December 17, 2003

• This'll make animal rights activists really popular with people who hate children.
• holy crap
• Bunny rabbits love it when children cry.
• On MUNI one day I saw a newspaper ad for this PETA campaign. I was so put off at the effort to discourage support of environmental groups, I made a donation to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
• God, I hate PETA sometimes. It drives me crazy because I am totally with them for a while and then they go and do this which is just cruel.
• P E T A I think it stands for Totally-Wigged-About-Animal-Treatment Sickos. (the extra A is a typo)
• I'd be peta-rified if i was a wee one -- Peta's in a fur-enzy again.
• the PETA folks are *very* good at what they do. back in '99 they had a campaign that beef causes impotency... here's an excerpt from a story i wrote about it: The animal-rights group often crosses that line while promoting its guiding principle, that animals "are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment." The group opposes fishing ("aquatic agony") and animal acts in circuses. Last year, it caused an uproar by saying that Jesus belonged to a Jewish sect that shunned meat - a statement promptly disputed by theologians, including one who called it a "kooky idea." Kooky idea or no, the group loves this kind of publicity. "We don't have the meat industry's budget," said Bruce Friedrich, a PETA spokesman at the Norfolk, Va., headquarters. "So we resort to things we think are funny or interesting in order to get people thinking about animal issues. And we don't make any apologies for that."
• I should be disgusted at this, but I've come to hate Christmas season so much that I don't care anymore. Terrorizing the kiddies? Fine.
• I
• Today some bloke started pointing at me and shouting paedophile at the top of his lungs, in the middle of the high street. And even he was less annoying than the Salvation Army.
• On MUNI one day I saw a newspaper ad for this PETA campaign. I was so put off at the effort to discourage support of environmental groups, I made a donation to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Thanks for the link Ambrosia. Now I hate PETA a little more. But in the case of terrorizing children in christmas, count me with homonculus and nanosaxur. Besides, I would also love to see the angry victim mothers backslash against PETA.
• I don't have much to add other than more righteous anger. I liked the suggestion on MeFi of getting together a thousand rabid minks and dumping them in the PETA office. Call me a mean son-of-a-bitch but I've never had a problem with people wearing fur. As long as the animals don't suffer needlessly, it's no different to me than eating steak, or chicken, or fish... It's always seemed like a cause for the fashion models to play at activist.
• I read that as a thousand rabid monks. No that I would pay to see.
• i'm with dng, i want rabid monks. now.
• How long before someone needs to institute PETPETA?
• This makes me furious. I know it's fun to joke about it, but imagine a little kid being exposed to this kind of rhetoric. The thought of someone shoving this at my little nephew makes me want to knock someone out.
• And what Irontom said.
• MefiFilter.

  SideDish : "So we resort to things we think are funny or interesting in order to get people thinking about animal issues."

  Unfortunately, they're thinking, "Jesus, what pricks!" Does anyone even listen to PETA anymore? I think most people lost interest when they went from nude models back to caged animals.
• Kimberly - I cannot prevent PETA from doing it, and PETA wins if I let the situation fill me with anger. The best I can do is take pleasure from it. It's called schadenfreude. Of course, if my nephews received a flier like this I would derive my pleasure from punching in the face the PETA volunteer.
• I'm not sure if the "MefiFilter" was a "this is already on MeFi" type of thing, but I posted before they did.
• I saw that too, and kudos to you, Kimberly!
• I've never understood why it's the people who support goals that aren't life-shatteringly important who always go to such ridiculous lengths. Campaigning against war or for more hospitals? Sure, let's put on a march, maybe make a couple of banners. Campaigning against abortion? Let's kill somebody. Obviously I'm not saying taht these things aren't important, but still... When it comes down to it, there's better things to lose sleep over.
• Kimberly : I admit, I've had "MeFiFilter" running through the back of my head for a week or so, and was looking for an excuse.
• Boo: I'll let you go this time, but next time I'm gonna have give your kids a bloody flier telling them that you kill monkeys.
• Okay, I have a question. Are we expecting people to search MetaFilter as well as MonkeyFilter before posting here? Does a post on MeFi disqualify a link here? I think it's fine to link to a discussion on MeFi, if you are aware of it. Often, however, the same links are posted very close together on both sites. I ask, in part, because I've done exactly that. People here were gracious enough to overlook it at the time. I felt pretty stupid when I noticed my post over at MeFi. The truth is that I don't spend nearly as much time lurking over at MeFi as I used to. (Now that Tracicle et al. have aided and abetted spending many unproductive hours here instead.) I've been kicking this around in my head all week, and the "MeFiFilter" comment has made me decide to put it out there and ask what the Monkeys think.
• I say post whatever. This ain't metafilter, and if you think people here will find it interesting, then post away. But I don't know what any others think, although I think it might have been discussed before.
• Searching both places would be tiresome. Instead I think it would be best that we avoid posting what we found on Mefi's first page, and, if you think that something there deserves to appear in Mofi you should link to the appropiate MeFi thread. In the case you posted here and see it latter posted in MeFi you should feel outraged and shake your fist in MeFi's direction.
• Apparently PETA thinks all mothers are still housewives stuck in the kitchen killing dinner for their families. Geez. Lookat her outfit!
• BBF - Because they're not life threateningly important. (almost) Everybody agrees war is bad and healthcare is good. Convincing the guy with the Big Mac that it died a brutal unneccesary death, and that if he would be willing to never ever eat meat again we'd all be happier is a bit tougher sell. Me, I like PETA. Were it not for them I never would have found a place to buy nice non-animal shoes. Plus they don't evn try to make it seem like they're looking for a thoughtful even sided debate. Like abortion activists, they're right and you're wrong. They must have a big wheel covered in ideas sent in by mental patients that they spin to choose their new campaign strategy. Also, unlike abortion activists I don't think they've killed anyone.
• Zemat-- Double Pop-Tarts to you with your thoughts regarding PETA and MeFiFiltering!
• Hmm...It just goes so over the top that it strikes me as performance art and rather amusing.
  
  Speaking of which, I wonder if there's any legal preventative for handing out "The Truth About Santa Claus" fliers...
• Ok, "Performance artists have plans to terrorize children this Christmas by showing them grotesque fliers and telling them to hide their puppies and kitties from their murdering mommies." Still sounds completely and utterly wrong and evil to me. Also, on the whole searching MeFi thing: One of the reasons we started MoFi was because we wanted a voice. There are still some discussions over at MeFi that I would love to join in. I think it would be a shame if we couldn't do that by extension.
• Spooky - Most animals, especially wild ones, die in unnecesarilly brutal ways. That's the way of nature. And it's extremely arrogant and selfish from us to try to impose our personal moral beliefs over animals, that includes other humans. If someone doesn't want to hurt animals or eat meat fine with me. The reason we impose laws regarding human rights is only to prevent humans from hurting other humans and eventually bring civilization as we know it to an end. But we are even allowed by law to kill humans and go to war for just causes if neccesary (no, invading Irak was not neccesary, I believe.) We also must protect the environment for the same reasons, But it is futile to try preserve the environment as if it were our own garden being there just for our amusement. Animals and plants will die and go extinct eventually (including us) for whatever reason, natural or unnatural, get over it. Sorry about the rant. It won't happen again soon.
• About MefiFiltering, I didn't say you can't do it. I actually have no voice over policy here. our Monkey Queen is the one who has the last word. I just say that we shouldn't abuse of Mefi and become a mirror of it. One of the purposes of Mofi is also to post links of our own. And if we want to continue a MeFi thread we should link to it, as a courtesy.
• I admire their general aims often as not (cruelty need not be a part of eating, or experimentation), but - like many organzations, they feel that the louder they yell, or the more extravagant they can be, the more their PoV will be heard. This is a viewpoint not entirely alien to we Metafilter readers, now is it? :) Contrary to the oft held maxim (and let's be honest, oft-held maxims are mostly horseshit), there is such a thing as bad publicity. That said, anyone who shoves a flier in my son's face with a dead rabbit on it gets that flier back. Quickly and firmly. And perhaps via their ass. It's one thing is someone has a problem with what I do,say or am - but my three-year-old has no concept of such things, and if someone who has a problem with me brings him into it, I get less pleasant. By like an order of magnitude or two.
• After all, Ghandi beat the British with a soft voice; Martin Luther King with nonviolence and force of will. PETA needs to give ugly pictures to children? Strength of heart and the weight of rightness need only speak in a whisper, and millions will see the truth of their words. Liars, salesmen and demogogues scream to the heavens, over things as meaningless as the price of peas.
• Great comments Fes.
• I want to be serious and talk about how the PETA people are going to do damage to children. I want to ask if anyone else thinks you could sue PETA for more money than God has if they actually handed one of these to your child. But, I can't stop laughing at the Wang Center.
• Strength of heart and the weight of rightness need only speak in a whisper, and millions will see the truth of their words. Liars, salesmen and demogogues scream to the heavens, over things as meaningless as the price of peas. Fes, our words don't carry truths or falsities, just beliefs. When those beliefs match with what we can observe and meassure in reality we can speak of objetivity, but never of truth. Besides, nothing is meaningless for the ear that listens. Not that I don't agree with you that we should be more "humane" in our treatment of animals. But it is, indeed, just a belief.
• The best way to become more humane in our treatment of animals is to first become more humane in our treatment of other people. Freaking out little kids with gruesome pictures is hardly the way to go about teaching compassion. Great job, PETA. Only they could make saving bunnies controversial.
• Strength of heart and the weight of rightness need only speak in a whisper, and millions will see the truth of their words. Liars, salesmen and demogogues scream to the heavens, over things as meaningless as the price of peas. I myself am very very angry about the price of peas. Psst
• What ever happened to throwing blood on fur wearers? Did that ever really happen?
• Any publicity for PETA seems to be good publicity, as far as they're concerned. The campaign I remember best is the one to rename the Green Bay Packers.
• Most animals, especially wild ones, die in unncesarilly brutal ways. True, sometimes they do, but I've yet to see lions round of thousands of wildebeasts and killing them. Animals dying horrible deaths in the wild doesn't justify raising them for slaughter. it's extremely arrogant and selfish from us to try to impose our personal moral beliefs over animals, that includes other humans. Like it or not, eating meat effects vegetarians. Huge herds of livestock create huge amounts of manure which often ends up in the water table, which then needs to be treated. More meat = more heart disease, which means the veggies
• But it is futile to try preserve the environment as if it were our own garden being there just for our amusement. There
• Warning - long response to Spooky ahead... True, sometimes they do, but I've yet to see lions round of thousands of wildebeasts and killing them. Well, big meanie predators are the minority of animals who could probably live to die elderly. And yet most of them don't reach maturity. Dying horribly doesn't mean being killed by savage beasts only. I think dying of starvation and cold or in a fire is horrible enough. Animals dying horrible deaths in the wild doesn't justify raising them for slaughter There's no justification for animals dying or living at all. Again, that includes us. "Slaughter" is a word that originally didn't have that terrible connotation we put on it today. I'm all for painless death. And I think the only ones that really suffer when a cow dies for giving me meat are vegetarians. Cows don't turn angsty in their youth knowing they are going to die. Only humans anf few other animals are really aware of their ultimate destiny. Like it or not, eating meat effects vegetarians... I follow you argument and I used it myself sometimes. The problem is that we could use it to perfectly argue the opposite. Everything has secundary effects, and we should take in account both bad and good consecuences. I'm sorry that we meat eaters cause you trouble. And we should try to minize it. Yet you can't expect us to sacrifice meat eating just because it causes you some grievances. There won't be a tax-reduction just for it to begin with. Aside, those are not arguments that have much to do with morals so it really doesn't counter what I said about imposing your morals on others. There
• the only ones that really suffer when a cow dies for giving me meat are vegetarians. It's true that cattle don't worry about their future, but they can still feel pain. Cattle are skinned alove, live hogs are lowered into boiling water (to soften them for easier skinning), chickens have their beaks cut off, just the transportation of livestock typically results in enormous amounts of broken limbs and deaths. More importantly, I agree that there really is no justification for life and I agree completely that imposing your own morals on someone else is both arrogant and selfish. For those reasons I've never seen the "meat or veggie" debate as a moral discussions but a practical one. Meat production is a investment of time, money and materials and to date the only defenses of it I've heard are variations on the themes of 1)People have always eaten meat, it part of our culture and diet or 2)It's yummy. Both are subjective arguments. To me, that means someone else is doing what we've both agreed is wrong, imposing their own beliefs on me, and even worse, imposing their beliefs when I feel I have a rational argument as to why those beliefs are harmful to both them, myself, and the environment.
• Speaking of the environment, I don't think we should completely avoid touching or using it in any way, just that we could definately improve our efficency. Humanity should try to minimize their enviromental impact just as a good hiker would. Certainly species are going die off whether we have anything to do with it our not, but there is no need to hasten that process, as humans are in a unique position to do. Your average bear doesn't have to worry where he shits in the woods, but bears have natural checks on their growth (seasonal availabilty of food and the like). We homo sapiens have used our big brains to circumvent those natural bars to growth and because of that cannot simply rely on nature to curb our population when it gets out of hand. Therefore, for practical not moral reasons, we need to examine our impact on the enviroment and judge whether our actions are sustainable, and from what I've seen the meat industry doesn't meet that criteria.
• To me, that means someone else is doing what we've both agreed is wrong, imposing their own beliefs on me, and even worse, imposing their beliefs when I feel I have a rational argument as to why those beliefs are harmful to both them, myself, and the environment. If that's so. And you really feel threatened by meat-eaters then you must do something to change things. But be ethical and don't go using childrens innocence as the PETA bastards do. On the environment issue we basically agree so there's no need to discuss that anymore. Cheers spooky!
• Tea brush mink.
• In an interesting spot of internet recycling, the above link is not exactly a 404, but has been reused to be about how Federal authorities arrest 60 aliens around New England. Check in with thread again in a few years and see what story we're featuring now!
• Huh. This was the Last Straw that caused me to quit PETA, back then. I must admit I've taken their "Got Beer?" campaign to heart, though.
• PETA shoots it stupid mouth off again.
• While reluctant to get (back) into this age-old argument, here I go. Mankind's favorite pass-time is cruelty to animals. We hunt them, farm them, shoot them, hook them, work them, cage them, dissect them, wear them, and many of us (myself included) eat them. So be careful if you are taking the alleged high ground, PETA friends. Our two eyes face forward not sideways so that we can be effective predators of flesh, not hunters of cabbages and apples. When animals are used for our entertainment, we far too often injure them or kill them. Water in the aquarium a bit to acidic? Dead fishies. Too many unwanted doggies at the pound? "Put them down". Horse breaks a leg, or cow can no longer produce milk, or there are excess deer in Wisconsin? Kill them. That's what we do. Aside from adults that still believe in Santa Claus, we all know this and accept it (albeit with profound sadness sometimes). It is only the tree-hugging irrational idiots at PETA that cannot grow up and face the reality that they are of a species that survived and prospered by exploiting other living species, a tradition that nature continues to exhibit with millions of examples each and every day. Now, anyone who has read the drivel I have posted here over the years will have caught on to my being an animal lover. I have three dogs, a cat and two parrots, and a long history of providing a home to beloved critters who have passed on. I worked for many years as a volunteer finding homes for retiring racing greyhounds, and sent hundreds of great dogs out to great families. But, folks, accept this: You are an animal. Don't be embarrassed to act like one. A majority of you will eat other animals without guilt, evolution has set you up to do so. Those of you that farm will sometimes use animals to do work for you, or you will take pleasure in riding a horse or watching a border collie herd sheep. On the other hand, those of you who are cretins or NFL superstars will train animals to do unspeakable things to each other, and you will burn in hell. So fuck you. But for the rest of us, let's not over-react to a horse breaking a leg in a horse race. They were born to run, and so they run. Some of them break down, whether on a (incredibly well-groomed and safe) race track in Kentucky, or in the wild at Chincoteague. Nature. It isn't always pretty.
• WRONG Ralph!! This is BlueHorse talkin'. The KD is a race for three year olds. This means that TBs who run in the KD are trained and run to qualify as 2 year olds. Proven fact that horse's knee bones and back vertebrae are NOT mature enough to support their own weight at speed until they are four years old. The greatest horsemen of past ages in any tradition have always waited to ride horses until they were four or five. The tradition of TB racing originated in England, and the races were run over distance--sometimes four miles--by mature horses. These horses ran into their early teens. American TBs are disposable horses. We use them and wear them out by five, and they're never heard from again as racers. Many wind up as meat. The lucky ones are recycled into show or pleasure horses, or used as breeding stock. A lot of the OTTBs (off track TBs) start out looking for a good home and get passed down into worsening situations because they have piss-poor ground manners and bad riding habits. Not fun to have a horse that wants to run everywhere and acts "cold-mouthed" and won't stop. I've re-educated several, and they make nice riding horses, but you have to hunt for the ones that are still sound. Belles might have broken down anyway at four--TB breeders are also notorious for breeding for speed, rather than for decent conformation. Theoretically, the best horses have both, but not always. We'll never know. It's just a damn shame that she didn't have a chance to grow up before she was asked to race. OTOH, Big Brown was raced lightly, and that's about as good as it gets for the KD. I love TB racing, but it is my firm belief that the KD should not be run by 3 year olds.
• Ralph, I'm not sure I see the difference between "they were born to run, and so they run" and, for example, "these beagles were bred to be experimented upon, so we force them to smoke to test the effects of different types of tobacco". I'm not against horse racing per se, but there are some races (the British Grand National, for example) that seem to me excessively dangerous for the horses. GramMa's explanation on the KD is interesting: 3 years seems very young for a race of this intensity.
• The wild horses I have seen run competitively, challenging each other, for the fun of it. On rocks. And they don't wait until they are four years old to start.
• ...without people on their backs whipping them and pushing them in ways they don't want to be pushed, Ralph. I didn't think i would pipe up in this thread, but I was truly appalled that they had to put that filly down on the track, and that this weakness seems to be a new desirable breeding trait, i.e. if this continues, she won't be the last.

  "There are problems coming to light more than ever — problems related to breeding," said Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society president. "Breeding too many horses, and waiting for someone else to clean up the problem. And breeding them for body characteristics that make these animals vulnerable to breakdowns, especially those spindly legs on top of these stout torsos." Dr. Larry Bramlage, the on-call veterinarian at Churchill Downs during the Derby, acknowledged there was merit to that argument. He suggested there should be more financial incentives for horses who display longevity, rather than just the ability to come up big in one huge race. "The value of a horse is no longer related to how much he can win on the racetrack," Bramlage said. "It's related to how likely he can get you to one of those events. The breed creeps toward a faster and faster individual, but that individual may be brilliant because they have a lighter skeleton. We're inadvertently selecting for the wrong thing." from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? f=/n/a/2008/05/05/sports/s081710D48.DTL

• PETA is best ignored. Aren't there any sane and rational animal rights groups? That being said, my niece who works closely with horses in the TB racing circuit tells me the horses are routinely mistreated in the drive for wins and the resulting $$$.
• What exactly did PETA say that was stupid or insane (in connection with this incident)? I haven't figured that part out yet. From the link that Koko provided, it appears that part of PETA's statement, "Despite the wealth associated with thoroughbred racing... it’s a dirty business and no better than dogfighting" was the crux of their "stupidity". I assume the pictures on the link were meant to show how much better TB racing is, as compared to dog fighting. I'm not an expert on either, but I'm not so certain that I'm going to be so easily swayed by simple conjecture. Based on the above comments, I would gather to say that everyone has some valid points. I'm just still curious...
• Injured Horses You Didn’t See Eight Belles was the unfortunate talk of the nation after collapsing past the wire in the Kentucky Derby. But the ill-fated filly was not the only thoroughbred whose career took an abrupt and ugly turn on the first Saturday in May — she just happened to be the only one whose death was witnessed by millions of people... There were 15 horses at 39 North American tracks who failed to finish a race Saturday.
• sugarmilktea's link makes my point, and Gramma, I'm neither defending nor attacking thoroughbred racing, I'm just saying that if you support it, you've got to accept the bad with the good. You say "I love TB racing, but..." and it is hard to come up with anything after the "but" without supporting the inherent cruelties of the sport. As for three year olds versus older horses, let's take the magnificent Holy Bull as a case study. Impeccably bred, Holy Bull ran four races and won four races as a two year old. He won 8 of ten the next year, but in year 4 he was tragically injured (on national television, not that it matters) in the Donn Handicap. He's at stud now, and is generally considered on of the top racehorses of the last century. To say that Holy Bull was improperly bred (hence his injury) is to say that every thoroughbred champ of the last 100 years was likewise a creature of unethical genetics. Now, one can make that argument and I won't quibble, but you can't come back and then say that you love thoroughbreds and the sport that they are featured in. Breeding to achieve perfection always brings with it side effects, just look at the canine world for a few hundred examples. Enough from me.