hundreds and hundreds of pounds in a matter of a couple of years. That's hardly what a grown human being should be drinking.

So the Santa ad is illustrating that cow's milk can make you impotent because it is not intended for human beings. And my guess is that the beer ad is showing that if you want to drink something bad for you, you might as well go drink a pint of beer. At least that isn't mad from an animal product.

As for the pubic hair ad, it's an ad aimed to excite and shock so that people get to thinking about animal fur.

So, these ads are offensive and ineffective for YOU. Well, nothing is going to work for everyone.

But, I've said it before and I've said it again. PETA has to get the public's attention in one form or another. A sweet sentimental article about why milk is bad for you is not going to make press.

No one wants to read that...especially in meat-driven America. PETA has to shock and excite to get attention. It is just the honest truth in this meat-based society.

If their tactics really offend you, I encourage you to go to their website and find something there that you appreciate and agree with. PETA isn't all bad. And if you can't stomach them still, then I encourage you to seek out other animal rights groups such as EarthSave or FarmSanctuary as Erin Pavlina pointed out. Many people have not heard of these groups and do not know their animal rights stance. I think it is a direct result of their advertising not being as effective as PETA's.

Kylix


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*You want to talk about PETA's tactics and not what it stands for.*
I believe the original purpose of this thread is the discussion of PETA's tactics. Incidentally, if PETA would like people to discuss what they stand for instead of discussing their tactics, they might want to change their tactics.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*But PETA's ads DO illustrate what they stand for.*
Unfortunately, their ads also illustrate things they don't stand for, like female body image and belief in Santa Claus and beer, among other things.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*PETA is also making a stand that the consumption of milk, as well as supporting cruelty of cattle, is also highly unhealthy. Cow's milk obtained from factory farms is packed with hormones because this is what the factory farmers give their female cows in order for them to mass produce milk . They are trying to force a cow that should only be producing milk for her single calf into producing mass quantities of milk to sustain several human beings.*
I'm sure there's a way to illustrate these facts in a powerful, strongly worded ad without bringing Santa into it.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*Furthermore, just as human milk is designed for human babies, cow's milk is designed for calves.*
I'm aware of that. I actually created (and sell) a bumper sticker that says "Human Milk For Little Humans; Cow Milk For Little Cows." You are preaching to the choir here.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*So the Santa ad is illustrating that cow's milk can make you impotent because it is not intended for human beings.*
I am aware that that is the ad's intention. However, it is phrased in a way that can be upsetting to young children. I think that's unnecessary.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*And my guess is that the beer ad is showing that if you want to drink something bad for you, you might as well go drink a pint of beer. At least that isn't mad from an animal product.*
Again, I get what the ad is TRYING to say. However, to simply put 2 words, "got beer," on a billboard can be seen as an endorsement of beer, just as "got milk" is simply an endorsement of milk, and it isn't the message that needs to be subliminally imprinted on the collective brain of a culture with such a high rate of drunk drivers, alcoholics, and wild college students.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*As for the pubic hair ad, it's an ad aimed to excite and shock so that people get to thinking about animal fur.*
Yes, that's the aim. Unfortunately, it also insults women. It didn't get me thinking about animal fur. It got me thinking about society's unnatural beauty standards. PETA aimed and missed.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*So, these ads are offensive and ineffective for YOU. Well, nothing is going to work for everyone.*
I really don't think it's just me.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*A sweet sentimental article about why milk is bad for you is not going to make press.*
As I feel like I've said about a million times now, it doesn't have to be a sweet sentimental article. It can be a bold billboard. It just needs to be bold about the right issue, without bringing irrelevent issues into it that distract from its purpose and are offensive.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*If their tactics really offend you, I encourage you to go to their website and find something there that you appreciate and agree with.*
Offensive tactics don't really encourage me to visit the website of the offender. If PETA wants my appreciation and agreement, they need to stop offending me.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*PETA isn't all bad.*
I'm sure they're not. (And I'm not being sarcastic.)


----------



## Kylix

Devrock--I really don't appreciate you dissecting every little comment within my post but I'm going to try to stay respectful. I've never tried to "preach to the choir". I don't know how much you understand and know about the meat industry. I can only assume ignorance and try to teach anyone that may be reading. Far too many people don't know or understand.

I hear what you are saying. You are offended by the ads that PETA puts out. I find them comical. What more can I say? If PETA's ads aren't
working for you, then fine. Go about your merry way. I do see some merit in them however.

I encourage you to examine the charities and organizations that you do support and see if EVERY ad they put out stays ENTIRELY on topic. Sometimes analogies and metaphors make a message that a simple statement cannot. PETA has to get the message out to a society that has refused to examine what has been going on in the past. People have tried to turn their heads and not admit what was going on for so long. The ads that you endorse, while they may be all you personally need, are not enough for the most stubborn individual who is intent on eating meat and using animal products without a conscience. They have to get in their face.

I think I'm through here. Though, it's going to hard for me to tear myself away.

I just don't think I can discuss this further without getting too impassioned. There's nothing to discuss here. I find PETA's tactics to be extremist but non-offensive. They offend you. We simply disagree. And there's nothing left for us to discuss.

Kylix


----------



## Sustainer

I won't quote you since it upsets you, but I was only quoting you so that it would be clear what I was responding to. I wasn't doing it to tear you apart.

When I said you were preaching to the choir I was just letting you know that I agree with you on that particular point. I was saying that you don't have to convince me of that fact. I wasn't criticising you for saying it, I just meant that you don't have to worry about that issue, as far as I'm concerned, anyway.

Ads put out by other organizations do sometimes use the tactic of comparing their issue to some other topic, but they generally do so without being offensive. I have never seen another ad campaign as offensive as PETA's.

I agree that someone needs to get the message out to our society that we are ignoring the important problem of animal abuse. I agree that we need to get in the faces of stubborn people. I do not agree that PETA's offensive tactics are the best way to accomplish this. If you do not agree that PETA's ads are offensive, then you're right that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree about that.


----------



## Peppermint

Devrock- Thanks for sticking with this and trying to make a point about PETAs ad tactics. I have heard quite a few say that "just b/c they offend you" (you meaning Devrock), I think it is clear as you read through this thread that it offends a good portion of people who believe in what PETA actually is about. I know a lot of mainstream people, a lot of people who eat meat and drink milk,(as I am sure everyone here does), and I do not think that any of the people I know would be convinced to stop drinking milk, or even research the issue by this ad. If they put up a straight simple billboard that said "Milk can cause impotence"(or preferrably something even more catchy), people might be inclined to think about that, and question whether or not that was true, but I venture to guess that more people would simply write this tactic off as "some nutball group", and therefore would not bother to look into it, when you see a group as "offensive and extreme" you are far less likely to believe their message (I know I work in the pro-life movement, and I know what works and what doesn't).

I talked to my dh about this, he is a graphic designer and has worked with advertising quite a bit, and he says that PETA has people working on it's ad campaign, who are TOO close to the issue to see how the other side views it (As he has told me before with my pro-life work) that you must get into the other sides mind, he says they are also lacking in creativity if they cannot get people talking about the issue without bringing in pubic hair and Santa, -I agree.

It is unfortunate, but I think true, that PETAs ads are missing their mark on most of the people they intend to hit - but I am assuming that they are trying to educate those who are unaware- if their aim it to gain supporters amongst people who already believe what they do, then I'd say they are closer to what they are looking for, as it seems from this thread that most people who agree with them, like these ads (Although a good number of us have said that we don't as well)

So, IMO it depends on their target, as to whether or not they are effective. I have to say again though, of the people I know, most would write off PETAs message in this ad, but if it had been worded differently, might've been inclined to look into it, and certainly if worded differently- would've sparked more discussion of milk, instead of their ad techniques.

Also wanted to add that I appreciate the people on this thread who have talked about animal cruelty (even though it was somewhat OT







), b/c that is what PETA would be better off doing IMO, and you all did far more to educate than PETA did.

Now, is there anyone on here who can think of (Just for example) an ad that would've been "in your face" about the actual issue of milk and impotence, that would get people talking about the issue? I know there are lots of creative mamas on here- I am just not one of them


----------



## guestmama9924

Quote:

_Originally posted by jess7396_
*I know there are lots of creative mamas on here- I am just not one of them







*
You are right! And since so many mamas think PETA is not doing a good job then good news!!! PETA is hiring many positions including campaigns, education, etc. It is very easy to critique someone's work, and 'Monday morning quarter-back-it" so to speak. It is an incredibly challenging job those folks have undertaken-convincing our barbaric culture to be kind to animals- animals that many believe on a fundamental or even a religious level to be beneath us in every way. Bravo to them for even trying! I have cringed at a couple of their ads in the past too- but I just think to myself "its not about me, its not about me...." and hope that just because *I* did not care for it, that perhaps it will reach some
PETA job openings....

And back on the original topic, are there any mamas here that actually HAD kids break down and cry over this billboard? Or have had kids read it and question it?

Just curious because I have an avid reader that is 7, and DOES believe in Santa , and I showed it to her and her reply was " not coming to what?""Did he poop on himself?":LOL

Give kids some credit here!If anyone has a kid that fell apart at this billboard, maybe there is a bigger issue


----------



## burritomama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kylix_
*I encourage you to examine the charities and organizations that you do support and see if EVERY ad they put out stays ENTIRELY on topic. Sometimes analogies and metaphors make a message that a simple statement cannot. PETA has to get the message out to a society that has refused to examine what has been going on in the past. People have tried to turn their heads and not admit what was going on for so long. The ads that you endorse, while they may be all you personally need, are not enough for the most stubborn individual who is intent on eating meat and using animal products without a conscience. They have to get in their face. Kylix*










Well stated.

Just wanted to add that not every ad (nor book nor film nor art nor magazine nor...well, you get the point) is for every audience.

Why the focus on PETA? There are organizations out there who work on animal issues from different angles and use different approcahes - perhaps because their supporters (and their target audiences) are different. Why not simply support them?

In terms of offensive advertising (especially how it affects our children) well, I find the images the corporate media spews everywhere and their promotion of sexism, racism, classism, consumerism and violence much more a real issue than the occasional billboard PETA funds that might require a bit of explanation to a young one. (Sorry about the syntax.) At least when I'm deciphering a PETA billboard, I am teaching the kid something.


----------



## mamaofthree

I am going to stray off topic again.... just because I got called on something...The quote was on page 6 post 14. About the herbavore eating people. I did miss quote.
But I don't look at the fact that a moose mother would chase me down if she felt her calf was threatened as a bad thing. People do the same thing. They are NOT doing it in some mean way to kill you for fun, they feel threatened. NOT because they just wanna kick some butt, or eat you or something.

Also if everyone here seems to be in agreement that the conditions that "meat" animals are living in, that MOST of them are living in, then maybe what needs to be done is boycotting the factory industry. As far as what I have read so far, and what info I have gathered from the group here is that NO ONE likes the way the animals are treated, BUT what is anyone doing about it?
I mean for some, not eating meat is the way.

Also I just wanted to add that farm animals and domestic animals are not a naturally occuring life form. Animals have been bred to be a certain way over thousands of years... like the pig. The cute pink "babe" pigs don't happen in nature. all thought I did see a show on "Nova" (I think????) that talked about what wild pig it might have come from.

On topic, I think that Peta has had some pretty good ads also. I was not a fan of the whole beer thing, only because for me alcholism is a biggy in my family. But what about all the people who do the naked ads, about "I would rather go naked than wear fur" I thought that was a good one. I don't know, I think that maybe if it is truly offensive to you... the ads, then maybe writing them with some ideas, would be good. (?)

H


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamaofthree_
*As far as what I have read so far, and what info I have gathered from the group here is that NO ONE likes the way the animals are treated, BUT what is anyone doing about it?
I mean for some, not eating meat is the way.*
Well, I only buy organic, free-range animals that I believe have been treated humanely.


----------



## burritomama

Quote:

_Originally posted by KeysMama_
*And since so many mamas think PETA is not doing a good job then good news!!! PETA is hiring many positions including campaigns, education, etc. It is very easy to critique someone's work, and 'Monday morning quarter-back-it" so to speak. It is an incredibly challenging job those folks have undertaken-...PETA job openings....*








What she said.

I remember once, way back in the 80s when my girlfriend and I put together a flyer about a local action and proudly handed out same flyer at a local event only to be acosted by a veteran activist who took us to task for our, say, graphic sensibility. It wouldn't work, he said. People would be turned off. Well, I suppose some were - but others weren't -- and hey, we too learned in the process. We went on to work with that activist in the future - learning from him --and teaching him a few things too.

It's easy to criticize -- but it discourages too - it's more helpful to be part of the solution -- but also more work.


----------



## mamaofthree

Well, there you go. But you are one person. I am sure some other people have said that they do too. But it sort of needs to be a "mass" scale thing. So spreading the word of the conditions of animals may change the view that some people have about their meat.
Of course like I said way back on page 3 (I think), some people just don't care. IE my mom!









Where is the correct answer? To pussy foot around the issue so not to offend anyone? Because I can tell you if they just showed the horrific pictures of the farms and such, there would be a HUGE out cry and sensorship all over the place. No one wants to see that stuff at dinner. (Maybe they should!)

So maybe playing to the low end of humor is the "easy" way, but who knows. I sure don't. What would you suggest as an effective add.... not just Devrock, but anyone who was truly offended by the add. Any thing better to get the idea across. I think the use of Santa was because most people who do the "Santa" thing put out milk and cookies. Maybe something like leave soy/rice/oatmilk out for Santa so the misses gets her present too?
















H


----------



## Kylix

Quote:

I think the use of Santa was because most people who do the "Santa" thing put out milk and cookies. Maybe something like leave soy/rice/oatmilk out for Santa so the misses gets her present too?
Mantra to myself: I'm not debating or getting involved.

But come on, that was funny!! :LOL :LOL









Kylix


----------



## eilonwy

Well, how about mentioning how freaking expensive Viagra is, and then encouraging people to save all that money by drinking soy instead? Or, if it's not too nasty, "Looking for a good time? Try soy!" and in smaller letters "Drinking cow's milk can cause impotence." Santa doesn't come into it (no pun intended), but it's still fairly graphic. Nothing to scare children or offend anyone (except maybe Pfizer).

Just a thought.


----------



## Mona

Another OT, but since we've done some educating on this thread, how many of you know about the foie gras industry? Go to
http://www.gourmetcruelty.com/ and find out.

I got this from humanelines: http://www.humanelines.org/


----------



## pumpkinhead

How bout steering clear of the whole "Sex sells" thing entirely? Really, isn't there enough frickin' sexual innuendo out there to choke a mule anyhow? There are other non-sexual ways that milk is bad for you and I, for one, would have a WHOLE lot more respect for these guys if they could be creative without involving the use of SEX! I'm not a prude and I don't think sex is dirty







, I'm just tired of seeing big boobs and oiled up pecs everywhere I look these days. Just slightly







T but have you seen Barbie lately? She could put some poor kid's eye out with those things! SHEESH!







.

If you must, how about just plain ole' *Milk can make you impotent*? I think that's graphic enough.

Personally, I think PETA is just sinking to the lows other advertising idiots have already sunk to. What ever happened to good ole integrity?

Oh, and BTW, too much unfermented Soy isn't the cat's meow either! It causes all manner of crap i.e. can make little girls to begin puberty early (like 7-9 years old!) and can cause decreased testosterone in little boys, and so on and so forth.


----------



## mamabeard

i hear what you're all saying about the advertisement, and i'm still thinking about it..

but..

doesn't it seem that due to all of the debate and controversy, that, in fact, their method has been _especially_ effective? because even if people are annoyed or shocked initially, the underlying issues _are_ being addressed.

i bet at least 100 members opened this thread that wouldn't have if the title, tho unimpressed, hadn't been so emotional.

i think peta knows what they're doing.


----------



## eilonwy

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*doesn't it seem that due to all of the debate and controversy, that, in fact, their method has been especially effective? because even if people are annoyed or shocked initially, the underlying issues are being addressed.
*
Here, though there have been many statements to the contrary, the issue was, eventually, addressed. Sort of. Most of the time, it isn't. Once upon a time, I did not hang out in places like this. I saw the occasional PETA add, or heard about some stunt they pulled on the news, and was never once driven to think about animal rights. Not at all. In fact, all I could think was "If this is what animal rights activists are all about, I'm glad I'm an omnivore. Let's go have some steak." Later in my life I thought that they had too much time on their hands, and I would become outraged at animal rights people at school, telling them that if they were so concerned about saving cute little things that they should have their parents register to be foster families, or go volunteer at a shelter for abused children.

I have never been and probably never will be an animal rights activist. No, I don't think animals should be tortured, but I do think that people should be able to eat them if they want to. I am the person on the other side that PETA needs to convince, and I have never been swayed by their tactics, or even found them worthy of much thought or attention. I think it's kind of sad that they are more interested in attention for their advertising than their issues, and personally (though I know I'm in the minority here) would be much more interested in reading a website or a leaflet handed to me by a calm stranger on the street.

It's not that I don't care; it's that their tactics immediately turn me off. And I don't even believe in Santa Claus.


----------



## mamabeard

fair enough, but you've already made up your mind, haven't you?

anyway, i guess i am of the mind that information is information. this happens to be an extremely impactful way of delivering information, but it is getting the job done.

i'm convinced more people are thinking about the animals now than they would have otherwise. and if you're seriously going to tell me that you'd rather have a sore spot about peta than consider what millions of animals go throo on a daily basis, then.. i'm blown away.

for issues such as these, which the majority of the poplulation are conditioned to ignore, i think the only way to get throo to people is with BIG CRAZY SHOCKING, even _DISTURBING_ tactics.

(and yes i know this thread was in referrence to an ad about milk and impotence, but there is still suffering happening on the other side of the carton, and i'm sure we can all agree that's more tragic than lack of boner.)

edited for typo


----------



## Erin Pavlina

I think we can all agree that animals should not be tortured.

I think there is disagreement over whether animals should be eaten and whether it is our right to eat animals if we feel like it.

Let me ask those of you who eat meat a question...

If you buy meat from a grocery store and the dead animal you bought was tortured before it went to market, do you feel at all responsible for its suffering? Or do you feel that since you are not the one who tortured the animal that you're in no way responsible for its suffering?


----------



## Peppermint

mamabeard

I agree with the PP, that HERE the real issues have been addressed, but that is rare in mainstream society, if you don't hang around anyone who can talk about what PETA should be, you won't learn from this ad. This group far from represents the conversations happening IRL.

Again, I think there are more effective ways to shock and disturb, while sticking to the issue, and actually using their ads to educate about cruelty to animals, instead of hoping that they spark conversations where people who care will stand up and actually say what needs to be said.

As far as my statement before about not being creative enough to come up with ad campaigns myself- I still think (even w/o much creativity) that I am allowed an opinion on someone else's work. I don't think *I* personally have to be able to do better, to say that what they are doing is not very effective. We each have areas where we excell and where we focus our efforts at the wrongs we see in the world, each person has to do what they are most driven for, and chances are, you cannot fully participate in every matter that means a great deal to you (unless you don't care about much). I choose to focus my activism in other very important areas, while others don't have a chance to do a whole lot to say feed the hungry, but they do focus on animal rights, I think we all do what is most important to us, and what we feel most called to work for. Hopefully it all balances out, and we at least are able to educate others on the issues, and have them participate in some small way.

Another random thought aimed at an above poster- that she had "already made up her mind", does that make talking to her a lost cause, is PETA only aiming at people who have no opinions? I really am curious as to who their intended audience is.


----------



## mamaofthree

I have no problem with people eating animals, I have many a loved one who does. I want to refer to an "earlier time" way back in the pioneer days... ie "Little House in the Big Woods" my DD finished the series a while ago. She would read some of it to me, and I do recall my mother reading them to me when I was 6 or 7 years old. They ate meat, drank milk had cheese and butter... the difference was the care and TREATMENT of the animals. And Pa hunted but he didn't go nuts and kill everything in site.

My dh did a research paper for college resently on how well adapted the human body is for the American "meat" diet... it isn't. We aren't made to eat as much meat as we do. Sure some meat, but not 3 times a day or more with every meal and snack. Our GI tract is made for the slow digestion of plant matter. We are part of the primate family, I know that apes eat meat, but it isn't their mainstay. It use to be "back in the day" that meat was something special you ate maybe once a week, because your chickens where to special to eat EVERYDAY. And you may have had your calf killed in the fall for the winters meat or hunted a few deer or a bear or wild pig or whatever, but it wasn't 3 times a day.

I do care how animals are treated. There is NO REASON that they should suffer in anyway. They are alive. Do I care more about animals then people? no. (OK well some animals I care a heck of a lot more about then some people I know!:LOL )
I read many wonderful books on buddhism, and it was a real eye opener. Showing loving kindness TO ALL living things, even if you might eat it, is SO IMPORTANT!

If anyone doesn't like PETA, ok. NO big deal there are many groups out there that are very active in the animal wellfare area, that are much more easy to digest (lol). A couple people have listed them before.

Like I said before, no one here has said they think that animals should be tortured prior to consumtion. And if PETA aint your cup of tea, then look into another group. Yeah, most groups wish people would not eat animals, but alot are more directly concerned with the "care and treatment" of the animals, which I think we all should be.

NOTHING, no person, no animals NOTHING should spend its life suffering. PERIOD! Flat out that is the truth. And if we continue to allow it, even if we are not directly respondsible we are just as bad as the people who do it. If you want to eat meat, go ahead, but buy it resondsibly. Look into where it is coming from, along with your milk and cheese and eggs. Find out if the animals are taken care of, humanely put down. That downed animals are left to be trampled by the other scared animals, or pulled out by their broken legs and left to die in a heep of other animals.
And also do "we" need to eat as much meat as we do? It takes a heck of a lot of natural resorces to feed a cow. Could that land be put to better use? To grow food for the tens of millions of people who are starving? Or what about the people in other countries who farm up their land to feed our insatsible need for meat and dairy?

OK that was off topic. I will get off the soap box.
H


----------



## eilonwy

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*fair enough, but you've already made up your mind, haven't you?
*
That's just it. I have made up my mind, and it's on the other side of the fence. Doesn't that mean that I'm the intended audience? Or is PETA only aimed at getting the attention of people who already agree with them? If they are, that's just one more example of how their advertising is ineffective. What's the point of preaching to the choir? They've already made up their minds, too.


----------



## burritomama

I just wanted to say that I think there are much better targets for all our energies -- take any of the multinational corporations that are actively degrading people and animals and the environment the world over - their "tactics" are lethal not only offensive.

A single advocacy group on the left that pushes buttons..well.

Over and out.


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by Erin Pavlina_
*
Let me ask those of you who eat meat a question...

If you buy meat from a grocery store and the dead animal you bought was tortured before it went to market, do you feel at all responsible for its suffering? Or do you feel that since you are not the one who tortured the animal that you're in no way responsible for its suffering?*

Unless i've skimmed too fast, i haven't seen any meat-eaters answer this quesiton....


----------



## brookely ash

I eat meat.

When I learned about what happens in commercial meat processing plants I quit eating meat for a time. But then I started buying free range and organic meat. However, my Dh and I were unemployed for 6 months and could barely afford anything. When I did buy conventional meat, I felt so horrible that I could barely cook it. I know a lot of people have suggestions for things to eat while you are broke, but we did the best we could. While preparing the meat, I thought about the animal (or animals) that sacrificed their lives ( by force) so that my family could eat. Before eating it I say a prayer and thank the animal for their sacrifice. So, in short, yes I feel responsible for the animal suffering. And since becomming aware I do my best to only buy meat, eggs, milk, and cheese (and everything) from kind companies. But I know in my heart that there are many more evils at play than my family eating meat 2 - 3 times a week. So I take some responsibility, but not all of it.

However, I think Burritomama has a really good point. There are much more important targets we could be using our energy for. PETA may annoy some of you, but atleast they are doing something. And because of that billboard, this conversation started and I have learned a lot of things I didn't know before. Some may not beleive that was the intention of PETA and most mainstream people would not get anything out of their add, but in this case, it is the result.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mona_
*Unless i've skimmed too fast, i haven't seen any meat-eaters answer this quesiton....*
I sort of answered it before it was asked by explaining that I only buy organic free-range animals that I believe have been treated humanely. Also, I should mention that my meat consumption for an entire week consists of about one chicken.

Some one said that we are "choosing" to think about PETA's tactics instead of thinking about the way animals are treated. We do not look at a billboard and then say, "okay, I am now going to choose to think about PETA's tactics instead of about the way animals are treated." Billboards have the effect of eliciting a specific response. This particular billboard simply does not call animal suffering to mind. It is designed for shock value, sexual in nature, and uses a phrase that has two meanings: neither of which has anything to do with animal suffering. One is sexual, and one is something you say to a small child if you want to upset him. It is the fault of the ad's designer that the ad causes us to think about PETA's tactics. We can't help the fact that that is the reaction that the ad creates.

Yes, there are other organizations worthy of criticism, and we do criticize them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize this particular tactic, especially since many of us care about the cause of animal suffering and hate to see an organization defeat its own purpose when it could be doing some real good.


----------



## pumpkinhead

I eat meat also and I think I answered that question when I stated that I only eat organic/free range meat or wild game.


----------



## Mona

yes, for those of you who eat organic/free range, i understand.
but what about for the remaining 90% of the population who eats factory farmed meat?


----------



## eilonwy

I eat meat occasionally. I wish I could go without it, but I crave it desperately sometimes. It's got nothing to do with the treatment of animals, either; more to do with the fact that I read Fast Food Nation and it disgusted me. At any rate, no, I don't feel guilty that I can't afford free range/organic meat, even for the little I do consume (and that probably currently adds up to 1/2 a chicken/month). I also wear leather shoes, carry a leather wallet, etc. I do not believe that animals should be tortured, but I am totally not sorry that I like my Skechers.

Why? Because I think that human life is more important. If I had the money, the time, and the energy to devote to a cause, I'd want to do something for the unwanted, unloved, un-cared-for children of the world. Heck, I'll start with my own town. Until every child in this country has a safe place to sleep at night, I'm not gonna be terribly concerned about the living conditions of animals. I cannot bring myself to be as upset about animal life as I get when I hear about the things people do to children. They're human beings who are treated worse than many animals in the world, and I think that they're more important than the animals. Perhaps it's arrogance, but I am a human being and I relate more strongly to human beings than to animals.

I could go on and on about this, but I won't because it will only get more offensive to animal rights people as I do. I'm going to stop now. :LOL


----------



## mamaofthree

I said this on another thread...

It doesn't lessen or devalue a humans life at all, to recognize that animals suffer, and that they don't need to suffer.

Just as you care for the earth, you should also care for all the living things on the earth. I am totally in support of human rights, I do what ever I can to support human rights groups all over the world. BUT that doesn't mean I can't also care for and about the treatment of animals. It isn't one or the other.

I buy organic foods for my family... why? It is better for us to eat chemical free, BUT it is better for all living things on the earth also. People and animals. Is it more costly. YES, but I shop around and honestly, I





















shopping at our local Co-op! It smells great it is friendly and I am supporting local organic farmers and a local store, not some huge chain.

It is all in how you look at it. I look at ALL life from the ants by my mailbox to the people suffering in Africa as important and of enormous value. ALL LIFE! From trees, to bugs, to cows, to people all life is important and worthy of respect and care.

Do I look at an ant as more important then my child, NO. But I don't go out of my way to kill them either. We have a wonderful "ant Farm" right by our mailbox that the kids and I visit everryday and watch in wonder as the ants go about their ant business. It is so amazing! I wouldn't in 100 years go out of my way to kill them. Why? Because they are less then me? Because they can't talk "people" talk? NO!

Let me say it right out loud... ALL LIFE IS IMPORTANT! Flat out! In the whole scheme of things, all life matters, in the environment and "circl of life", the web of life... those ants by my mailbox, feed the lizards, who feed the roadrunners who feed the hawks, who are a beauty and wonder that I am privaliged to see!

From the lowliest plankton to the awesome whale to people to dogs, to wolves, to cows, to Paloverde bettles, to ants, to spiders, to inch worms, we all have a place and deserve for it to be respected, and deserve to BE RESPECTED and treated with loving kindness.

I think that is what is missing. The loving kindness.

H


----------



## Sustainer

There is nothing wrong with caring about everything, but do you care about everything equally? You don't go out of your way to step on ants, but do you go out of your way to NOT step on ants? How upset do you get if you accidentally step on one?

No one is saying that you shouldn't care about other life forms. Some people are simply saying that they prioritize. They don't spend as much time/effort/energy worrying about insects as they do worrying about other animals, and they don't spend as much time/effort/energy worrying about other animals as they do about humans.

Someone can acknowledge that animals suffer needlessly without making it their top issue.

It is true that you don't have to choose between caring about humans and caring about other animals, but it is also true that you can care MORE about humans than you do about other animals.


----------



## mamaofthree

No I don't worry about whether or not I have stepped on an ant, but I know for a fact that loads of people go out of their way TO step on them, and teach their kids to step on them. I know it seems silly, but to me it is just disrespectful. Not on the level as say, the disrespect our counrty (USA) is treating the suffering in Africa (with the 11 million AIDS orphins), but disrespect none the less. To go out of your way to KILL for no other reason then to kill. Is not only wrong, but just a little wacky to me. I have said before that I have many loved ones who eat meat, yet I still love them. I try to gentlely educate them that if they are going to eat meat, then try free-range, and organically fed, etc.
Last night we watched a show on PBS about Alaskan natives hunting seals. It was amazing, the father/son team that the show was about where so amazingly intune with nature, and that they took only what they needed, and all the animals that they hunted lived a wild free life, prior to being hunted. I see no problem with that.
And actually I do spend a greater amount of my "animal" thinking time, thinking about bugs, because we have a garden, we want the good bugs to be there and the "bad" bug... which my dd loves cuz they are caterpillars, are kept out. Our usual method is to send my dd out to hunt for them and then she moves them to some place else in the yard. Either that or the birds get them.









What I am having a problem with is the fact that lots of people are giving the lip servous, yet not "doing" anything about it. Or continuing to bring up, how they choose people over animals, or that carrots are alive (which I know they are... we are growing them!), or that they support animals being treated better yet don't want to help out in any simple way... like buying free-range, organiclly fed animals (I know some are, they have said so







)

I actaully do spend more of my time concerned with people matters/problems, but it doesn't lessen my love and caring for animals.
I think as humans we think selfishly, like all animals do, about keeping our species alive. I mean the fact that other animals mate to keep things going, and fend off attacers and such , just proves that they think of themselves first also. WE on the other had have the ability to think of others also, not just ourselves. To realize what is right for the "animal" kingdom, isn't really right for people. You can't have closed eyes to the wellfare of animals, just because you are a person, and you think of people first. Does it leave no room for others?
And I actually belive that thinking about the welfare of the whole earth is actaully primarly the thinking of people... I mean if we tread lightly, and treat all things well, there will actually be an earth left for our kids, and grandkids, etc.

H


----------



## mamabeard

i'm really tired and naking (as usual), but in trying to stay on topic, it seems to me we need to discern the intention behind peta's work. i don't think it is self-congratulations or necessarily even admiration, i think it is an effort to gradually disuade people from perpetuating animal cruelty (whether directly or indirectly).

i think this thread has proven that that is what's happening. no one has said "well, gee, peta's advertisements are so lame that i'm now going to seek out new ways to tortue animals!" in fact, more people are aware, and many are probably going to cut back on, if not quit, certain habits that are causing suffering to animals.

so, i think it is working.

can anyone see what i'm saying? (cuz i keep saying it but i think i'm talking into my armpit or something).


----------



## Sustainer

No, no one looks at the ad and is inspired to torture animals (I guess what you're saying is the sign could be worse). However, I think the general consensus is that if PETA designed a better sign, they could inspire more people to do something to stop cruelty toward animals, or to support PETA. A lot of people do look at the sign and say, "okay, I'm going to stop giving PETA money," and that obviously hurts rather than helps PETA.


----------



## burritomama

mamabeard


----------



## burritomama

mamabeard


----------



## Ms.Doula

Devrock


----------



## Peppermint

Quote:

_Originally posted by Ms.Doula_
*







Devrock*
I second that, but that is what we have been saying all along. I guess neither side of this feels "heard".


----------



## mamaofthree

I feel that even thought this thread has strayed a lot from the OP, I think it actually grew like a real conversation would have, had this all happen IRL. Does that make since? I mean someone brings something up that is bugging them, a bunch of people talk about it, give their views and slowly the conversation changes, and grows. Just because it has strayed from the origanal topic... but not really, it has just been people giving their views and their feelings and reasons behind the views.
I personally have really enjoyed this topic, and I know it will slowly die out and people will stop posting, but honestly I don't get a chance to often to talk about how I feel about this with intellegant people. It has been great to get others views and also get affermation of my own views, so I don't feel all alone!
I don't think we will all agree 100% with each other, but it is so nice to see that this can be talked about.
I know I have probably frusterated people, and I have been frusterated, but I also feel I got to see "into" the minds of some people on this topic. It has been really awesome!
So I think, that maybe this topic isn't one where you can just stay to the OP, it is something that needs to grow and be discussed.









H


----------



## tricia80

I personally like the PETA ads and stuff on their website.... I watched their video and end up going vegan because of it.... that may not be the majority on this board but oh well...

PETA has people who like the ads and some who dont...and they will never be able to satisfy everyone....

Their blunt tactics are what gets through to people this day in age..our society has been so desensitized and are sooo ignorant to whats going on its absurd... andd yes some people do get offended... but thats life.... we need to stop sugar coating whats really goin on in the world and ignoring the atrocities that exist.... if PETA didnt go overboard as you say we wouldnt be having this discussion and they would be pretty much like the farm sanctuarys that people hardly even know about...whether or not you agree with there tactics is a matter of opinion...

Yes there are tons more atrocities out there right now... homeless children, aids crisis in 3rd world countries, etc.... but instead of always talkin bout those things...do somethin to help...help a foster child, foster a 3rd world country kid, donate time to help kids in crisis.... i help the animals by being vegan... i am also perfectly able to have children but intend on adopting some later on in my life...etc etc etc...

What affects these animals also affect you.... these animals are given hormones, excessive antibiotics, etc... there is multiple studies now linking the hormones injected into these cows directly affect human health causing conditions as poorer immunity, Antibiotic resistance, as well as the alarming fact that children are going thru puberty at ages 7-8 and the youngest recorded pregnancy so far has been of a child who was 7 yrs old.... which is absurd..and in order for soy to feminize your son, and all the other bad things that are said it first off has to be alot more soy than you could probably ingest anyways.... but im going off topic.... so im gonna stop rambling..and probably pissed someone off... or made no sense at all cuz im exhausted and feelin bedtime coming....


----------



## Ilaria

Ditto to all of the above, except we're not vegan.


----------

