I just think it’s so ironic that Pamela Anderson is protesting cruelty to animals when the hair dye, the saline implants, the acrylic nails, the fake tan, and the cosmetics were all most likely tested on animals, but she’s not giving those up, is she? Twit.
Exactly. So highlighting the cruelty issue to consumers is just the perfect thing to do then, isn’t it?
Maybe not. But it is my goal and for now I find my interests aligned with hers. Actually, like silentgoldfish, I’d like to see cage rearing banned altogether.
I still eat free-range chicken, however. At that point, our interests diverge. But I’d like to see Pam get consumers behind a campaign to stop free-range rearing. Whilst consumers will react with disgust to see battery hens, they will react with a shrug to chickens in fields. And that’s the beauty of consumer education. You give consumers the information and they get to choose for themselves. Pam isn’t chaining herself to KFC, nor is she bombing chicken farms – she’s giving people information. That can only be a good thing.
pan
Of course they would–or were you not paying attention to their successful Burger King campaign?
I’ll issue the same challenge in this thread that I issue is every other PETA thread: do a search on SDMB threads about PETA, and then do a search on SDMB threads about any other nonprofit in existence, your choice. I bet you’ll find that PETA’s obnoxious, outre, over-the-top tactics get them discussed more than any other nonprofit out there, which is pretty much their goal. Decide whether you want to support their goal.
Daniel
I find it ironic that someone would make statements about what somebody else does without knowing whether what they are saying is true or not. No, wait, that isn’t irony is it? Sorry – stupid, that’s what it is. I find it stupid that someone would make statements like yours accusing someone of something without knowing whether it is true or not.
For the record, if Pam is a avowed animal-lover, I find it extremely unlikely that she would be using cosmetics that have been tested on animals. There are plenty of alternatives that are not tested on animals. Why do you assume that she is so hypocritical? What evidence do you have to make such an accusation?
Or are you attempting to wiggle out of it with your “most likely” clause? Twit.
pan
I’m sure tofu is not the mile most consumers want, so it won’t happen. Many of us would be happier if battery farms were outlawed though.
If I’m going to encourage changes in chicken cages either with my money or by calling up Congress-critters, it will be based on objective facts and not the ethical opinions of Pamela Anderson.
As long as she’s giving only fair, objective, factual information. If she’s parroting PETA propoganda, then it’s not a ‘good thing’, or if her information is exaggerated or embellished in any way, then it’s not really ‘information’ and not really good.
The only thing PETA’s obnoxious tactics get me to talk about wrt PETA is how fucking insane they are. I definitely would never trust them.
There is no type of sugery I’ve ever heard of that wasn’t first attempted on an animal. The very practice of surgery would probably not exist without animal testing.
Wonder if Pam takes medication for her Hepatitis.
And if it can be demonstrably shown which actions are actual cruelty to chickens we eat and use for eggs, as well as real research into what it would take to make the life of an egg-layer or broiler chicken humane, I’ll base a decision on what the law regarding treatment of chickens should be.
My opinion will be based on facts, though, not Pamela Anderson’s ethics.
Well I can’t say I take Blondies opinion on anything but it doesn’t take silicon tits to know that chickens are happier if the can MOVE. Battery farming does not allow the bird to move freely. Your idea of humane may be different from mine but mine includes wandering about pecking as you go (if I were a chicken that is).
Shit it is not as if any one wants to adopt a chicken and take it home and wrap in blankies. If the ultimate end is the chop shop would it hurt to make the few weeks they are alive a bit more pleasant? Does the dollar make anything alright? Yes it would cost more to treat chickens humanly but it wouldn’t kill us? Still just the chickens we are going to eat.
The poster in question wasn’t talking about medication or sugery. They were talking about cosmetics, specifically because it was seen as ironic that someone would be against cruelty in chicken rearing but accept it in animal testing.
When it comes to medical benefits, you are talking about animal suffering being used to cure human suffering. I have no idea what Pameal Anderson’s stance on this would be but it would be neither ironic nor hypocritical for her to reluctantly accept it.
A repeated theme in your post. Who is asking you to base anything on her ethics? Her ethical considerations have caused her to highlight an issue, which we are now discussing. At the very least, you previously seemed to be unaware of the prevalence and nature of battery hen farming. You are now informed on the issue. So there has been a success that has derived from her campaign.
And if you wish to follow up this initial information to learn more, from where will you obtain the information if not from exactly those campaign groups that are seeking to publicise the issue?
pan
I said most likely because I don’t know the actual brands she uses. But as catsix said, the implants, as they are implanted via surgical procedure, have definitely been tested on animals.
Animal testing is very widespread, and many companies that advertise animal cruelty free products are leaving out the fact that they mean only that particular product, but still carry on with testing other products on animals. They also sometimes test the individual ingredients, and then claim that the product wasn’t.
Some links for you:
Sleight of hand. You have proved nothing.
As regards the implants, when did she get them done? And when did she become interested in animal rights? Is the former later than the latter? If you can’t show this, you are making accusations with no substance.
As regards the cosmetics: she is apparently affiliated to PETA in some way. What makes you so certain that she uses cosmetics not approved by PETA? Do you have any evidence of this? If not, you are making accusations with no substance.
Jeez, I never thought that I’d find myself defending Pamela smegging Anderson.
pan
Memo from P.J. O’Rourke to Biffy: That’s kind of the point of the joke, y’know?
By the way, I prefer free range meat and eggs because the quality is so much better than the alternative. I knew about this long before I ever heard about PETA.
Well, ignoring that you seem to be trying to wiggle out of your previous statement, I do want to address this particular link.
That list is out of date. One of the companies listed is Elizabeth Arden which freely admits that they USED to do animal testing. Being that the company was formed in about 1910, I’m not that surprised. However, they are quite vocal about the fact that they no longer do animal testing. I would be willing to bet that there are other companies on that list that have also changed their policies.
Not that this directly relates to the OP, but I did want to point it out.
As to if Pam Anderson uses any products tested on or made with animal byproducts - I think it would be absurd to suggest that she does - there are so many animal friendly choices available these days it’s foolish for anyone to use a non-animal friendly product.
Finally, catsix, are you suggesting that Pam shouldn’t take medications for her HepC, because she doesn’t want chickens to be kept in teeny-tiny cages? Cus if so, that’s a pretty stupid opinion.
She had them done early in her career, claimed they were removed in 1999, but were most likely just downsized. Whether she did remove them then or not is beside the point though, because she had even larger ones installed in 2002. Recent photos.
I can’t find the exact date she became a PETA spokesperson, but it has been since about '99/00. I did find her at PETA’s 1999 party receiving an award for animal rights. She also co-hosted their annual party the next year.
I never said I am certain, please don’t put words in my mouth. I would be surprised if she didn’t because it is so widespread. I need sleep right now, so my continuing search for what products she uses (no luck so far) will have to wait. And you think you’re surprised at having to defend her, I never thought someone would argue with me over her breast implants being animal tested!
alice_in_wonderland
Do you have a cite for that? I am still seeing them on lists under their parent company Unilever. The lists typically do include parent companies that do unnecessary testing on animals with their other products (testing not required by law, but for protection in case of lawsuits).
For the record, I’m not saying that breast implantation surgery wasn’t tested on animals. I’m well aware of the rather horrible track record in that regard. I’m suggesting that Pam may well have had them done either before she became such an “eco-warrior” or before she herself realised that this was so.
Of course, she may also just not equate the use of an established technology that was developed as a by-product of transplantation surgery generally with the present-day suffering of animals in battery farms. This would put her on decidedly shakier ground (as that byproduct still needed further suffering) but still isn’t completely inconsistent.
And none of it is at all relevant to the message, which is that these farming practices are common and unpleasant. She could be grinding baby chicks under her stilettos in an agony of hypocrisy and it still wouldn’t make that message any less true.
pan
Amusing, but desperate. It doesn’t actually deal with any of the objections I’ve raised, namely:
- Actions taken in ignorance cannot be hypocritical
- Actions taken prior to taking on a particular belief cannot be hypocritical
- Although A may have a relationship to B, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the factors that lead you to reject A will also lead you to reject B
- The message is independent of the messenger. Ad hominum attacks are frequently amusing but not relevant to the debate.
The first three are a criticism of that site, incidentally. The fourth is just to bring this discussion back on track.
pan
I pretty much gave up eating chicken a few years back. I had the opportunity to have a walk around a chicken shed. That was it for me. I did not want anything to do with the product that came out of that *stinking * (and it really stinks) hell hole. I am still happy to eat free range produce, and I would happily own and kill chickens for myself, were that possible.
I am pretty supportive of any method of giving us information about the implication of our actions and our consumptions. Even if some of that information has a bias. At least it opens the opportunity to debate its merits. That applies equally to workplace conditions in developing, and indeed our own, countries. If it takes Pammy to start the debate, I am with her all the way.
Calling people who disagree with you felons isn’t “giving people information.” Her exact quote was “If KFC executives treated cats or dogs the way they treat chickens, they could go to prison on felony cruelty-to-animals charges.” (Underlining mine.) KFC executives don’t treat chickens at all (although, lacking evidence to the contrary, one would assume they treat cats and dogs kindly). The event to which she referred was a specific case of direct animal abuse by eleven individuals who were subsequently fired. Anderson’s claim that KFC executives were guilty of cruelty themselves was simply irresponsible, albeit right in sync with the tactics of PeTA.
Pamela Anderson appears to be one of a growing group of people who are influenced by the silly notion that chickens, as depicted in a popular movie Chicken Run, think and experience human emotions. I’ve even heard free range chickens referred to as “happy,” the assumption being that those in cages are “unhappy.” Has anyone ever demonstrated that a chicken is capable of either emotion, or any emotion at all? Don’t cite “fear,” since that is not an emotion as applied to animals, but a “fight or flight” response.
The whole debate aroused here about the ethics of small vs large cages and other animal issues is very interesting, but not really discussing the OP, which took Anderson to task for equating KFC executives with felons.
Given taht chickens have neurological systems relevantly similar to our own, form attachments to one another and to creatures of other species, and display altruistic attitudes toward their young, why WOULDN’T happiness be one of their neurological functions? I’m not saying a chicken will ever know the contentment of having read a Russian masterpiece, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a chicken’s preferences, when satisfied, lead to a condition properly called happiness, and a chicken’s preferences, when thwarted, lead to a condition properly called unhappiness, or suffering.
Daniel
Please! I’ll take them one at a time:
-
“have neurological systems relevantly similar to our own. . .”: relevantly less complex than our own. Lobsters have nervous systems, too, but scientists tell us they don’t “feel pain” when dunked into boiling water. The systems are relevantly similar only in that they are made up of neurons and synapses. A pain center in a lobster and a thinking ability in a chicken are entirely lacking.
-
“form attachments to each other. . .”: That is instinctual behavior, not a sign of cognition.
-
“. . .and to creatures of other species.”: It’s called imprinting, and the fact that a condor chick (with a relatively larger brain than a chicken) can be made to think a human hand in a rubber condor sock puppet is its mother would seem to indicate that thought and emotion have nothing to do with the attachment.
-
“and display altruistic attitudes toward their young. . .”: They display nothing more than an instinctual survival mechanism. Altruism is the product of advanced cognition, not instinct.
No matter how cute the critters in Chicken Run were, Daniel, chickens don’t reason. Even the ones you’ve no doubt seen pecking on a toy piano or dunking a miniature basketball do not appreaciate music or sport. They’ve just been conditioned in a purely Pavlovian sense to relate an action with the delivery of food. Thinking has nothing to do with it.
I’m going to lunch now. Think I’ll have a nice breast of chicken in marsala sauce. Mmmmmm!