http://www.peta-sucks.com/

www.beyondveg.com

Are these sites propoganda sites? :sheep:

The first one is clearly made by people with too much time on their hands. :P

The first one is clearly made by people with too much time on their hands. :P
I know, it seems like propoganda, but I just wanted to be sure. So what about beyond vegetarianism?

I know, it seems like propoganda, but I just wanted to be sure. So what about beyond vegetarianism?

The first site is an anti-AR site. I'm now going to donate more money to PETA just to get even. :shifty:

I took a quick look at the second site and it doesn't seem quite kosher to me. :p

The first site is an anti-AR site. The second is a pro-low carb diet site in disguise.

Face it PETA.org , CCF and others are all propaganda sites. The question is who are the hypocrites? I say both.

My dictionary says propaganda is:

Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

If we use that definition, it seems to me that a lot of sites are propaganda sites, including the two sites you linked.

Does it matter though?

Lets say I make a website that advocates a low fat, high fiber diet and plenty of exercise. This hypothetical site would even have a disclaimer saying that the purpose of the site was to encourage you to switch to such a lifestyle. Just because I'm advocating something, am I wrong?

Its safe to say that there is probably bias in a propaganda site. But I don't see how that makes the site right or wrong. Be skeptical, but don't discount the site because it advocates a viewpoint.

Just my $.02

Btw, what is CCF?

Be skeptical, but don't discount the site because it advocates a viewpoint.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I know that *I* personally discount the site not because it is expressing a viewpoint, but for the way its information is presented. Referring to vegans and ar-activists as "idiots" and other such words repeatedly, including pictures of "dead and dying animals" and "animals being killed" to simply hurt those animal-friendly people who happen to visit the site... I have to say, I do not agree with everything that PETA does, but I feel like they are a good organization at heart. If someone is going to make a credible site trying to present their own viewpoint, I would at least respect the effort. But this person, their entire intent was to make people angry. I cannot respect that in any way shape or form, so yes, I do discount the site as one antagonizing fight-starters attempt to make a large group of people mad.

:sheep:

Propoganda is a slippery slope. One for PETA could be construed as "pro-propoganda" while that site you listed could be "con-propogranda".

I have heard of some of the things PETA has done, especially around my area. That dumping of confiscated animals into a dumpster was a really bad hypocritical blow to PETA.

Propoganda is a slippery slope. One for PETA could be construed as "pro-propoganda" while that site you listed could be "con-propogranda".

I have heard of some of the things PETA has done, especially around my area. That dumping of confiscated animals into a dumpster was a really bad hypocritical blow to PETA.

Could somebody please provide a link to that article? It was down on the anti-peta site.

Those sites are both propoganda but so are tons of other sites. Including Peta which seeks to promote its own view point.

It is right there on the sight that the original poster put up.


I step on your turtle.

Penn & Teller episode on PETA. Now is this construed propaganda. Takes awhile to download, and not vegan friendly, but does show how unrealistic PETA has become, and how I must ask are they the best ambassadors of this cause. If so, we need to adapt , overcome , and replace.
http://media.putfile.com/petaBS/original

The Peta Sucks site is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is funded by -- guess who -- Phillip Morris Tobacco and agribusiness companies. If you're interested, do some research. The NYT did an editorial blasting the Center for Consumer Freedom when they erected a Peta Kills billboard in Times Square, but the article's not free anymore (NYT now charges for "premium" content).