VeggieBoards

VeggieBoards (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/)
-   Animal Issues In The News (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/22-animal-issues-news/)
-   -   PETA ad plays off bus tragedy (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/22-animal-issues-news/85751-peta-ad-plays-off-bus-tragedy.html)

gillibean 08-07-2008 12:33 PM

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_25515.aspx



Quote:
Is it a clever way to make a point - or extremely bad taste and terrible timing?



Opinions are divided over an ad created by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that plays off of the horrific beheading on a Manitoba bus last week.



The ad makes reference to an innocent victim's throat being cut and compares it to the way chickens, cows and pigs are killed on factory farms.



"His struggles and cries are ignored," it reads. "The man with the knife shows no emotion ... the victim is slaughtered and his head cut off ... his flesh is eaten."



Have they gone too far (again)? Will this be effective or is it just going to increase the negativity towards vegetarianism?

vigilant20 08-07-2008 12:35 PM

That's awful

Masja 08-07-2008 12:41 PM

O.M.G......wow.....yeah i'd say they've gone too far. To exploit such a horrible murder and use it to their advantage is just sick. But then again, they did it with their holocaust examples, so why not. Urgh.

Fyvel 08-07-2008 01:15 PM

This is one of the reasons I don't like PETA

Nickle00 08-07-2008 01:17 PM

No bueno dude, definitely no bueno. I don't think that there will be anything positive coming from that campaign. Shame on them.

Sevenseas 08-07-2008 01:26 PM

The usual response to tragedies like that seems to be (apart from maybe some small preventative measures by the government to avoid future cases) a few gasps of horror. And of course, the newspapers get rich by selling the story. And many of those gasping in horror gasp in horror also in the movie theater, when they go to see the film based on the tragedy. This, if anything, is quite exploitative -- viewers getting thrills and entertainment out of the suffering and deaths of people of the past -- but no one seems to mind.



PETA's ad connects a tragedy to another, but in this case one which people can actually do something about, and not just gasp. And by doing so, it provides a kind of response to a tragedy that is actually of some use: it tries to get people to learn, at least something. It may do it in a rather clumsy way, and may backfire, but I find it much better than the response in which a tragedy is made into some kind of a holy relic in a museum.

jeneticallymodified 08-07-2008 01:32 PM

i think if everyone watching it thinks its as distasteful as i do, its not going to win them any friends and fans. annoying people doesn't seem to have made an effective education tool in my experience.



seeing as how quickly most people recover from a tragedy like this (they switch channels and 3 minutes later are happily watching lost) i doubt the same scenario with a cow in it is going to have a different effect. they'll switch channels, watch lost, and keep eating their burger. while thinking "man, peta are buttmunches. that poor guys family to have to see that".

smedley 08-07-2008 01:33 PM

shameful and disgusting.

Sevenseas 08-07-2008 01:46 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodedclawjen View Post

that poor guys family to have to see that".

Why is it okay for that poor guys family to see all the news stories about it? Where I come from, the press is gluttonous about stories like that...



...because there is an audience gluttonous about stories like that. Otherwise the stories wouldn't sell.

gillibean 08-07-2008 01:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The usual response to tragedies like that seems to be (apart from maybe some small preventative measures by the government to avoid future cases) a few gasps of horror. And of course, the newspapers get rich by selling the story. And many of those gasping in horror gasp in horror also in the movie theater, when they go to see the film based on the tragedy. This, if anything, is quite exploitative -- viewers getting thrills and entertainment out of the suffering and deaths of people of the past -- but no one seems to mind.



PETA's ad connects a tragedy to another, but in this case one which people can actually do something about, and not just gasp. And by doing so, it provides a kind of response to a tragedy that is actually of some use: it tries to get people to learn, at least something. It may do it in a rather clumsy way, and may backfire, but I find it much better than the response in which a tragedy is made into some kind of a holy relic in a museum.



Whatever respect I ever had for you is gone. It's disgusting that anyone would support this bs.

Sevenseas 08-07-2008 02:15 PM

I take it the "Have they gone too far (again)?" in your opening post was not an actual question but a rhetorical one, demanding agreement.

wickedmizeri 08-07-2008 02:17 PM

"PETA was actually trying to place the ad in a local Portage La Prairie newspaper..."



Are they fricking serious? That's beyond the pale.

gillibean 08-07-2008 02:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I take it the "Have they gone too far (again)?" in your opening post was not an actual question but a rhetorical one, demanding agreement.



I'm not demanding agreement. If I wanted agreement, I would have skipped posting this and just assumed that everyone would agree.

Gypsy 414 08-07-2008 02:19 PM

Hes now a victim of peta getting publicity of his horrific murder, very disrespectful, I feel for his family.

Nickle00 08-07-2008 02:34 PM

There's other ways for PETA to get their message out like wrapping up hot, naked women in meat packages....they didn't need to exploit that mans death. I wonder if his family agreed to those? I doubt it.

gillibean 08-07-2008 02:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy 414 View Post

Hes now a victim of peta getting publicity of his horrific murder, very disrespectful, I feel for his family.



I hope they are able to sue PETA if they see this.

Irizary 08-07-2008 02:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The usual response to tragedies like that seems to be (apart from maybe some small preventative measures by the government to avoid future cases) a few gasps of horror. And of course, the newspapers get rich by selling the story. And many of those gasping in horror gasp in horror also in the movie theater, when they go to see the film based on the tragedy. This, if anything, is quite exploitative -- viewers getting thrills and entertainment out of the suffering and deaths of people of the past -- but no one seems to mind.



PETA's ad connects a tragedy to another, but in this case one which people can actually do something about, and not just gasp. And by doing so, it provides a kind of response to a tragedy that is actually of some use: it tries to get people to learn, at least something. It may do it in a rather clumsy way, and may backfire, but I find it much better than the response in which a tragedy is made into some kind of a holy relic in a museum.



I think that's an interesting perspective. Because 98% these people who are horrified over how brutally he was killed are quite literally participating in something equally as grisly.



Peta:

Quote:
While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife. How amazingly and conveniently compartmentalized the human mind is

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/0...balistic_a.php



I don't really like the ad, but maybe we should be shaken out of our complacency. It's tiring how everything that affects humans like this is so horrific, but the same thing happens to animals and...it's dinner for 98% of us. I understand it offends our sense of propriety, but if you think about it, Peta is speaking a truth. Meat eaters are responsible for that same exact thing. I have no doubt that animals feel helpless and confused and terrified in the face of their murderers.



When I posted a snippet from the actual event in the compost heap, I didn't know about this and wasn't really drawing that connection (it bothered me more that people were running away from it rather than helping) until SS pointed it out that there are atrocities going on around us all the time - but mostly we do nothing - in fact we participate. When we do this thing as a culture, maybe we shouldn't be so delicate and horrified by the connection.

gillibean 08-07-2008 02:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post




I don't really like the ad, but maybe we should be shaken out of our complacency.



I agree with this totally but I don't think exploiting a man's very public and grisly death is the way to do it. The message people are getting from this is that PETA cares only about their goals and doesn't care what they have to do to humans to reach those goals. I think that's rather accurate but it's not very effective for recruiting vegetarians.

SquarePeg 08-07-2008 02:55 PM

I don't disagree that there is a correlation between what happened to Tim McLean on that bus in Manitoba and what happens to animals in a slaughterhouse.



However, this advertisement is tasteless and not at all sensitive to the family and friends of the victim.



Tim McLean has something that no cow, chicken or pig has. Friends and family who are able to read this ad. Not to mention the other passengers who were on that bus who have suffered emotional trauma and stress from what they witnessed - who can also read this tasteless ad and relive what is likely the worst experience and moment of their lives. That alone makes what they did beyond the pale.



When you combine that with the fact that the only thing this is likely to do is anger people and make them once again associate being a vegetarian or vegan with being an insensitive ass who cares more for publicity than decency ... well you've got a situation that has likely caused more harm than good.

Sevenseas 08-07-2008 02:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gillibean View Post

I agree with this totally but I don't think exploiting a man's very public and grisly death is the way to do it.

The first act of exploiting and disrespecting the man's death is when someone buys a newspaper.

SquarePeg 08-07-2008 02:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The first act of exploiting and disrespecting the man's death is when someone buys a newspaper.



You mean the same paper in which PETA wanted to run the ad? So they're essentially, by paying for ad space, contributing in more than one way to the disrespect of his death. Interesting. Another reason why they shouldn't run the ad.

gillibean 08-07-2008 03:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The first act of exploiting and disrespecting the man's death is when someone buys a newspaper.



So exploiting an exploitation makes it okay?

Sevenseas 08-07-2008 03:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsKey View Post

You mean the same paper in which PETA wanted to run the ad?

Any paper getting money by meeting the demand of a public hungry for shocking stories.

Sevenseas 08-07-2008 03:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gillibean View Post

So exploiting an exploitation makes it okay?

No, it just makes the single-minded focus on PETA a bit hypocritical. Especially since we're all a part of the audience that the media caters to.

Irizary 08-07-2008 03:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gillibean View Post

doesn't care what they have to do to humans to reach those goals. I think that's rather accurate but it's not very effective for recruiting vegetarians.



well, I don't really think that they're doing anything TO humans by this ad, in pointing out what humans routinely do TO animals... But I will agree that some of their ads and compaigns are not ones I personally would do for a whole variety of reasons.



I don't think any of us knows what will be most effective for recruiting all vegetarians - I think Peta's more surprising ads may be designed to get people to go to their webste, where they look around and get more info. I think it's pretty stunning that Peta gets the free publicity they do - they got written up in the paper for this ad - and they get people talking about it in some form. I think Peta figures - probably accurately - that it is better for animals if the issues are in the news and public consciousness in some form rather than totally forgotten, as they are generally - on their own, average person never really thinks of the life of the animal, or even that it was really living, before it got to their plate.

SquarePeg 08-07-2008 03:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Any paper getting money by meeting the demand of a public hungry for shocking stories.



You realize, don't you, that newspapers don't make money off of subscriptions or even newsstand prices? They make their money selling advertising. Like the ad space that PETA wanted to buy.



Which means that PETA's buying ad space does more to exploit and disrespect his death than the average person buying a copy of the newspaper.



I'm also assuming that PETA expected to get a return on their investment in the ad in terms of donations. How is that not exploitation?



I don't particularly care for the nude ads that have made PETA famous. But at least those people are willingly lending their bodies and names. Tim McLean did nothing willingly. Using his death in this way is wrong, no matter how you slice it.

AutomaticMan 08-07-2008 03:11 PM

In terms of effectiveness, this is useless and trying to get it printed was pathetic. But I don't really have any moral objection and I don't think this is 'disgusting' or whatever; they're not 'exploiting' his death, they're exploiting the media coverage from his death. Which is all PETA ever do.



Besides, it's not exactly a great parallel. Maybe they should try comparing sexism (like in their ads) with speciesism (like in their campaigns).

Irizary 08-07-2008 03:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsKey View Post

disrespect his death



Why is it disrespecting his death?



When people draw analogies between the holocaust/slavery and what happens to animals, sometimes people will say that's disrespecting the victims of the holocaust/slavery - because it's saying the human victims are "no better than" animals, and ("we all know that") humans are worth more than animals.



That's what I think of when people say something like that is disrespectful, but I'm not sure that you mean it like that.

SquarePeg 08-07-2008 03:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Why is it disrespecting his death?



When people draw analogies between the holocaust/slavery and what happens to animals, sometimes people will say that's disrespecting the victims of the holocaust/slavery - because it's saying the human victims are "no better than" animals, and ("we all know that") humans are worth more than animals. Not sure how to say that.



I'm not sure that you mean it like that. How do you mean disrespect?



I didn't. I was quoting Sevenseas who said that it was "exploiting and disrespecting" his death to buy a newspaper. I'm not sure in what way it was meant - but if the mere act of buying a newspaper does so - then how much more running an ad in the paper (which is where newspapers and magazines generate their revenue)?



You'd have to ask Sevenseas what was meant by including the word disrespecting - I was simply quoting what was said by another.

Sevenseas 08-07-2008 05:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsKey View Post

You realize, don't you, that newspapers don't make money off of subscriptions or even newsstand prices? They make their money selling advertising. Like the ad space that PETA wanted to buy.

That's quite beside the point, which is that the media doesn't cover shocking stories just for fun, they do it because people are hungry for them. "Buying the newspaper" was just an example of the participation in this -- naturally, papers are not the only medium to be guilty of what I'm talking about, and it's not only through monetary support that people are participating in the exploitation of tragedies.



Quote:
I'm also assuming that PETA expected to get a return on their investment in the ad in terms of donations. How is that not exploitation?

I don't think PETA uses the ad to get donations.



Quote:

You'd have to ask Sevenseas what was meant by including the word disrespecting - I was simply quoting what was said by another.

Then I'd have to ask Gypsy 414:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy 414 View Post

Hes now a victim of peta getting publicity of his horrific murder, very disrespectful,



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.