I'm on the fence about it to be honest. I've been a strict vegetarian all my life and although I don't agree with ALL of PETA's campaigns I think they have made a lot of difference and have actually achieved a lot over the many years since Ingrid Newkirk founded PETA. I think she's a wonderful woman. I get sick of seeing how much people hate PETA to be honest and in my opinion if you think the way they go about things is wrong then you are a fool for not doing something about it.

If you want to enter the competition why not send an email stating your reasons for not being able to do so via facebook? I'm sure they'd be understanding and it'll get you further than bitching about it on this forum will.

I remember them trying to air a commercial two days after the dude on the Grey Hound decapitated a passenger, comparing the incident to meat production. Needless to say, the outrage was huge enough that it never aired.

See, the thing is, Sith, I'm not sure if I'd actually object to that, logically speaking. Obviously it would be socially unacceptable and aside from the distress it would cause the family and friends of the victim, in theory I feel it's a valid point. It's no more tragic to me than what goes on in a lot of slaughter houses.

PETA are a group of deranged people.. Don't surrender your animal to them.. Dead before they leave your driveway..

One of the head psycho's at PETA once said she is so against animal testing, if it was a 100% guarantee we could cure all diseases, she would still not agree with testing on lab mice.. I'm sorry, I'm one of those people that put humans above mice..

That's not even getting into PETA's sub groups of ELF&ALF..

Animals that are raised for slaughter is no more tragic than a random person sitting there ad getting beheaded.... Right..

It was a poor analogy at best. As for the distress of the victim, everyone on the bus, the police involved, the communities touched and beyond; it's distasteful to say that your message is more important than compassion for those involved, only days after the event. Which is why most of the country turned on them and said wtf. Shock tactics on this level do nothing for the message and only seem to serve to turn people off, not on. Engaging an audience in this manner while public emotion was still very raw, was just a recipe in bad PR for any cause.

Now the Holocaust campaign was a much stronger analogy. While the holocaust still touches people in emotional and political tender spots, there's at least been a good deal of time between the event itself and the time of the campaign that the message, while daring is a little more open for the harsh reality of objectively comparing the two. To me, this was a much better use of controversy to spread a message.

Always have to laugh (or recoil in horror, depending on my mood) when someone throws that line. As if because we've decided to use our superior technology and hunting skills to raise specific animals for slaughter, that's their purpose in life. Right.



Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with anything here. As I said in my reply, I wouldn't have condoned that advert actually going out because it's just insensitive and offensive to the point of not having any positive effect whatsoever. But that's entirely because of the timing and the specific situation it's being applied to - what I'm really saying is that I agree that the idea of a tragic loss of human life is equal to the tragic loss of animal life, rather than supporting that particular (failed) campaign strategy.

So, it's the exact same thing when an animal that is killed is used for food, clothing, etc as to when a human is killed for nothing..

I always laugh (or recoil in horror) when people think animals are on re same playing field..

A little off topic but just wondering what veggies think of the idea of lab grown meat?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3 ... -menu.html

Wow.. Neat article..
The world can only hope that such an advancement can me made.. And that it can be made in time..