http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=36208

PETA is planning to single out children of mothers who are wearing fur coats at Nutcracker ballets by handing them fliers saying "Your Mommy Kills Animals".

The fliers feature a woman stabbing a terrified rabbit in the belly with a knife.

Question for debate: Do you think this is a legitimate tactic to get your cause across for any organization?

And if you are a supporter of PETA, do you stand behind them in their actions?

I saw that last night. Was horrified and thought: Wow, PETA must be really losing support to resort to such poorly thought-out tactics just to get attention.

And can they tell a real fur from a fake one just by looking at it from a distance?

PETA is a bunch of kooks. This simply confirms it.

I wonder if handing literature to minors is against the law? Especially one that contains graphic images as this literature does.

Next, they'll be shooting fur-wearers.

No, it's deplorable. PETA is an extremist organization who's tactics undermine whatever legitimate arguments that they or any other animal rights groups may have.

No. Extremist tactics always overshadow the topic they are meant to be about. Aside from the fact that such tactics are just wrong, attacking the children of your opponents, they are inneffective.

PETA poeple are idiots, and anyone that joins thier organization are idiots. They have no clue about nature, animals or our role in the food chain. I consider myself an enviromentilist, and believe in many of the anti-extraction corporation laws and regs, but these guys are just plain scumbags. I believe in a law to allow us to assault them personally.

I don't know that labeling an entire group of people as idiots is anymore constructive than distributing graphic propaganda to young children.

While propaganda can certainly be a useful tactic, if not an admirable one, using it to target young children seems destined to fail. I think it highly unlikely that many children will believe the fliers if their parents even allow them to see, and believe that a majority of those exposed to the fliers will react adversely to strangers mischaracterizing their mothers.

I think PETA might have succeeded more than you realize. Perhaps not with this particular campaign, since I would say that children are going to be much more loyal to their parents and are going to immediately want to rail against PETA. However, there has been a lot of animal rights legislation in the last decade and PETA is partly responsible for bringing such debates into the mainstream.


http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2003/2003_04_14_peta.html

This is from a lengthy interview with Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA, that was written up in the New Yorker a few months ago. I think it's worth the read and sheds some light on PETA's positions and why they've been so successful despite the fact that everyone hates them. PETA knows it's place in society and it knows how to stir up publicity. I would submit that they're probably more intelligent than CruisingRam claims.

Getting to the question posed by Sleeper, I would say that harassing children for their cause is hardly ethical, as it seems everyone agrees (so far). Still, I feel bad about a group that feels so strongly about an issue that they have no chance of winning. I think they're similar to abortion activists who picket Planned Parenthoods and harass people about to get abortions. They really feel that they have the moral highground and that it's absolutely essential to defend these lives. If I were in that position, I can't really say what I'd do.

I doubt it, "shock and awe" for the sake of trying to prove a point is offensive to another person's sensibilities. I disliked when anti-abortion providers would do it. I think it will turn many people against their cause. I've never really understood PETA and thow in the world they come up with the views that they do. I think of them every time I pull out a whopping bass from a warm, summer lake here in Nebraska They're free spreech rights violate my rights not to be harassed on the street corner. Their tactics should not be put up with.

Careful there. There are some groups out there with some very vile stances and I am sure you would not feel badly for them and their plight.

Does anyone remember when the Palestinians used a donkey that was strapped with explosives to kill Israelis that were on a bus on the road way. PETA complained about the use of the Donkey. They said nothing about the loss of HUMAN life.

Sorry. I may have mislead you into thinking that the phrase "feel bad for" indicated approval. I feel bad that they've managed to adopt a philosophy that causes them and the rest of society so much grief. PETA believes that there is this uber, Holocaust-like massacre of animal life taking place every day. They could secretly feed people their own babies as a publicity stunt, I'd still feel bad for them, the ideals they hold, and their actions. The same goes for members of the KKK, NAMBLA, the Time Cube guy, abortion clinic bombers, and a host of other people who have burdened themselves with dead end, quarrelsome philosophies.

The point I was trying to make was that the reason PETA uses such extreme measures is because of their convictions, not because they don't understand the implications or repercussions of their acts. They're not stupid, they just believe in animal rights to the point that they feel justified in ignoring the rights of others.

You could argue that their convictions are stupid in the first place. I'm sure it's different for various members of PETA, but I believe much of it comes from Peter Singer. Singer is most famous for his book "Animal Liberation," in which he argued on utilitarian grounds that moral consideration should be given to others based on their sentience. How sentient? Well, if you're not willing to kill a human baby, than you shouldn't kill anything that has as much sentience as a human baby. Hence, pretty much any vertebrate or cephalopod should not be killed.

I'm not actually arguing this, mind you (I happen to eat the flesh of animals regularly, and with great zeal). However, the whole philosophy behind animal rights is actually thought out and arguments like the one above continue to be debated, ad nauseum, by people who are entirely intelligent. I can understand why people become so enamored with such views that they believe the world will be a better place by harassing others, even if I don't condone it.

That's sick

I think this is DEFINETLY NOT a legitimete tactic to use to make your cause known and to get the point across to people. This is sick stuff. They should be fined for doing such a thing.

You know, there was a time in my life when I wondered what exactly people mean when they use the phrase "bunch of raving mindless lunatics." I thank PETA for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously though, they want to try to traumatize these children into hating their parents for wearing fur? What is wrong with them? Don't get me wrong, I love animals, and I hate it when they are mistreated or needlessly killed (food doesn't qualify as needless), but this is just sick. This is not crossing the line, at this point they are so far out there, the line is a dot.

If there is such a thing as a good reason to go to jail for aggravated assault, this is it. And I'm pretty sure that's how it will end.

In order to get people to support your cause, you need to get their support. This insane tactic of handing fliers to children that say 'Your Mommy Kills Animals' will only turn people away from their cause. It's digusting and tactless to target children in this way. Now I am against vivesection of animals, but to target people who wear furs and their children is silly. They should focus more on the bigger issues relating to their cause rather than spill red paint on mink coats.

I am a pretty strong advocate of animal rights (I don't eat meat or wear leather) and I have to agree with the rest of you that this is a lousy tactic. PETA is making our cause look bad.

These people are so twisted its unbelievable! The Vice President of PETA was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and he had the audacity to say that the children enjoy the comic and that it doesn't harm them at all. He said they had every right in the world to target peoples children, because they need to teach their parents that killing animals is wrong. He went on to add that children love animals and will put pressure on their parents not to eat meat, wear fur, etc. Its one thing to get in the faces of people about thier fur coats,etc but its another to subject their children to this kind of propaganda just to get thier message out. PETA seems to have hit rock bottem with this one. Where else can they go?

I thought PETA had more intelligence than this. PETA needs to pull this campaign and make something up that is more in line with non-violent scenes.

This is as bad as anti-abortion types using gross pics for signs when they protest.


Venom:

Are you serious? Crazy dude. Children won't think this as funny. Children will have nightmares!

Killing animals is wrong yes but when you do it for survival (food), it's a whole other story.



I extremley doubt the public will stand for this. They will be marching towards PETA's HQ! I think they should be fined for such grotesque displays.

Its funny that you should mention that because the VP said exactly the opposite on the show. He said they would continue to run campaigns similar to this current one and that they would continue to aim them at children. They truly think that subjecting children to this garbage is gonna change things. Now whether or not the public will stand for much more of this is another issue.

I have a question? Why does PETA state ONLY your mother kills animals?
Men wear furs believe it or not too.
I find this disgusting.
There are people who all has causes they believe in, but to allow Peta to do this is totally redicules.

This particular tactic reminds me of Jack Chick, another extremist who has the exact opposite of his intended effect. If anything they drive people away from their viewpoint.
There is a difference between militancy and jackassery. Extreme views have a place in debate, extreme (and childish) actions do not.

I reiterate that I do not support PETA's actions. However, I think it's an interesting exercise to imagine what I'd do in PETA's shoes. It's hard because I don't agree with their issue on most levels. However, imagine if you were in Nazi Germany; a fictional version in which you knew you could protest the killing of Jews without any danger to yourself, like PETA can in the US. How would you go about protesting and what would you consider too extreme? Maybe the answer is obvious to everyone else on this board, but I find it a very difficult question. Hence my mutterings on the issue.


While PETA does show some sense of humor in their actions, it's mainly as a way to grab people's attention. In actuality, PETA is dead serious about their issue. So I think the difference between militancy and jackassery, in this case, is in how you and PETA perceive their mission.


Nor is this the first time they've targeted children. PETA is known for protesting outside of circuses and showing children videos of how trainers treat the animals.
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2003/000266.html


PETA does plenty of that as well. Aside from using graphic images, they also have videos of animals being tortured and killed which they send to various people. I believe they sent Ben Affleck a video from a chinchilla farm after he bought Jennifer Lopez a chinchilla coat.
http://www.furismurder.com

Also well known is their "Got Beer?" campaign, in which they placed ads in college newspapers encouraging students to drink beer over milk since, as PETA claims, beer is healthier and less cruel to animals. The campaign outraged Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) as well as a bazillion other people for, obviously, encouraging college students to drink. (For those of you who are curious, I once checked the dietary values of beer and milk and, vitamin-wise, milk was the clear winner. I think PETA refers more to secondary effects when they are claiming that beer is healthier, such as protection against heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and a few other conditions.)
http://www.milksucks.com/beersurvey.html

They've offended feminists with their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" ads, which utilize naked women to further their cause. I will refrain from linking to an example since I'm too lazy to check the forum policy on linking to adult material.

And there are a billion one-shot incidents, such as rallying outside of the Mirage hotel in Las Vegas right after Roy of Siegfried & Roy was mauled by his tiger. Dumping a dead raccoon on a woman's plate. Crashing a Victoria's Secret fasion show. They've attempted to offend just about everybody, which is why I find it ironic that they refer to house pets as "companion animals" so as not to demean them. Especially since I only call my cat "companion animal" when I am expressly mocking his lowly social status.
http://www.peta.org/cmp/ca.html

I have found a link to the actual comic book in question here. I must warn you that it is extremely graphic in its depiction of violence to animals -- nothing any child, or any reasonably sensitive adult, should have to see. Judge for yourself, if you feel up to it. This is a PDF file, so you need the program that can display it.

"Your Mommy Kills Animals"

I have no problem with providing, in a calm and reasonable manner, accurate information about what is done to animals by humans. I have a BIG problem with presenting this information to young children, and with presenting it in a manner which will cause great psychological damage to children and adults. I also have a problem with the fact that this "comic book" says over and over again "your mommy kills animals" in a way that implies she is a maniacal, sadistic torturer and insane murderer. This is way, way, way over the top. It looks like a really bad taste parody of PETA done by National Lampoon.

PETA, you could have done some good in the world. Too bad you choose not to.

EDIT: I wanted to add that PETA has many programs that are much less controversial. Here are a couple:

Lettuce Ladies

Pretty women dress up in clothing that looks like lettuce, in order to promote vegetarian diets. A little silly, but cute, and inoffensive. They also have Broccoli Boys.

Curb Cat and Dog Overpopulation

A celebrity promotes spaying and neutering pets. Certainly a good idea.

It seems to me that some of these protesters
have entirely too much free time on their hands.
It's good to care about animals' rights. But to
say that people shouldn't eat meat or drink
milk? That's the way the food chain works on
this planet. The fur coat thing could be disputed,
but in a tactful and mature way.

These people need to "Get a life!"

There are bigger fish to fry (pun intended)...
How about childrens' rights!

In my heart of hearts I secretly cheered when PETA convinced an asortment of exceptionally attractive models to remove their clothing and be photographed for a good cause.

Ok, sorry, but in all seriousness, though the cause be good, extremism is always destructive. One almost has to wonder if PETA uses such shock tactics on purpose, not for the actual impact, but because of the outrage and subsequent media coverage they will receive, which disseminated their message far more effectively than flyers handed out at the ballet.

Sadly, though the tactic works in moderation, it mean that they have to keep coming up with more and more 'shocking' campaigns which dilutes their credibility...

I think the tactic is disgusting and doesn’t win theses folks any friends.

I also believe that only vegetarians who do not eat of the 10s of millions of animals killed for food each year in the US can legitimately argue that the killing of animals for fur is somehow immoral. The number of animals killed for fur (or any other reason including medical research) is a tiny fraction of the animals raised and killed for food.

A friend of mine who is an avid hunter took his kids to the Nutcracker, when one of these PETA nuts handed his 10-year-old son the handout, he looked at it and looked at the guy and said “how else are you going to make Rabbit Stew?” and handed the flier back. Needless to say he was VERY proud of his son!

Before we say the "cause is good" let's remember that our distant ancestors and all native Americans used animal skins and furs as clothes. If anything the % of furs used for this purpose as a fraction of the population is way down in the past fet centuries

Ethical treatment of animals is one thing, extremism is quite another.

I have no problem with the eating of meat or the wearing of fur in and of itself. My wife has a (50 year old vintage) fur coat. She likes it. It's warm. She got it for a song on e-bay. She looks good in it, too...

She wore it to the Nutcracker (NYC Ballet edition), and I took her out to dinner afterwards (a nice Turkish restaurant) where we had lamb.

Thankfully, PETA was not present to ruin our evening or tempt me to acts of self-defense I'd rather not have to commit.

The questions persist, however. Is it WRONG to wear a fur coat or eat meat?

In and of itself, it is NOT wrong.

Assuming one subscribes to one of the three main monotheistic religions, one knows that the bible/torah/koran make provisions for the treatment of animals, and, in certain instances, the proper preparation of meat. While we Americans live in a society where church and state are seperate, many of us do follow religious/dogmatic guidelines when it comes to the consumotion of meat (ie Catholics not eating meat on Fridays, Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, &c). Other cultures consume animals we wouldn't dream of eating (ie some Asians eat dogs), but in the end we have eaten meat from the time we could catch it, kill it, gut it, and prepare it..

Oh, yes...the hide.fur of our dinner also happened to make a mighty fine coat to ward off the cold...

PETA's mission very much reminds me of Wile E. Coyote's endeavor to catch the Road Runner (I'm an animator, so do excuse the cartoon analogy!). It has LONG stopped being a mere search for dinner and has become a perverted obsession.

If PETA wishes to do anything useful, they can concentrate on the following:

1) The METHODS by which animals are killed/slaughtered, and

2) Addressing the (for lack of a better term) "deadly sins" of gluttony and vanity.


As to the first argument, I am not quite sure what can be done, but I do know that conditions in meat packing plants are perhaps less than satisfactory. The meat industry is presently unregulated, and perhaps this is something that PETA can address. Animals packed too closely together can breed disease.

Fortunately, I generally buy organic beef and buffalo. Costs a bit more, but definitely worth it.

PETA would have one believe that chickens and cows have the full gamut of human emotions. They anthropomorphize farm/fur animals and even fish to the point where I can only laugh. A better solution is to lobby for cleaner conditions in the meat packing industry and perhaps more swift and "humane" methods of dispatching cattle, hogs, chickens, &c. As I understand it, death comes swiftly. If only the "waiting period" could somehow be made more "humane", I'd be all for it...but that is an issue for another day...

And what of fish? Fish are basically computer chips that swim. I have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary...

The SECOND point...GLUTTONY and VANITY...is itself a can of worms awaiting removal of its lid.

Wearing a fur coat isn't necessarily vain, but owning more than one will ever need imight be so construed. And some fur coats are certainly worn by people who, for lack of a better way to put it, lack refinement and a sense of aesthetics. Vanity and poor taste cannot be legislated against, however...the best we can do to discourage the wearing of fur coats is to disassociate them with luxury and associate them with utility. Fur is definitely warm, and on certain occasions (ie going to see the Nutcracker), a military-issue parka just won't do...but if fur coats are worn strictly for special occasions only at certain times of the year, the demand won't be as great. There are enough vintage fur coats out there in beautiful condition to satisfy most people's needs. For the record, however, most fur these days is farm raised. Minks and other rodents are hardly high enough on the food chain to warrant much sympathy. Natural predators of such animals inflict much more pain on their prey than those running mink farms do, so that argument falls flat as well...

GLUTTONY, on the other hand, is easier to address.

We Americans eat WAY too much fast food, and that is where a disproportionate amount of meat winds up (though that particular meat may be imported...I'm not sure). if we are more discriminating about WHERE and WHEN we choose to eat our meat, the problem MAY solve itself in the long run. We also waste a lot of food. Cutting back on waste alone would probably solve half the problem...but a boycott of meat will never happen, nor will a wholesale transformation to vegetarianism/veganism.

If PETA is helping to reduce UNNECESSARY mistreatment of animals, then I'm all for it. If they're out to make a vegetarian out of me, that won't happen. If they get in my face and refuse to relent (or taunt my wife), I have a moral obligation to defend my family honor, and will do so cheerfully, and perhaps with the assistance of the local constabulary.

Alas, PETA seems to be missing the point entirely, however, and for all their bluster, I doubt they can take any credit for any animal rights legislation passed over the last decade or so.

My conclusion? PETA is a fringe organization composed of people who have a warped sense of idealism, and whose zeal can better serve humanity if applied elsewhere...

Carry on...

Typical PETA radical dogma.

My sister-in-law is a PETA member and we get into debates. She is a wack-job, but I love her.

She once opined that if she was driving and had no choice and had to either hit a child or a dog in the street, she would hit the child. Why? Because the child has the ability to 'understand' what was happening whereas the dog in incapable of that level of underdstanding.

How does one debate that type of logic?!!!

GrigUSA, that one's TOO funny!

Yes, it is impossible to debate such logic, and I am sure you've tried everything by now...!

Carry on...

Very well...! :-)

I will review my comments...

Carry on...

I find that comic grossly inaccurate. Not only is it not presented in an truthful and logical manner, but the fact that it targets such an image of violence towards children sickens me.

I am all for animal rights, but PETA has completely stepped the bounds here.

First, on the lighter side:
Heroic PETA Commandos Kill 49, Save Rabbit, Animal Rights Activists Release 71,000 Cows Into Wild

Now seriously:
I am now finally convinced that State Department should outlaw extremist, psychopatic, "animal-rights" groups, eco-terrorist (an actual term, see Ecoterrorism) orgnizations like PETA, ELF and ALF.
They have shown through their numerous acts of violence and despicable propaganda tactics directed at children, business leaders and private citizens, that they are real wack-jobs and are incapable of being reasoned with. Their dogma and political doctrine is just as extrimist. Althogh the above satirical article is fictional, I've read a number of article where PETA's chief officers said that they don't oppose murder of fur-wearers and coutouriers ( hope I spelled that right ) who use fur in their design. These groups also don't restrain from arson, destruction of property, breaking and entering, personal assaults, threats, etc.
My rationale for branding terrorist is that if government continues to express its apathy towards the violent radical "environmentalism" (quotation marks because I think there are many other true environmentalists who campaign for humane treatment of research animals, stray dogs and other valuable causes without resorting to violence and without making fools of themselves with ludicrous public statements), there will arise a force comprised of private citizens organized into an anti-ecofreak sort of organization wich will resort to force-against-force tractics to stop all this outrage, after all every force has an equal and opposite force (3rd law of mechanics, ).
If we are to avoid civil unrest and violence, PETA, ELF and others ar to be stopped, or at least checked.

Some more intereseting articles about tactics used by Peta and their cohorts I found at animalrights.net website ("debunking animal-right movement"):
PETA Passes Out Chicken Trading Cards to Tennessee Children,
Animal Rights Militia Threatens "Violent Retribution" Against HLS Employees, Customers,
PETA Protests Zoo In Truly Fitting Way - good one, , PETA really shows the mentality of it's average member,
PETA Targets Hispanic Kids in Florida ,
PETA Launches 'The Holocaust on Your Plate' Campaign ,
PETA Screens Slaughter for Restaurant Patrons ,
Never Forget PETA's Reaction to 9/11 - amusing but very sad, ,
PETA vs. Environmentalists ,
Center for Consumer Freedom Highlights PETA's Financial Support for Eco- and Animal Rights Terrorism ,
PETA's "Jesus Was a Vegetarian" Campaign Attracts Controversy ,ELF Damages Equipment at Virginia Building Site .

I probably could list forever all the misdeeds of Peta, Elf, Alf, and others, but you can look by yourself into this website if you care to investigate.
p.s. As you can see, there's no reasoning against fanatics. PETA and others will lie, distort and exaggerate facts, condone or perpetrate violence, support homicide in the name of "animal-rights" movement, claim Jesus to be Vegan, compare agricultural industry to Holocaust, disrupt public infrastructure and welfare for their petty causes and try to subvert children to their cause. What can be more disdainful and ignominious?

PETA funds terrorist activities. They should be closed, their leaders arrested and tried for aiding terrorist organizations.

They have done nothing but hurt the mission of those who seek to improve animals' lives.

Okay I will stand up and defend PETA since everyone else only seems to hate them. This is a legitimate tactic. Is it the preferred tactic, probably not, but it is still legitimate. They are putting a message out there that many people would never hear otherwise. Meat consumption is so prevelant in America that the voices of the small minority of vegetarians, vegans, and animal rights/equality people get drowned out. How do you overcome this constant, loud barrage that makes up everyday society. You have to shock people. You have to disgust them. The "Free Me" campaign from PETA and the "Your food had a face" campaign did this.

This is not much different from "thetruth.com" and the anti-smoking commercials they air. The commercial with the rat, the commercial with the babies, neither of which was nice, preferrable, or the like. But they were true and effective. This is the same type of overkill tactic that PETA uses.

I don't think that PETA and the ELF or ALF belong in the same category. Both ELF and ALF are legitimate terrorist threats. They actually blow stuff up. PETA admits it doesn't feel bad when bad stuff happens to people it considers bad, but that is far different from actually doing something bad (eg killing someone or blowing stuff up).

In sum, I do stand behind the actions of PETA just like I stand behind truth.com. Tasteful, no. Right and true, yes. Sometimes you have to undertake in something radical to achieve a necessary radical change.

Here is a list of some vegetarians we might all know from PETA.org:


Here is an interesting website for you to look at:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=free_me


If anyone is currently wondering what is bad about meat excluding the whole violence against animals thing here is some stats for you from vegetarianstarterkit.com

i aint been on this forum for a bit, my pc broke, but i'm back now and love reading this forum it's so informative, regards this thread..

it's interesting to me that so many people are against this "tactic" yet i wonder how many people complain at advertising campaigns that clearly are marketted towards children for candy, toys, entertainment, clothing, computer games etc.. walk into any supermarket all the candy is placed near the checkout, and is placed at child height, do you complain at this also? or even complain when your child is forcefed junk food in school cafeterias sponsered by pepsi or mcdonalds? i don't see any difference here between any of that and what peta are doin..

There are things PETA does that I appreciate. Through information provided on the web they convinced me to stop buying IAMS pet foods. That is a productive and effectively achieved goal. What they are doing in the example cited is neither. It could not be more lacking in legitimacy.

Doc

Hey, let's ask the kids what they think. I would have liked an ad like that as a kid. I knew my mommy killed animals; she made me kill a snake once, and I didn't like it. I still love her, though. What, only churches, schools and politicians are allowed to distribute graphic propaganda to children?