Hell yeah! I don't agree with everything PETA does, but why not show people the cruelty of the fur industry? It's not food - no one needs a fur coat, except possibly Eskimos and they most likely make their own.
I think it should be offensive as well. As a Canadian, I can't understand why so many of my fellow citizens support the Atlantic seal hunt, as if it supports a tradional way of life.
Here's how it breaks down. The Inuit in the Arctic do use seals for sustenance. They don't profit from the killing of seals, and they eat the carcass. I don't have a problem with that.
On the Atlantic coast, however, the seals are killed so rich people can look glamourous. That's not a tradional way of life.
Why is this picture offensive Lucy? And why is it effective? The female could very well be holding a skinned goat/sheep/calf and saying "Heres the rest of your shoe/jacket/car seat". She could be holding a skinned crocodile or snake and saying "here's the rest of your purse/belt/luggage". Or she could be holding a dressed, cooked and stuffed chicken or turkey in which case our mouths would be watering. Why? Why isn't a dead chicken as offensive as this?
"I agree Paula, i am a fully signed up member of PETA but some of their tactics do overstep the line but i think this poster is spot on."
I think it's fully apparent that I was referring to some PETA members that aren't a party to this post or discussion when I used the term sensationalist yo-yos.
Now if everyone wants to take that as a personal insult and start a blogwar around that, have at.
Speaking only for myself here, DP, and not the rest of the yo-yos: because it's not. Who knows why one cause moves us more than another? Should peeps who try to raise money to fight breast cancer be told, "So you don't care about heart disease, huh?" Or if you support fighting one group of terrorists someone might say, "But you aren't fighting ALL the terrorists everywhere, so NYAH!" It's the if you can't care about everything, you should care about nothing argument, which I totally reject.
Anyway, what i said was, that a plucked chicken would not be offensive, because they are a normal, accepted part of our culture's diet. We are used to seeing dead chickens in the supermarkets, and roasted chickens on TV adverts, so it's no big deal.
The animal in the photo is not a normal part of our cultural diet, and so we may naturally be suspicious of it. Plus, the sight of raw, blood-red flesh is always a little off-putting. The image may also offend us by association, as rotting flesh tends to be slimy, smell bad, etc.
In cultures where this animal is a normal part of the menu, the image may not offend as much, or at all.
imuslim: I have to agree with your point regarding cultural acceptance - but it goes beyond the "this is food" argument into the "this is a cute animal" realm.
Good or bad, we tend to categorize animals into cute and not. If this were a skinned tapir or anteater, it wouldn't cause nearly as visceral a reaction. But a skinned fox, well that's only two steps from a skinned puppy.
And say what you will about PeTA, the fact is at least they aren't those halfway types. They cover all animals, from the cuddly to the nasty. If nothing else, I do respect their consistency.
I think Paula and everyone else has already said what my reply to DP would of been. I go along with you Fez that the outrage is proportinate to how cute an animal is but i also believe that anyone who wears fur still already knows how cruel it is but chooses to ignore it.
If anyone thinks fur looks better on them than it does on the animal, they're fooling themselves. PETA is known for being obnoxious, though, and as much as I agree with most of what they stand for, I'm also put off by some of their tactics. The end does not always justify the means.
The more shocking, the better as far as I am concerned. As long as it doesn't involve digging up the graves of old ladies and hiding their corpses, it is fine by me!
" As long as it doesn't involve digging up the graves of old ladies and hiding their corpses, it is fine by me! "
Ummm..... is that a non sequitour, or is there something you'd like to get off your chest? :-)
I agree with Nat..... I applaud their basic mission, but they go too far on occasion to make their point. I don't think this is one of those times, though.
Little Cheese -The digging up the old ladies bones was a bad move and I really do not know what the Animal Rights Movement were thinking when they planned that move. A real bad PR move.
If the blogwar is kicking off here then it is being done very politely!
Im still not convinced by the explanations. But, I guess there is no right answer. Killing a little kitten is somehow more cruel than killing a little caterpillar. I still dont see why people wearing fur should feel guilty and people wearing crocodile skin boots should not. An animal is killed and skinned in both cases.
When I was a teenager, I used to ask myself the following question - "What is the difference between killng an ant and killing a blue whale? A life is a life. Why should the size of the body matter. Isnt it all about extinguishing a spark?"
Then I asked myself, "What is the difference between killing a tiny plant and a mighty tree?"
Maybe the amount of sin (i.e., the amount of guilt) is proportional to the following:
1. The role the creature plays in the eco-system - how many other creatures are dependent on it?
2. How long has the creature been alive?
3. How common/rare is the creature - Killing a fly doesnt hurt us.
4. How appealing is the physical form of the creature? Then again, I have seen some beautiful caterpillars. I have also seen ugly ones...which go on to become beautiful butterflies.
5. Does the creature pose human beings a threat? How "innocent" or "harmless" does the creature seem?
...and so on.
So, it is a highly complicated function involving a range of parameters. But it is a thoroughly inhuman and disgusting one - a "cute" creature's life is more valuable than an "ugly" creature's life? But, obviously, going by the above responses, this does not bother anyone. I guess there are no buddhists or jains in the above crowd.
I wonder what happens in those adoption centers - do "cute" kids get adopted easily compared to "not so cute" kids? The moment of ugly truth eh?
So now for another question. What is the amount of guilt felt by one people when they are killing/oppressing another people? What function does this depend on? What is the difference between an American and a Iraqi? What does it matter more when an American dies and less when a Iraqi dies? How easy or difficult is it to kill people who dont look like your people?
I just read in the New York Times society pages that there was a blogwar over here, so I thought I'd stop by and throw a few punches. So I get here and what do I find? No blogwar. That's it, I'm gonna sue.
I am such a bad blogwar host. I can only apologise and promise to read the manual 'Fighting on the blog for beginners' and just as important, find out who we are at war with. That might be useful.
Yes, that occurred to me too. I haven't seen such a 'damp squib' of a war since The War on Terror... maybe we should choose a different indefinite noun to wage war on?
Well congratulations on your victory. I dont see any difference between PeTA and the right wing loonies. You are two sides of the same coin to me. You are both bone-headed who are more in search of a lifestyle and identity than the truth itself.
Umm... the aforementioned victory wasn't over YOU, dp..... let's not let the same thing happen twice in the same thread. I'd probably laugh myself into the ER.......
DP - Wires crossed, the blogwar mentioned was another issue that somehow got mixed in with the PETA post. That said, i would hate to get involved in a coin toss with you, your coins sound very suspect!
Sorry! "Well congratulations on your victory" should have been in a seperate para by itself. And it came with a dose of sarcasm.
No. I am not that dumb (atleast on this ocassion I wasn't). I said what I said because this is very much a leftist congregation that seemed to be rejoicing a victory over "the enemy". And I hate it whenever there is a war between the lefties and righties especially on issues such as PeTA and creationism/evolution. Like I said, both sides seem dumb to me. What you have in common (culture, love of "liberty" etc) dwarfs the differnces between you. "Liberty" is the real disease that you should be fighting.
To be honest DP, we had no idea there was a blogwar going on, it was decided for us. As you can see from the comments, we didn't take it very seriously anyway.
Lucy, it wasn't even another issue. It was a joke about a double post that someone (who has since unblogrolled you, that'll teach ya!) assumed was an attack on him. He proceeded to make a big fat "feel sorry for me I'm a victim again" deal out of it. It was a complete work of fiction stewed up in the brain of someone who obviously feels that he deserves to be attacked, and thus sees attackers in every shadow. There was no real issue to it at all, unless you count paranoia.
39 comments:
Hell yeah! I don't agree with everything PETA does, but why not show people the cruelty of the fur industry? It's not food - no one needs a fur coat, except possibly Eskimos and they most likely make their own.
Yes, I think offensive was the point......
I agree Paula, i am a fully signed up member of PETA but some of their tactics do overstep the line but i think this poster is spot on.
Offensive Joe but hopefully thought provokingly so, unlike some other PETA campaigns which have backfired.
I think it should be offensive as well. As a Canadian, I can't understand why so many of my fellow citizens support the Atlantic seal hunt, as if it supports a tradional way of life.
Here's how it breaks down. The Inuit in the Arctic do use seals for sustenance. They don't profit from the killing of seals, and they eat the carcass. I don't have a problem with that.
On the Atlantic coast, however, the seals are killed so rich people can look glamourous. That's not a tradional way of life.
Lucy-
That's what I meant. I was unclear.
Why is this picture offensive Lucy? And why is it effective? The female could very well be holding a skinned goat/sheep/calf and saying "Heres the rest of your shoe/jacket/car seat". She could be holding a skinned crocodile or snake and saying "here's the rest of your purse/belt/luggage". Or she could be holding a dressed, cooked and stuffed chicken or turkey in which case our mouths would be watering. Why? Why isn't a dead chicken as offensive as this?
There's a reason PETA is known as "People Embarassing the Tidewater Area" in their home base of Virginia:
http://www.yourish.com/2007/03/12/2850
One really doesn't have to be a sensationalist yo-yo to oppose the killing and skinning of cute, cuddly animals for fur.
Allow me to rephrase that comment:
LUCY:
There's a reason PETA is known as "People Embarassing the Tidewater Area" in their home base of Virginia:
http://www.yourish.com/2007/03/12/2850
One really doesn't have to be a sensationalist yo-yo to oppose the killing and skinning of cute, cuddly animals for fur.
Is anyone else getting deja vu at this point?
Is anyone else getting deja vu at this point?
"I agree Paula, i am a fully signed up member of PETA but some of their tactics do overstep the line but i think this poster is spot on."
I think it's fully apparent that I was referring to some PETA members that aren't a party to this post or discussion when I used the term sensationalist yo-yos.
Now if everyone wants to take that as a personal insult and start a blogwar around that, have at.
Why isn't a dead chicken as offensive as this?
Speaking only for myself here, DP, and not the rest of the yo-yos: because it's not. Who knows why one cause moves us more than another? Should peeps who try to raise money to fight breast cancer be told, "So you don't care about heart disease, huh?" Or if you support fighting one group of terrorists someone might say, "But you aren't fighting ALL the terrorists everywhere, so NYAH!" It's the if you can't care about everything, you should care about nothing argument, which I totally reject.
Lucy, your blog ate my comment!
Anyway, what i said was, that a plucked chicken would not be offensive, because they are a normal, accepted part of our culture's diet. We are used to seeing dead chickens in the supermarkets, and roasted chickens on TV adverts, so it's no big deal.
The animal in the photo is not a normal part of our cultural diet, and so we may naturally be suspicious of it. Plus, the sight of raw, blood-red flesh is always a little off-putting. The image may also offend us by association, as rotting flesh tends to be slimy, smell bad, etc.
In cultures where this animal is a normal part of the menu, the image may not offend as much, or at all.
imuslim: I have to agree with your point regarding cultural acceptance - but it goes beyond the "this is food" argument into the "this is a cute animal" realm.
Good or bad, we tend to categorize animals into cute and not. If this were a skinned tapir or anteater, it wouldn't cause nearly as visceral a reaction. But a skinned fox, well that's only two steps from a skinned puppy.
And say what you will about PeTA, the fact is at least they aren't those halfway types. They cover all animals, from the cuddly to the nasty. If nothing else, I do respect their consistency.
Ook ook
I think Paula and everyone else has already said what my reply to DP would of been.
I go along with you Fez that the outrage is proportinate to how cute an animal is but i also believe that anyone who wears fur still already knows how cruel it is but chooses to ignore it.
Isn't this where the "blogwar" is supposed to be? LOL! Boy, the personal attacks sure are flying here!
If anyone thinks fur looks better on them than it does on the animal, they're fooling themselves. PETA is known for being obnoxious, though, and as much as I agree with most of what they stand for, I'm also put off by some of their tactics. The end does not always justify the means.
The more shocking, the better as far as I am concerned. As long as it doesn't involve digging up the graves of old ladies and hiding their corpses, it is fine by me!
" As long as it doesn't involve digging up the graves of old ladies and hiding their corpses, it is fine by me! "
Ummm..... is that a non sequitour, or is there something you'd like to get off your chest? :-)
I agree with Nat..... I applaud their basic mission, but they go too far on occasion to make their point. I don't think this is one of those times, though.
Isn't this where the "blogwar" is supposed to be?
I demand a refund!
Little Cheese -The digging up the old ladies bones was a bad move and I really do not know what the Animal Rights Movement were thinking when they planned that move. A real bad PR move.
If the blogwar is kicking off here then it is being done very politely!
Okay..... I've never heard about the digging up old ladies thing.... pray elucidate!
Joe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6454671.stm
Lucy: agree on both points, the politest war I have heard of...
Im still not convinced by the explanations. But, I guess there is no right answer. Killing a little kitten is somehow more cruel than killing a little caterpillar. I still dont see why people wearing fur should feel guilty and people wearing crocodile skin boots should not. An animal is killed and skinned in both cases.
When I was a teenager, I used to ask myself the following question - "What is the difference between killng an ant and killing a blue whale? A life is a life. Why should the size of the body matter. Isnt it all about extinguishing a spark?"
Then I asked myself, "What is the difference between killing a tiny plant and a mighty tree?"
Maybe the amount of sin (i.e., the amount of guilt) is proportional to the following:
1. The role the creature plays in the eco-system - how many other creatures are dependent on it?
2. How long has the creature been alive?
3. How common/rare is the creature - Killing a fly doesnt hurt us.
4. How appealing is the physical form of the creature? Then again, I have seen some beautiful caterpillars. I have also seen ugly ones...which go on to become beautiful butterflies.
5. Does the creature pose human beings a threat? How "innocent" or "harmless" does the creature seem?
...and so on.
So, it is a highly complicated function involving a range of parameters. But it is a thoroughly inhuman and disgusting one - a "cute" creature's life is more valuable than an "ugly" creature's life? But, obviously, going by the above responses, this does not bother anyone. I guess there are no buddhists or jains in the above crowd.
I wonder what happens in those adoption centers - do "cute" kids get adopted easily compared to "not so cute" kids? The moment of ugly truth eh?
So now for another question. What is the amount of guilt felt by one people when they are killing/oppressing another people? What function does this depend on?
What is the difference between an American and a Iraqi? What does it matter more when an American dies and less when a Iraqi dies? How easy or difficult is it to kill people who dont look like your people?
Whither equality? Whither Civilization?
They cover all animals, from the cuddly to the nasty
So what is PETA's stand on leather items?
I just read in the New York Times society pages that there was a blogwar over here, so I thought I'd stop by and throw a few punches. So I get here and what do I find? No blogwar. That's it, I'm gonna sue.
Sorry, Peej. I'll try to be more effective with my "veiled attacks" from now on.
I am such a bad blogwar host. I can only apologise and promise to read the manual 'Fighting on the blog for beginners' and just as important, find out who we are at war with. That might be useful.
Yes, that occurred to me too. I haven't seen such a 'damp squib' of a war since The War on Terror... maybe we should choose a different indefinite noun to wage war on?
Not one bitchy, sarcastic comment typed in anger about anyone's social inadequacies.
Did we win by the way?
Yeah, I think we did.
Well congratulations on your victory. I dont see any difference between PeTA and the right wing loonies. You are two sides of the same coin to me. You are both bone-headed who are more in search of a lifestyle and identity than the truth itself.
Umm... the aforementioned victory wasn't over YOU, dp..... let's not let the same thing happen twice in the same thread. I'd probably laugh myself into the ER.......
DP - Wires crossed, the blogwar mentioned was another issue that somehow got mixed in with the PETA post. That said, i would hate to get involved in a coin toss with you, your coins sound very suspect!
Sorry! "Well congratulations on your victory" should have been in a seperate para by itself. And it came with a dose of sarcasm.
No. I am not that dumb (atleast on this ocassion I wasn't). I said what I said because this is very much a leftist congregation that seemed to be rejoicing a victory over "the enemy". And I hate it whenever there is a war between the lefties and righties especially on issues such as PeTA and creationism/evolution. Like I said, both sides seem dumb to me. What you have in common (culture, love of "liberty" etc) dwarfs the differnces between you. "Liberty" is the real disease that you should be fighting.
To be honest DP, we had no idea there was a blogwar going on, it was decided for us. As you can see from the comments, we didn't take it very seriously anyway.
Lucy, it wasn't even another issue. It was a joke about a double post that someone (who has since unblogrolled you, that'll teach ya!) assumed was an attack on him. He proceeded to make a big fat "feel sorry for me I'm a victim again" deal out of it. It was a complete work of fiction stewed up in the brain of someone who obviously feels that he deserves to be attacked, and thus sees attackers in every shadow. There was no real issue to it at all, unless you count paranoia.
Hehe... I swear that fella spends more time adjusting and readjusting his blogroll than he does on posts!
Everyone who's worth his (or her) salt has been 'unblogrolled' at least a couple of times! :-p
It has become somewhat of a "Rite of Passage", hasn't it?
Post a Comment