PETA Ad NOT OK!

[Stu]

It looks to me as though a lot of people are missing the point entirely. At no point have PETA played down what happened to this guy.

I also think it's disrespectful to the victim's family and friends to try and cheapen his death with ads about animal cruelty.

How is it cheapening his death? I don't think it is cheapening his death at all. I think the very opposite, in fact. PETA are acknowledging that what happened to this man was truly horrific. And they are making the point that equally horrific things are going on all the time, and that we should be aware of them.

I see this as being a very responsible thing for PETA to do.

Peta need to find their own agenda here and not cash in on this man's unfortunate death.

Cashing in? How?

[Stu]

Like I said, I understand their point, I just thought their timing was wrong...

I thought their timing was exactly right. This terrible incident is topical, so now is the time to talk about it, and to talk about events which relate to it.

Again, responsible actions from PETA.

[Vegabond]

Well Stu, you have a right to your own opinion

[horselesspaul]

It's advertising, for better or worse, the net effect imo will be to p1ss people off rather than "promote debate", most people don't like to debate but they really love to get p1ssed off in order to reinforce their own half-baked intransigence.

Stu is not entitled to his opinion unless he can show a receipt or some sort of voucher.

[Stu]

Well Stu, you have a right to your own opinion

Could you be any more condescending?

[Roxy]

It looks to me as though a lot of people are missing the point entirely. At no point have PETA played down what happened to this guy.



How is it cheapening his death? I don't think it is cheapening his death at all. I think the very opposite, in fact. PETA are acknowledging that what happened to this man was truly horrific. And they are making the point that equally horrific things are going on all the time, and that we should be aware of them.

I see this as being a very responsible thing for PETA to do.



Cashing in? How?

Cheapening his death by trying to run an ad at a very innappropriate time when people are very sensitive to what happened.

Cashing in, meaning gaining attention to their cause through the untimely exploitation of other unfortunate circumstances. I didn't mean it in it's literal financial sense.

[Stu]

I still don't see how that cheapens his death. PETA are acknowledging that what happened was terrible. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. From where I'm sitting, they have done the opposite of cheapening it. The whole point, is that what happened is terrible.

Surely if people are currently sensitive to what happened, that makes it an appropriate time.

[Korn]

If I would have met a meat eating parent who just experienced that her child had been killed by a murderer, I wouldn't have said anything even remotely reminding of statements like 'Meat Is Murderer', or that 'humans are animals too, and non-human animals are killed everyday'.

Isn't the bottom line when speaking with people who don't eg. agree that 'meat is murderer' to say something that they may accept, something that makes sense to them, and not using a slogan that may only just make them feel less, and not more open for/identified with a non-cruel lifestyle?

Most species seem to have a natural desire to protect their own (children, parents, relatives etc), and to claim that 'It's still going on' when comparing cannibalism and eating flesh from animals gives the impression that vegans and vegetarians care just as much for any random animal than they do for eg. their own children.

I haven't heard a single veg*n claim that if he had the choice between saving the life of his child and the life of a rat, he would be confused and not know what to do.

IMO any animal deserves and have the right to a life - a happy life - just as much as a human has. But if I would drive a car and see a random mouse killed by a car, I wouldn't react the same way as if I saw a random human killed by a car. That's not speciesism the way I see it - not even close.

[Ames]

people won't associate the similarities between the murder of the man on the bus and the slaughter of animals in the meat industry. they'll just think it's sick of Peta to use the story for their own ends.

Yeah. Although I agree with the message and I see there point. I don't think many omnis will. They will roll their eyes and mutter things about radicals etc etc.

[Joeybee]

Yet again Peta have not disappointed in their ability to offend me! God I hate Peta.

[cobweb]

after reading this whole thread, and given it a lot more thought, i have to say, speaking as a parent aswell as a vegan, that i have changed my mind about the ad.

i think PeTa make a point with it but it's wayyyy too insensitive.

[Stu]

If I would have met a meat eating parent who just experienced that her child had been killed by a murderer, I wouldn't have said anything even remotely reminding of statements like 'Meat Is Murderer', or that 'humans are animals too, and non-human animals are killed everyday'.

Huh? The ad isn't aimed at the guy's parents. Nor is it about purposefully rubbing the faces of the guy's parents, in it. It's a campaign designed to provoke thought (which it is evidently doing very successfully), and to appeal to the nature of a certain type of person.

Isn't the bottom line when speaking with people who don't eg. agree that 'meat is murderer' to say something that they may accept, something that makes sense to them, and not using a slogan that may only just make them feel less, and not more open for/identified with a non-cruel lifestyle?

No. That may be your bottom line (and I'm sure it's the bottom line of lots of other people), but it is not 'the bottom line.' However, what PETA are doing here, is targetting people who may be open to the idea of vegetarianism. So in fact, they are doing exactly what you suggest - saying something that 'makes sense' to a certain type of person.

Most species seem to have a natural desire to protect their own (children, parents, relatives etc), and to claim that 'It's still going on' when comparing cannibalism and eating flesh from animals gives the impression that vegans and vegetarians care just as much for any random animal than they do for eg. their own children.

No it doesn't. This is not about 'protecting their own;' it's about appealing to people who may be conscious of the fact that all sentient being are capable of feeling the same negative sensations, i.e. pain etc.

[Stu]

i think PeTa make a point with it but it's wayyyy too insensitive.

I think it's very sensitive. It's only insensitive to people who choose to perceive it that way.

They are paying homage to the poor guy who suffered in this terrible way. How is that insensitive?

[cobweb]

Stu, if it was my son i would be horrified.

[Korn]

they are doing exactly what you suggest - saying something that 'makes sense' to a certain type of person.

I didn't suggest that.

Peta as a marketing company needs to look not only on how most people react (read: not only certain types of person), but on how their campaigns are being received and commented by other media.


Here's how some people react:
PETA ad slammed - Compares beheading to slaughter of animals
PETA ad compares bus beheading to animal abuse

PETA ad compares Greyhound bus attack to slaughtering animals
http://wordpress.com/tag/greyhound/
PETA Ad Plays Off Manitoba Bus Beheading Murder
PETA tries to run ad comparing Manitoba beheading to animal rights abuses
BOYCOTT PETA!

[Vegabond]

Could you be any more condescending?

I wasn't trying to be. You obviously have strong feelings about the ad, and it doesn't matter what others say, you seem to defend it whole heartedly. I'm sorry if you got more from my little statement, really I had nothing more to say!

[Pilaf]

Mental Petardation must be cured if the animal rights movement is to reach Middle America.

[xrodolfox]

ive never understood the mentality behind beign "put off" going veg*n because of what an organisation or individual said.
surely if youre starting to feel compassion for animals, an asshole veg*n isnt going to somehow make YOUR compassion dissapear?
i hear this way too often from carnies " your lot put me off going veg*n".

I was put off by Peta because they 1) don't use logic, 2) they treat the audience like morons (by promoting celebrities and controversy and feelings instead of reason and compassion).

Since Peta is so huge in the USA in terms of AR literature and discourse, they crowd out the other valid and varied perspectives in AR. Thus... when I was thinking about going vegan and about AR, at first I was put off by Peta. I was put off by their celebrities, and their ads, and their lack of reason. They are EASY to totally debunk by a half witted kid with a HS education. At least, it was for me.

Now... when I finally got BEHIND the Peta BS, then I finally came to see that there was actual reason and compassion behind AR and veganism... not just ads about cuddly bunnies and naked celebrities and cashing in on other's suffering like Peta routinely does.

and do you know FOR SURE that none of these vegans were influenced by peta in any way?

It doesn't matter what other folks were influenced by. It is the monolithic nature of Peta hogging the discourse that made me reject them. It was the other end of AR that really made me interested in veganism.

The fact that others had different influences, even if those people influenced me, doesn't mean that those influences had any effect on me. Too darn removed.

again, how do you know none of these punks were influenced in some way by peta?

Same as above. Not the say, that (as you probably know), the punk/HC/sXe scene in my area was not highly influenced by Peta. Some of the national scene was, as were some scenes in other localities, but mine wasn't.

Heck, I was responsible for about a dozen punks going vegan and about 20 more folks going vegetarian at that time, and Peta had nothing to do with it. Compassion and reason did, and Peta has little to do with either.

I think it's very sensitive. It's only insensitive to people who choose to perceive it that way.

They are paying homage to the poor guy who suffered in this terrible way. How is that insensitive?

Again, it is insensitive because of the mechanics of human suffering and the mechanics of how communities deal with pain.

When a person/community suffers a loss, a person/community needs to feel validated to go on. Thus, a person with compassion would say, "You really loved that person didn't you?"

A person who was acting only in self interest would instead say, "Wow. Something like that happened to me last year, and it was worse!" Or "What happened to me was bad, but I got over it..." or worse (and this is what Peta did), "Oh, you think what happened to you was bad... listen what happened in Africa. Those children are dying of starvation and you're here complaining..."

That's invalidating.

The act of comparing is the selfishness and callousness. A comparison, no matter how accurate, is NEVER appropriate. It diminishes the uniqueness of the tragedy.

[Stu]

Peta as a marketing company needs to look not only on how most people react (read: not only certain types of person), but on how their campaigns are being received and commented by other media.

Well that's a matter of opinion, of course. I personally think that their approach is an effective one, i.e. targetting appropriate people - people who may be receptive to the idea that it is wrong for any sentient being to suffer unnecessarily. I can't see the 'lowest common denominator' approach (i.e. targetting the whole of society) as being a sensible use of resources.

[Stu]

they are doing exactly what you suggest - saying something that 'makes sense' to a certain type of person.

I didn't suggest that.

I think we have a language barrier thing going on here, because I just read it again, and it's there in black and white.

[horselesspaul]

Well that's a matter of opinion, of course. I personally think that their approach is an effective one, i.e. targetting appropriate people - people who may be receptive to the idea that it is wrong for any sentient being to suffer unnecessarily. I can't see the 'lowest common denominator' approach (i.e. targetting the whole of society) as being a sensible use of resources.

A good point right there Stu. I am thinking of leasing this opinion from you if at all possible. My people will be in touch with your people.

[snivelingchild]

I just want to chime in and say my opinions pretty much align 100% with everything stu has said, just so he knows he's not alone.

Oh, and xrodolfox, re the reasoning and logic thing:
Most people are just plain not in a state of mind to cover things on a logical basis. I'm glad you were able to convince so many people, but the people immediately around you do not represent the majority of people in america. Trying to appeal to a mass audience is always best, just ask any advertising professional. Also ask them about how much intelligence should be shown in such things. What sells products? It's not basic facts as to why you should buy them, or logical campaign ads...it's bright colors catchy songs, etc .

These things to make certain people think they are stupid, but they do align with the majority. Intelligent thought is almost shunned in our society. There's what I call and anti-intellectualism movement in the US currently. Not only do people want to ignore a more intellectual way of living, but they condemn such things to be bad, elitist, or "ivory tower." Suddenly, you can't even approach anything with an honest logical direction without thinking yourself better that anyone. People want to be dumb, and they want everyone around them to be dumb. It's not that these people are unintelligent, but they choose to not exercise their brains or make logical choices. After so long, people can't even follow large theoretical ethic-based logical discussions anymore. Blech, I'm rambling, but I can't find a good way to really say what I mean.

Actually, I will go as far as saying that peta's way of advertising is a more noble way than it would if they cared more about being respectable. The methods they use are PROVEN advertising methods, and thus are used for effectiveness, and not necessarily what is best, ethics-wise. They are sacrificing their own image, sacrificing being known as the hero, for actually getting things done. They may not make everyone vegan, but I really do think they get the minds of people who even hate them, to accept the ideas of animal rights to be more mainstream and acceptable. If people think that other people accept not chaining dogs and not wearing fur to be the acceptable norm, then they will be more open to the idea, even if they still disagree with it. It's a matter of changing long-term societal views of certain ideas and view points, i.e. those of animal rights.

Furthermore, I cannot see how anyone can outright CONDEMN an organization whose purpose is to end animal suffering. Disagreeing with methods is one thing, but blame? Does it matter if they falter and make mistake after mistake after mistake? If their intentions are noble, then don't they deserve support and HELP for a better direction rather than condemnation and scold? If this were a person instead of a faceless entity, people would not be so judgmental. Without being a bible thumper (though in the correct belt) let he who be without sin...... Remember, no problems are solved with blame. Problems are solved by working together.

[Gorilla]

If people think that other people accept not chaining dogs and not wearing fur to be the acceptable norm, then they will be more open to the idea, even if they still disagree with it. It's a matter of changing long-term societal views of certain ideas and view points, i.e. those of animal rights.

i don't entirely disagree with your post Sniv, but i don't think Peta have this effect on people. i think the vast majority of omnis who see Peta ads still just think AR people are a bunch of freaks, and will feel angry and threatened if they think AR is becoming more mainstream.

i don't know how many people go veg*n because of Peta's tactics but they had absolutely nothing to do with my conversion. for me and i suspect a lot of other people like me, shock tactics make me turn away and bury my head in the sand. i did that for a long time when i was veggie because i thought being vegan was too extreme. what changed my mind was gentle, logical persuasion, not being sickened and disgusted.

obviously not everyone thinks the same as i do but it seems quite a common reaction when presented with brutal facts that people will try to ignore them rather than examine their own lives.

[Korn]

i think the vast majority of omnis who see Peta ads still just think AR people are a bunch of freaks

I guess people who thinks AR people or vegans are all freaks come in two colors: those who think respect for animals/a vegan lifestyle as such is 'freakish' as such, and those who think look more at eg. some of Peta's stunts, and relate more to media exposure some people get than to veganism as such. We can't do much with the first group of people other than trying to make sure we don't create a more negative impression than we 'have to' (by challenging their lifestyle).

It's obvious that Peta has had a positive effect on a number of people too. Personally I don't think it's fair to compare what Peta does with a situation where the many members Peta wouldn't have joined another pro-vegan organization instead. I must say that if it's correct that Peta has between one and a half and two million members, I'm amazed at how little they actually do (of the kind of stuff they IMO would have been an ideal organization to do).

I think we have a language barrier thing going on here, because I just read it again, and it's there in black and white.

The difference between what I wrote and how you quoted me was that I specifically talked about 'meat eaters' as a group, not about 'a certain type of person'.

Since not only meat eaters, but also many vegans seem to disagree with some of the stuff Peta does, I still don't think that Peta 'are doing exactly what I suggest', to use your words. What I suggested was "to say something that they [meat eaters] may accept, something that makes sense to them, and not use a slogan that may only just make them feel less, and not more open for/identified with a non-cruel lifestyle."

Writing something that presents cannibalism and meat eating as identical didn't seem to be something that was a convincing way of communicating for meat eaters as a group, even though it may have worked well for 'certain type of persons'. And I say this as a person who sometimes think it's totally appropriate to use cannibalism as a way to exemplify how the death of an animal is just as 'important for that animal as the death of a human is for that human.

[matt35mm]

Actually, I will go as far as saying that peta's way of advertising is a more noble way than it would if they cared more about being respectable. The methods they use are PROVEN advertising methods, and thus are used for effectiveness, and not necessarily what is best, ethics-wise. They are sacrificing their own image, sacrificing being known as the hero, for actually getting things done. They may not make everyone vegan, but I really do think they get the minds of people who even hate them, to accept the ideas of animal rights to be more mainstream and acceptable. If people think that other people accept not chaining dogs and not wearing fur to be the acceptable norm, then they will be more open to the idea, even if they still disagree with it. It's a matter of changing long-term societal views of certain ideas and view points, i.e. those of animal rights.

Hmm, so PETA is like Batman!

[Stu]

The difference between what I wrote and how you quoted me was that I specifically talked about 'meat eaters' a group, not about 'a certain type of person'.

Since not only meat eaters, but also many vegans seem to disagree with some of the stuff Peta does, I still don't think that Peta is doing 'they are doing exactly what you suggest', to use your words. What I suggested was "to say something that they may accept, something that makes sense to them, and not using a slogan that may only just make them feel less, and not more open for/identified with a non-cruel lifestyle?"

Writing something that presents cannibalism and meat eating as identical didn't seem to be something that even was a convincing way of communicating for meat eaters as a group, even though it may have worked well for 'certain type of persons'. And I say this as a person who sometimes think it's totally appropriate to use cannibalism as a way to exemplify how the death of an animal is just as 'important for that animal as the death of a human is for that human.

Sorry, I simply couldn't understand that (perhaps because I'm very tired today). I'll read it again tomorrow and see if I can get my head around it.

[Korn]

My mistake - I edited (and posted) that message when I was in a hurry without reading through what I had written before I pushed the Submit Reply-button. I made a few changes to my original post now.

[snivelingchild]

Hmm, so PETA is like Batman!

can you tell i wrote that after seeing the dark knight for the 2nd time? Actually, I feel a bit ashamed comparing them to someone as great as Batman, which is why I named no names, but to a certain degree...

I think they align PERFECTLY with middle america with advertising, values, etc. and are the ideal people to bring AR too middle america. However, america is far from ideal, as are they.

[Sarabi]

Compared to most of PETA's other ads, this one strikes me as pretty demure. I like the comparison to cannibalism, personally, but not as an awareness tactic. For one thing, the ad was very confusing because cannibalism is not defined by eating other species. An outsider might wonder if they are serious or what. In fact, I wonder if they are serious. If it were just a comparison, there's some validity in it, but they actually sound like they believe it's "cannibalism." They should find better terms, if for nothing else than political correctness.

When I first went vegan, I made comparisons like this with meat-eaters, and all of them went ballistic on me. They refused to accept that they were killing, much less murdering, anyone.