The Latest PETA Stunt

Great Debates
61

RTFirefly,

Regarding your argument about corporations being the source of animal abuse: there is definitely some logic in what you say. But have you considered a counterbalancing point? That corporations are easier to influence, and are more sensitive to public opinions? I would suggest that this makes corporations less likely to engage in egregous animal abuse, and makes this abuse easier to correct. As evidence, I point to the problem of “puppy mills” which are typically small businesses. It’ alot easier to go after McDonalds

62

I know this may come as a shock to you, but advertising is a HUGE portion of most company’s budgets. And without Mickey D’s pitching its ads, we wouldn’t have a lot of nice things. For instance, you buy a t.v., you get some rabbit ears, you plug it in. You get Will & Grace, for free. Why?

You go to a ballgame and watch Ken Griffey Jr. crack a homerun. Guess where a big portion of his salary came from? Advertising revenue.

Besides, “burnishing its image in a most general way” is a pretty vague concept. Besides being a basically un-American concept, it would never pass the Supreme Court muster.

63

“Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to manipulate public opinion”?

Oh, please.

Is PETA a person, or an organization…a not-for-profit corporation? If McDonalds can’t advertise, then how can we allow PETA to advertise? A corporation or organization is merely a group of like-minded people who pool resources in order to achieve some goal…making money, convincing people to treat animals ethically, whatever.

If my friends and I want to get together and put up ads supporting Miles Vorkosigan for president, what does it matter if we also sell hamburgers together?

Perhaps what you’re really against is the concept of limited liability that corporations represent. If I buy stock in Microsoft, and Microsoft goes bankrupt I can only lose up to the value of my Microsoft stock. Maybe you think stockholders should be personally liable for all of a corporation’s debts. Maybe so, maybe not.

Or perhaps you are concerned that corporations do things that are wrong. No, individual humans do things that are wrong. Ford Motor Company cannot lie to congress about defective tires, only human beings can do that…lawyers, spokesmen, exectives can lie to congress about defective tires, corporations cannot. If someone commits fraud, or perjury, or whatever, they can go to jail, regardless of whether they did it for a corporation or not.

Your arguments have no merit.

64

In my past post, I mentioned that I was irritated enough to write an email to the PETA. Well here is their reply!!:

"
----- Original Message -----
From: <AlisonG@PETA-Online.org>
To: <matthew_ellis@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: your Mayor Guilliane Ad
> I’m sorry to hear you disliked PETA’s anti-milk ad. It certainly wasn’t
> intended to cause any offense to Mayor Giuliani, who has our sympathy and
> best wishes for recovery. Rather, our ad is intended to call attention to
> the problem and encourage others to take steps to minimize their own risk of
> the disease.
>
> Many of us here at PETA have lost loved ones to cancer; in fact, PETA’s
> president, Ingrid Newkirk, lost her father to prostate cancer earlier this
> year. We wish someone had warned them how many cancer deaths are linked to
> diet–two-thirds, according to the U.S. Surgeon General–back before they
> started on the nutritional paths that ultimately took their lives. Mayor
> Giuliani’s illness has a chance of alerting others and becoming a
> life-saving instead of a life-threatening experience. After all, 180,000
> more men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year, and more than
> 30,000 of them will die from it. They and their families deserve to have
> the facts.
>
> Scientists who study the issue now believe that milk consumption is a major
> risk factor for prostate cancer. According to the World Cancer Research
> Fund, eleven separate human population studies have tied dairy consumption
> to prostate cancer. Results of the landmark Physicians’ Health Study of
> 20,885 doctors showed that men who consumed at least 2-1/2 servings of dairy
> foods (about a bowl of ice cream) daily were about 30 percent more likely to
> develop prostate cancer than men who averaged less than half a serving a
> day. The Health Professionals Follow-up Study found that men who consumed
> high amounts of dairy products had a 70 percent increased risk of prostate
> cancer.
>
> The widespread media interest in the ad–including coverage by The Today
> Show, MSNBC, CNN, Fox National News, Court TV, and every major U.S.
> newspaper, as well as more than 50 radio interviews (many an hour or
> longer)–allowed us to tell people about the downside of dairy, something
> that, until then, many people had heard little about. We reached millions
> of people, most of whom were unaware that cows are kept pregnant to keep
> milk production high and their male calves are taken away at 1 to 2 days old
> and chained inside cramped dark crates to be killed for veal. We were also
> able to let them know that more and more doctors and nutritionists are
> recommending that we banish milk from our diets altogether, because milk has
> been linked not only to prostate cancer, but also to breast cancer,
> diabetes, heart disease, allergies, asthma, and even osteoporosis, the very
> disease it’s supposed to prevent. Since the ad appeared, we’ve been flooded
> with calls and letters from people requesting more information, and tens of
> thousands of new visitors have read the research posted at PETA’s anti-dairy
> Web site (www.DumpDairy.com).
>
> Because PETA doesn’t have the multimillion dollar advertising budget of the
> dairy industry, we have to rely on attention-grabbing, often provocative
> means to get the word out. Putting a public figure like Mayor Giuliani (who
> has spoken very publicly about his cancer and has promoted dairy on
> television) on the billboard drew more attention to the problems with dairy
> than an anonymous face ever would have.
>
> PETA is constantly looking for new ideas on how to get our message out in
> this tabloid era. If you have an idea that would reach as many people,
> please don’t hesitate to share it with us!
>
> Thanks for giving us the opportunity us to respond to your concerns.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alison Green
> Correspondent
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew Ellis [SMTP:matthew_ellis@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 4:19 AM
> > To: info@peta-online.org
> > Subject: RE: your Mayor Guilliane Ad
> >
> > Pretty low shooting if you ask me, to take advantage of someone’s illness
> > like that in a way designed to further hurt and humiliate the man.
> >
> > I don’t see how this furthers your cause, whatever that might be, as I
> > feel only disgust for you now, and can no longer approach your discussions
> > without an inital bias towards you based on your advertising approachs.
> >
> > Sad …
> >
> > Matthew Ellis
> >
Thought that it might be interesting

65

Guinastasia wrote:

Chicken hens will peck at each other if they are kept in close quarters. They peck at each other to give themselves some elbow room, and are too stupid to realize that the other chicken can’t move out of the way.

“Free-range” chickens do not have to be de-beaked because they already have a comfortable amount of maneuvering room. Only chickens living in cramped “factory farms” need to be de-beaked, so that they won’t injure their neighbors through the spaces between the bars in their cages.

An alternative to de-beaking might be to put the chickens in solid-walled cells rather than wire cages, so that they would be shielded from their neighbors’ beaks. This would allow the chicken/egg factory farms to keep using their limited space as efficiently as they do now.