PETA - too sensitive, or doing their job?
- This topic is empty.
- June 18, 2009 3:40 pm at 3:40 pm #280940
Well, I’m not stupid. I’m not going to do it on 71 traveling at 65MPH… let me rephrase, “within reason, I will screech to a halt for a squirrel”.June 18, 2009 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #280941
TaraK wrote >>
I don’t really get people who say they hate PETA with die-hard rage or something. I mean, they’re obnoxious, but do you really care that much?
The fly thing = super stupid. Even in my vegetarian years I couldn’t care about this.
what mostly pisses me off is that the media can’t seem to just ignore them like any sane human being would do and other idiots keep giving them money, the collection of which is the sole unstated actual purpose of the organization.June 18, 2009 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #280942
Trixie wrote >>
Well, I’m not stupid. I’m not going to do it on 71 traveling at 65MPH… let me rephrase, “within reason, I will screech to a halt for a squirrel”.
of course not, but even at 35 MPH – still not safe to swerve or screech to a halt. a squirrel can die. maybe i am mean, i dunno.June 18, 2009 3:47 pm at 3:47 pm #280943
…I’ve actually brought home an injured squirrel and nursed it back to health LOL!June 18, 2009 3:51 pm at 3:51 pm #280944
Maybe we should just become Jains and start sweeping the ground in front of ourselves to be sure it’s free of insects:
I passed the point years ago where I despised PETA’s messaging and tactics more than the anti-abortion wackos who have the fetus truck ads.June 18, 2009 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #280945
JonMyers wrote >>
I passed the point years ago where I despised PETA’s messaging and tactics more than the anti-abortion wackos who have the fetus truck ads.
I hear ya. I mean, i think PETA is pretty unrealistically over the top, but they, like so many other extremest groups (Earthfirst!, Westboro Baptist Church, Limbaugh) likely intentionally operate well outside the comfort zone of people who may even share their views. This then opens up the spectrum for more mainstream groups to follow in their shadow and seem much more palatable in comparison. By operating on the fringe, they kinda take the brunt of the criticism, but do a little service to their cause by trailblazing. of course, they also run the risk of just being discounted as ridiculous, which i think is kind of happening here.June 18, 2009 4:07 pm at 4:07 pm #280946
@groundrules – I don’t see them as trailblazers if their messaging and tactics don’t create results. Their activism model strikes me as 60’s style sensationalism. If they embraced a more contemporary communication model in their messaging and tactics they might actually reach people. Their tactics seem to me like their just jerkin each other off and could care less who they actually reach. Meaning impact and who would actually embrace the lifestyle they seem to represent.June 18, 2009 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #280947
JonMyers wrote >>
@groundrules – I don’t see them as trailblazers if their messaging and tactics don’t create results. Their activism model strikes me as 60’s style sensationalism. If they embraced a more contemporary communication model in their messaging and tactics they might actually reach people. Their tactics seem to me like their just jerkin each other off and could care less who they actually reach. Meaning impact and who would actually embrace the lifestyle they seem to represent.
I probably used ‘trailblazing’ incorrectly. I didn’t intend it in the ‘follow my trail’ sort of way. What I meant to say is that the extremists can not only shift the discussion to new outter limits, but also while doing so act as the lighting rod for criticism. That can allow a more moderate group to operate with slightly less scrutiny, or seem far less looney by comparison. While maybe not as great an example as some other forms of extremism, for this case, imagine: while PETA is off pulling stunts and spouting about bugs, the ASPCA might be able to ramp up their efforts towards a similar mission without looking like wackos.June 18, 2009 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #280948
Core_Models wrote >>
I’m about as big an animal lover as you’ll find and hate PETA with a passion.
I’m curious how a group that operates kill shelters, euthanizing thousands of dogs and cats every year, justifies getting upset about killing a fly…
I can’t find the chart, but I saw a document a few months ago showing that PETA kills over 10k animals a year.
I love animals and I live with a ton of them, but the only groups I feel I can support and trust are the Humane Society and the ASPCA.June 18, 2009 5:19 pm at 5:19 pm #280949
I’ve got no problem with having a President who swats a fly on TV.
I mean, Jesus, it’s not like he went in front of the cameras and gavaged a fucking goose.June 18, 2009 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #280950June 18, 2009 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #280951
They might as well have sent a clown wig.June 18, 2009 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #280952June 18, 2009 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm #280953
von wrote >>
Trixie wrote >>
I will screech to a halt for a squirrel
my fiance has this mentality too, dangerous!! THIS IS NOT SAFE TO DO.
Rule of thumb for big animals in the road… If you do nothing and hit the animal, it’s a comprehensive claim on your insurance (a not at fault accident). Swerve to miss it and hit anything else, it’s a collision claim and your rates will go up.
I am disappointed that nobody’s posted the “People Eating Tasty Animals” comment yet. We’re already two pages into this, we can do better folks…
I do like the Lettuce Ladies though.June 19, 2009 2:56 am at 2:56 am #280954
That fly was OBVIOUSLY a member of Al Qaeda that was trying to attack the President. He was well within his right to swat it.
Dumb thing landed on his hand; it deserved what it got!
DEATH TO FLYS!!!!
The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.