Unhappy Meals

The BBQ Pit
101

Let me pick out a few things I would like clarificaiton on. I have the luxury of doing this because I was gone when this whole mess started.

So, if they don’t advocate it, then they would obviously permanently kick out any activist that did that from their organization, true? And they would issue a press release for each paint-throwing, research lab break-in, etc. stating that they not only do not support the action, that they condemn it and find it reprehensible?

I was going to rake you with this, but since everyone else is calling you names as well then I’d say it evens out.

Marvel Comics reference. Hmmm…

No, you are in the wrong about this one. The point was the method of the information dissemination to children. Protesters outside of Mc Donalds approaching children and handing them out information without the consent of their parents is the issue. Until the Supreme Court says that people on the street and in public have the right to suprecede the rights of parents in this area, PETA needs to stay the hell away from people’s kids.

Ronald Mc Donald is not being represented by people who throw soy pies in Government officials faces, blood or paint on women, or people who break into laboratories and set animals loose, or send death threats to fast food executives. And note I did not say PETA specifically does or endorses these actions, so I am looking for the statement on their website to say they condemn all these actions. Can’t seem to find it though. Please provide a link.

In what way exactly? Please define what exactly your right to educate me about a fur coat entails. Tell me exactly what right you do have, and how it can legally be exercised. Is it throwing blood or paint on coats (I know you will provide me with the link where PETA condemns this action, right?) What is YOUR right to educate me? What court decision does it derive from? Please cite.

Perhaps that is how it appears to you, what I see is a bunch of anti-PETA threads.

That sounds like a libelous thing to do, and given how quickly you jumped on people who you thought were involving your wife in this debate I’m certain that you have a case pending against the affiliate. Right?

If PETA existed much earlier on, and had had it’s way regarding animal research, I would likely be dead as a result of not having insulin. I brought this up once before in a debate, to which I was told by a PETA member “hey, it’s nature’s way girl. Natural selection works.”

None of this has anything to do with vegetarians. And so you don’t think I’m part of a big Hate PETA conspiracy, know this - I treat them like Jehovah’s witnesses. I like them just fine, and don’t criticize their beliefs, until they come to my door and start telling me how stupid/bad/evil I am.

102

From what has been said on this thread, & what I have heard when approached by PETA members handing out literature; I can only conclude that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals organisation actually regard the lives of labratory rats as being equal or superior in value to the lives of ill Humans who might be saved by the treatments developed from animal research.

No pro-PETA posters have said anything that persuades me that this is not the actual position held by at least the leadership of PETA, if not the majority of it’s members.

This doctrine reflects a misanthropy, a hatred of one’s fellow Man , that is both disturbing & repellant.

The only ethical postion is to condemn anything that leads to an untimely loss of Human life as abborhant. Any other view is a moral evil.

If this is not the position that PETA wishes to advocate, or appear to advocate; then, perhaps, PETA’s tactics need to change.

103

I’m new to this debate, BUT I don’t recall ever sitting anywhere, in any place, public or private and having a pound of raw ground chuck shoved in my face. I went to one of the McDonald’s restaurants targeted by certain members of PETA, however, and was handed a lovely little goody bag with the aforementioned bloody clown, dead animals, etc.
Well, hey! I have this thing, it’s an interesting attribute, really, called free will. You see, it allows me to formulate my own opinions on different subjects. It’s really quite neat. Oh, and guess what… that newfangled development known as free will allows me to decide to eat meat no matter what anyone says or does to me… could you respect my free will just as I respect your freedom of speech?

NOTE that I did not say that PETA was evil/bad/wrong/should be outlawed in this post. They have just as much of a right to try and convince me that meat is wrong as I have a right to ignore them.

104

jodih:

I don’t have a link to the thread (it was Novemeber or something), but a rough paraphrase would be, “Poor little Phil getting his feelings hurt? I don’t even think that’s possible.” It sure read like a potshot.

Hey, I hold grudges. I’m not going to apologize for that.

Of course not. I had stopped posting, and I don’t believe you do (or did) have an e-mail address available, and I saw it as rather futile. But I didn’t forget you said it.

No, the point is I can only remain good-natured in the face of a certain amount of anti-PETA and anti-vegetarian bullshit, and I’d seen quite enough.

Yes, well, the vast majority of PETA’s work consists of letter-writing campaigns, lobbying at the local, state and national levels, petitions, distribition of literature, initiating lawsuits, filing amicus briefs, etc. But that stuff doesn’t get on the nightly news. You never hear about the successful lawsuits against animal abusers; you only hear about “those kooks at PETA.” Well, they have to get people’s attention somehow. Again, I blame the media for a large part of this.

Anthracite:

(Why on earth would they issue a press release condemning an action not committed by their organization?)
In any case, does your church permanently kick out all sinners? Obviously, they should. Right? They don’t? Why not?

Not PETA. SOme other organization, I believe.

DEFINITELY not PETA. And I find such behavior reprehensible.

ALF. Not PETA. And I find such freeings more harmful than helpful for several reasons which I won’t elaborate on at the moment.

You’re the one (along with pepperlandgirl) claiming or insinuating that they DO engage in and advocate these activities. YOU prove it. It isn’t my claim. I’m a member, and I think I know damn well what they do and don’t advocate. Until you can prove otherwise, I’ll rest assured in the knowledge that I am correct.

Asking you if you’d like literature concerning fur farming and harvesting. Writing letters to businesses urging them not to sell furs. Writing letters to the local newspaper condemning their annual “Fur is back!” articles in the fashion sections.

Are you going to continue with this red herring for very long? I have several appointments. If you can’t prove your claim that PETA advocates or engages in this as an organization, drop it.

You wait for the courts to tell you what you can and can’t do before you do things? What a loser! Absent any specific law stating, “Citizens may not provide each other with information concerning fur farming practices,” I think I’m pretty safe. He thinks his rights come from court cases–whoo! Da svedanya, comrade!

I have neither the time, the money nor the inclination to pursue such a suit. The newscaster in question contacted my wife after a phone call by her to the station, I assume for an apology, but she was unable to connect with him again and decided to let it go. If you’re claiming it never happened, I have it on videotape, so don’t go there.

Tricor:

Gee, thanks for figuring out the end of ethics. We can all go home now. :rolleyes:

Hey, can you quickly define “untimely” for me? Exactly how much time are we all allotted? I’d like to know so I can make some travel plans.

Tiggeril:

Why on earth did you take it? Don’t you have free will?

105

Untimely----before medical science can prevent the death.
Wassamatter, Pleddy? When somebody (besides yourself) advocates a moral position, all you can do is get snide, stupid , & shitty?

By the way–wouldn’t copying Ronald McDonald & covering them with blood be a violation of copyright laws? Theft of intellectual property?

106

PETA is up to more foolishness. check out this link
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2000/06/26/packers/index.html

107

I’m in Colorado, and there are a number of pro-life types who have been picketing on the streed in front of a doctor’s (who performs abortions) house every Saturday (for at least a year now), waving signs calling him a murderer, showing huge, glossy posters of bloody fetuses, and harrassing the kids in the neighborhood (screaming that there’s a murderer living in the neighborhood, shoving jars filled with (alleged) preserved fetuses in their face, and so on). Most kids in this neighborhood have taken to staying inside on Saturdays.

These loons claim exactly the same thing as you did above (people deserve to know the truth, combatting the policies of Planned Parenthood, bringing the issue of “murdering babies’ to the attention of people who wouldn’t otherwise know”).

Would it be safe assume that you’re ok with this behavior, since ‘children deserve to know how’ their father or friend’s father makes his living? I mean, if it’s ok to terrorize children for one cause, it’s ok to terrorize them to advance any cause. Especially if it’s for their own good.

If not, how are these PETA loons different from the above mentioned pro-life loons?

As far as I’m concerned, if McD’s is misrepresenting their products to children, there are two moral recourses: #1) Through the courts and/or #2) by convincing the parents to take their kids elsewhere. Terrorizing children by waving bloody images in their face is not a legit third option

Fenris

108

Fenris: Please show me a news clipping from anywhere which demonstrates that, in the course of this campaign, any single person representing PETA has “waved a bloody doll in a child’s face” or “terrorized a child” and we will proceed from there.

goboy:

They wrote a letter to someone? The horror! Stop them now, before they put pen to paper again!!! Aaaaaaaaaah!

Bosca:

So if we can keep people’s frail, wasted bodies alive on life support with no higher brain activity for 150, 200 years, is that the “only ethical postion”?

I don’t tell people that mine is the “only ethical position,” asswipe.

Hell if I know. Ask an IP lawyer. jodih, does this fall under “fair use,” in your professional opinion? Its primary purpose is noncommercial and educational.

BTW, anyone going to respond to any of Kimstu’s argument, or do you all just like throwing potshots at the easy target? I notice not a single person has bothered to take up those arguments.

Also, I apologize for referring to Anthracite as “he.” I did not check her profile first and was unaware she was not a he.

109

The bloody doll part:
http://www.meatstinks.com/mcd/boxfullbig.jpg

From Peta’s own press release:
( http://www.meatstinks.com/mcd/unhappy.html )
"PETA will distribute its new “Unhappy Meals”-colorfully illustrated boxes describing how chickens are forced to live their entire lives crammed five to a cage the size of a desk drawer and how pigs live in spaces so small that they can’t even turn around-to kids at schools and at McDonald’s restaurant playgrounds. "

Note: that the press release says “…will distribute…to kids” and not to parents.

Again, how is this different from the pro-life goons doing the same thing: using children to get their point across?

Fenris

110

I’ve read those links. Please show me where anyone has waved one in a child’s face.

111

I think you’re being disingenuous(sp) here, but…ok. Let me rewrite the end of my original post to avoid further misunderstandings.

I wrote:
I’m in Colorado, and there are a number of pro-life types who have been picketing on the streed in front of a doctor’s (who performs abortions) house every Saturday (for at least a year now), waving signs calling him a murderer, showing huge, glossy posters of bloody fetuses, and harrassing the kids in the neighborhood (screaming that there’s a murderer living in the neighborhood, shoving jars filled with (alleged) preserved fetuses in their face, and so on). Most kids in this neighborhood have taken to staying inside on Saturdays.

These loons claim exactly the same thing as you did above (people deserve to know the truth, combatting the policies of Planned Parenthood, bringing the issue of “murdering babies’ to the attention of people who wouldn’t otherwise know”).

Would it be safe assume that you’re ok with this behavior, since ‘children deserve to know how’ their father or friend’s father makes his living? I mean, if it’s ok to terrorize children for one cause, it’s ok to terrorize them to advance any cause. Especially if it’s for their own good.

If not, how are these PETA loons different from the above mentioned pro-life loons?

As far as I’m concerned, if McD’s is misrepresenting their products to children, there are two moral recourses: #1) Through the courts and/or #2) by convincing the parents to take their kids elsewhere. Terrorizing children by waving bloody images in their face is not a legit third option .

end quote…

Since your responses to this point seem stuck on that last sentence, and has ignored the rest of the post, let me rewrite that it to avoid further possible misunderstandings.

Terrorizing children by EITHER waving bloody images in their face OR surruptitiously(sp) putting graphicly bloody dolls in packaging designed to be mistaken for a toy is not a legit third option.

And no, I can’t find any PETA info claiming that they’re terrorizing children. Handing them a toy containing a bloody doll and slaughtered animal toys is de facto terrorizing.

Assuming that you’re still uncomfortable with the analogy, would you be ok if the above mentioned pro-life types were handing out “G.I. Joe” or “Barbie” (or “Care Bears” or “Winnie the Pooh” or whatever) playsets that, when opened contain anti-abortion literature, bloody fetus dolls and so forth? I wouldn’t.

Now please answer the basic question without quibbling over minor details: Do you think it acceptable for either (or any!) group giving horrific, child-inappropriate images to kids to try to make a political point is acceptable?

Fenris

112

Fenris–

Thank you for at least acknowledging that I have a point. Using phrases like “waving bloody dolls in children’s faces” creates a perception of some wild-eyed maniac running up to a small child, violently shoving something at them, and screaming epithets, and I know PETA does not advise that its activists act like that.

Anyway, I will give this some thought and respond in full later. My instant reaction is that I perceive a difference in intent and execution, but that could be a result of my own prejudices towards a pro-animal-rights and a pro-choice position, and I don’t want to answer on that basis. After I have thought it through fully, I will answer.

113

I’d like to ask Phil if he could show me a link to a PETA page that outlines exactly what their Unhappy Meal plan entails. I don’t want to make any concrete statements about the plan until I see what PETA is advocating specifically.

114

Ask and you shall receive:

http://www.meatstinks.com/mcd/unhappy.html

Keep in mind that the reason McDonald’s is being targeted is because of a long history of action between PETA and McDonald’s, most recently PETA’s winning of a libel lawsuit by McDonald’s.

115

Thanks, Phil.

Okay, the only thing I can see being a problem with PETA’s approach is that it sounds like they’ll hand them out to kids without the parents’ approval. If this is not PETA’s planned approach, then there’s no problem. They ask/hand the Unhappy Meal to the parent, who then has the option to:
[ul]
[li]refuse the box[/li][li]accept it, and discuss it with the child.[/li][/ul]

However, the page Phil linked to says they’ll be handing them out to kids, not parents. And there, I think, is where the problem lies. Most of the children who are in the Happy Meal target age are younger than 12, I’d guess. They’re not in a position to fully grasp the cruelty to animals=Happy Meal issue.

Here’s a scenario that I think might play out if the PETA activists are actually giving the their boxes directly to the kids: the kid gets the box, sees the horrible imagery in it, and decides he’ll swear off meat in general and McDonald’s specifically. It’s obvious that he comes from a family of meat-eaters, because, hey, his family’s taken him to McDonald’s. Now he comes home and tells his parents (or tells them in the McDonalds, or in the car on the way home, whatever) that he will not eat meat anymore, nad that his family shouldn’t either. The rest of his family is not interested in making a change of this manner in their eating habits. The problem that develops is this-the kid’s now stuck between not wanting to consume the meat of animals he’s been told are treated unfairly and having to skip part of a meal because his parents can’t/won’t make allowances for his new lifestyle choice. In addition, as a young person, he’s also got to face the idea that his parents may very well be monsters because they’re eating the meat of the cruelly-treated animals. I daresay the result of this will not make for a happy family situation.

I understand the point about McDonald’s and it’s prevasive advertising techniques. And I understand PETA’s desire to have the same penetration to it’s target audience, meat-eaters. But the difference is this: as an adult, I’ve already made decisions about what I’ll let my children eat and see. They’re my kids, and it’s up to me to make that decision. If I don’t change the channel every time a McDonald’s commercial comes on, if I take my kids to eat at McDonald’s, and I elect the school officials who let McD’s sponsor crap and support referendums against increasing school tax dollars, then I’ve given McDonald’s permission to advertise to my kids. I made the decision. If PETA will let me make the decision to discuss this with my kid before he sees their infromation, there’s not a problem in the world. PETA can do that all day. It’s when they take this basic parental right away that I have a problem with their methods.

So again, if PETA’s not using guerilla tactics and handing out these boxes without parental consent, jake by me (and, I’d guess, most normal parents). If they are, then I foresee problems with this plan. Big problems. If people don’t take kindly to being told what to eat, they sure as shit won’t take kindly to people telling them how to raise their kids.

116

Not some other organization–PETA.

(slithers back under Lurker’s Rock, where it’s much more comfortable…)

117

Perhaps as a way to build positive public opinion on their behalf, to distance themselves from those who commit such acts. You must admit that PETA has a serious public image problem - wrongly, or rightly. It would seem to be a logical way in which to demonstrate that they are not radicals, they are not terrorists, that they are instead educators with a good cause. So why not do it? Organizations and political parties all across the spectrum are not shy about putting forth their platform of beliefs. If PETA and it’s members believe these acts are wrong, why do they not condemn them?

You are correct - I am insinuating that these acts are implicitly supported by their lack of a strong statement against them.

I have no problem at all with these sorts of things. PETA has every right to do that, more power to 'em.

You know, I don’t think anyone gives a flying fuck about yours OR my “appointments” - like you are the only person who has a life outside of this board? It’s not a red herring. I’m looking for a firm, official clarification from PETA on where they stand on these issues. And I believe they have the same responsibility as an organization devoted to educating the public on their ideology and viewpoint as such other organizations as the NRA, NOW, the ADL, GLAD, and the ACLU. If those organizations can issue a platform statement that defines what they accept and condemn, why not PETA?

You see, this is why people don’t like you. I criticized your position, and put forth several points that you think are completely invalid. But I didn’t call you a name like “loser” or anything else. But then again, I’m just another one of those “cunts” out there, huh? You could also try “dyke” too - I don’t think you’ve used it yet. And note, I’m still not resorting to name calling. Now the main point: who’s on the red herring trail? You have a right to free speech, free press, assembly etc. by which you can attempt to educate me. But what I asked is what is YOUR “right” to educate ME if I don’t want to or don’t need to be? I’m not splitting hairs here, there is a difference. A right to educate says a you have a right to force other to listen and comprehend, not a right to TRY and force others to listen and comprehend. When people start talking about their “right” to “educate” me, it makes me think of a Hitler youth rally.

No, I didn’t claim or even insinuate it never happened. Reading is fundamental, Phil. I was honestly hoping for an interesting side rant on how someone finally was making the mass media (which I DO hate with a passion) pay for a lie. Please tell your wife (yes, I’m bringing her into this, better watch out!) that I’m truly sorry that she was called that on TV, and it is reprehensible. She surely did not deserve that, and she shouldn’t let it go. These people will keep doing it and doing it until a legal remedy forces them to think twice.

118

I’m sure I don’t know why they don’t, but they are not legally or morally obligated to do so, and to attempt to construe some sort of guilt-by-ideological-association absent their doing so is incredibly dishonest. I may as well accuse you of advocating the actions of ACT-UP!

PETA’s platform, philosophy, and guidelines/literature for activists are all available on their website. Feel free to search it on your own time. If I do not see you denounce the policies of ACT-UP!, can I assume you implicitly support them?

It was a joke. Cripes.

Again, feel free to search their website at your leisure.

Just because you and jodih don’t like me doesn’t mean “people don’t like me,” dear.

I apologized for the use of the pejorative and the apology was accepted by the target. To use it against me at this point is disingenuous.

Insinuating that I might ever use an anti-gay or anti-lesbian slur would be treading on thin ice indeed. I suggest you abandon that one posthaste.

The minute you tell me you aren’t interested, I stop. I cannot speak for any other PETA member, only myself. And if someone has continued to bother you past that point in the past, I’m sorry on their behalf.

I think you are splitting hairs a bit. I do have a right to attempt to provide you with accurate information. If you don’t want it, you don’t want it. Doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try.

Fact is, it probably isn’t actionable anyway; libel laws require some specific proof of damages and intent. In any case, it’s easily the lowest-rated news in town, and the newscaster in some question is a well-known doofus, so she let it go. All she wanted was an apology, so she called their news director. The newscaster left her a voicemail, she called back and couldn’t reach him, that was that.

119

I think I see a little better what your position is. Try to consider mine. You may not consider it necessary or required for them to do it, and in a perfect world it shouldn’t be. But please try to see where I’m coming from for a second - wouldn’t a statement like that, if that is their true belief (and I’m not implying it isn’t, I just don’t want to be putting words in their mouths) help them to get their true message to the majority of the general public out there? The average person does not think in great detail about the deeper ideology of an organization - they see the TV (which never lies) tell them “PETA and others advocate this…” which may not be true, and so if they go to PETA’a website and they don’t see a firm stand against it, they will assume it is true. In this imperfect mass-media-enslaved world, I don’t think those are unreasonable things for PETA to do?

If I am currently in a debate with people on the ethics of ACT-UP, or am being acccused of being associated with their actions, and I don’t speak up to present my true viewpoint then the average person will assume that I implicitly support them. I think PETA could get much better press and buy-in from the average person if they did such a thing. When many other politically-oriented or ethically-oriented groups are very clear about what they support and do not support, PETA’s silence on the issue of the actions of ALF et al is at a minimum bothersome to me.

Fair enough. I’m sorry for the sarcasm before.

It’s also disingenuous to ignore the fact in your first reply you called me a “loser” also, when I have not resorted to name calling. Why no comment back about that? Why did you resort to name calling? Yes, parts of my post were sarcastic, and still are, but you’re better than that. I used to have a good deal of respect for you for how you handled yourself in other debates against some people who were really going over the top and unfairly attacking you. It’s obvious that you are passionate about this topic, and it’s one that lends itself to volatile exchanges, but like I said you’re better than that.

You see, electronic language is a funny thing. Web boards do not allow the true intent of a message to get across sometimes. For instance, that bit has very threatening overtones, when I know that’s not your real intent, right?

I believe you would be honerable enough to do so.

We are both basically saying the same thing now, after clarification.

Well, that depends. You’ld be surprised what is actionable in some judge’s courts. If your wife was being identified with PETA, then their disrespect towards her also hurts your cause. But forget I brought it up, it’s your life and I have no business telling you what to do in this regard. I just wanted to say I would give you moral support if you wanted to stick it to them. I will not discuss this subtopic further.

120

:wally