Originally Posted by ollie27:
hmmmm....sorry photochick. wasn't tryin to suck anything out of anybody. i would honestly just like to know the right way of going about things that won't turn people off...but actually gets something accomplished. it's more than just "oh well, peta sucks let's go buy some wool socks"

i want to know what works without the fanatical approach....and wanted to hear folks' idears...

I just have to say for me personally, throwing buckets of red paint on people who don't agree with your beliefs, and making light of the brutal murder and decapitation of a man on a greyhound bus to further your own cause is not the right way to go about things. THAT is what puts people off. :(

Originally Posted by ollie27:
i was wondering why that is and is that the only way we as humans finally pay attention?(hope not...)

Extremes certainly do get attention. Maybe we (humans in general) think "Hey, that person is going to an extreme. They must really believe in that cause.... what was that cause they were going to extremes for...? Hey look over there ponies!"

But back to your original question. I get a kick out of PETA throwing red paint at Vogue editors. I don't get a kick out of them putting human beings lives in danger to get their message across. If anything, at least the ASPCA commercials make me want to cry. PETA should try making me cry... not making me roll my eyes.

Originally Posted by ollie27:
then how would you suggest they (we?) execute it? are we not a country that only pays attention to shock tactics? is that not why we know the name peta and no one has ever heard of vegan action? have they not put animals and ethical treatment in the same sentence? do we not need lobbyist fanatics on the hill? is the system not designed this way? again devil's advocate

Perhaps someone people can't pay attention without extreme tactics shoved in their face, however I am not one of those people. If I were a meat eater, there is no way in **** that someone calling me a murderer for eating meat would change my mind about eating meat. All it would do is make me ignore them. Call me crazy, but I just can't absorb information when someone is calling me a murderer, lol.

Originally Posted by Faerie:
Extremes certainly do get attention. Maybe we (humans in general) think "Hey, that person is going to an extreme. They must really believe in that cause.... what was that cause they were going to extremes for...? Hey look over there ponies!"

But back to your original question. I get a kick out of PETA throwing red paint at Vogue editors. I don't get a kick out of them putting human beings lives in danger to get their message across. If anything, at least the ASPCA commercials make me want to cry. PETA should try making me cry... not making me roll my eyes.

yeah. take the civil rights movement. folks pamphleteered and had sit ins till their arses were sore, but the world didn't pay attention until people were hosed, hanged, and assassinated and even still some turned a blind eye...and still do.

i think PETA is trying to make folks cry, but they are a bit out of touch on how? and make folks roll their eyes instead...:dizzy:

ugh. perhaps i opened a can o'worms.

nellie - goal would be total liberation and freedom from oppression of all sentient beings...humans included... sung to the tune of sinatra's High Hopes :D

Originally Posted by ollie27:

i think PETA is trying to make folks cry, but they are a bit out of touch on how? and make folks roll their eyes instead...:dizzy:

That's dead on. They need to totally revamp their campaigns. It's not what you say, but how you say it. ;)

Originally Posted by :
mmmm..well, as a country, the U.S. funds organizations that cause bodily harm to human beings i.e. in the name of democracy. do you support our government? we use terrorist tactics like ummm....war. so what's the difference?

Which is exactly the rhetoric I expected from a PETA supporter. What makes you thinh\k I support our government either? But of course you throw this out as a question phrased in such a way to suggest that I *do* support everyone except PETA.

That's EXACTLY why I don't support PETA or PETA supporters. That mindless rhetoric that puts words in my mouth and baits me to answer.

Originally Posted by :
Photochick - Although ollie mentioned the same thing playing devils advocate, when I read your post, I had to think about the numerous other organizations that 'fudge' their numbers in order to further their cause.

And again, the implication that I support any organization that fudges their numbers except PETA. This is exaclty why I don't want to get sucked into this conversation.

I don't support ANY organization (including governmental ones) that advocate terroristic tactics to support their point of view.

Period. End of discussion. Thanks for asking. I won't be responding again and I'm unsubbing from the thread.

.

I actually support a lot of PETA's initiatives, even if they do sometimes border on the illegal (or immoral, or whatever). What turns me off to them is how they trott out the celebrities all the time, as though knowing Pamela Anderson doesn't eat meat is someone going to convince me to give it up too lol. I know it always helps to have celebrities promote your cause, but I'm personally *SO SICK* of hearing what totally unqualified, know-nothing celebrities think about important issues, I'd rather PETA didn't associate with them so closely.

But just to throw this out there: I think a lot of times, when you're dealing with a controversial issue, trying to change laws (which PETA campaigns to do), trying to make a point loud so that people will pay attention, you NEED to be a little extreme. I don't agree with everything they say and do, but I guess I understand WHY they do it... if that makes sense.

Originally Posted by PhotoChick:
Which is exactly the rhetoric I expected from a PETA supporter. What makes you thinh\k I support our government either? But of course you throw this out as a question phrased in such a way to suggest that I *do* support everyone except PETA.

That's EXACTLY why I don't support PETA or PETA supporters. That mindless rhetoric that puts words in my mouth and baits me to answer.

And again, the implication that I support any organization that fudges their numbers except PETA. This is exaclty why I don't want to get sucked into this conversation.

I don't support ANY organization (including governmental ones) that advocate terroristic tactics to support their point of view.

Period. End of discussion. Thanks for asking. I won't be responding again and I'm unsubbing from the thread.

.

hmmm....again. just for the record as i think this is a bit too hostile of a response for someone that had good intentions (me).

i never meant to imply that anyone supported the government, terrorists, or anyone except PETA. i was just making a, err, der, umm, point. and as with most people that make points, i used an example. sorry. no suggestion as to what you support. no rhetoric from me. and actually, i am not even a PETA supporter. don't know that much about them, save for the handy dandy shopping guide i just got in the mail. that's why i asked.

didn't mean to piss in anyone's cheerios. sheesh.

Originally Posted by KLK:
I know it always helps to have celebrities promote your cause, but I'm personally *SO SICK* of hearing what totally unqualified, know-nothing celebrities think about important issues, I'd rather PETA didn't associate with them so closely.

ha!!! totally. that's what spawned my post. i went to the library today to check out a vegan cookbook and came across the PETA Celebrity Cookbook with the likes of Bea Arthur and Kevin Nealon. Most of the people weren't even veg*n, but just remarked that they like to, sometimes, eat guilt free so here's a fab recipe for orange punch...:doh:

Not that Bea Arthur isn't awesome, of course... :D

But seriously, I just feel like having the celebrities around actually weakens their position in a way. I can understand like... casual recognition of important vegetarian and vegan celebs, but they base whole benefits around them and that's a turn-off, imo.

Originally Posted by ollie27:
ha!!! totally. that's what spawned my post. i went to the library today to check out a vegan cookbook and came across the PETA Celebrity Cookbook with the likes of Bea Arthur and Kevin Nealon. Most of the people weren't even veg*n, but just remarked that they like to, sometimes, eat guilt free so here's a fab recipe for orange punch...:doh:

celebrities: apparently just another out of touch tactic in a stream of out of touch tactics that attempt to support what i consider a good cause. and yeah KLK, what you said, i, too understand why they do it. we the sheeple need to be shocked into paying attention. i get it. hmmmm...when are we gonna learn?

thanks for everyone's input.

I think it's pretty well agreed that most people don't support PETA due to their methods, though we all support ethical treatment of animals :)

Please, let's support each other by not slinging accusations at each other or we'll have to close this thread. It's a fair topic, but let's stay on topic :)

Originally Posted by ollie27:
yeah. take the civil rights movement. folks pamphleteered and had sit ins till their arses were sore, but the world didn't pay attention until people were hosed, hanged, and assassinated and even still some turned a blind eye...and still do.

That's funny, because I remember (not that I was there!) the turning point in the civil rights movement as being the day that Rosa Parkes refused to give up her seat on a bus.

Certainly not a violent or forceful protest there.

Or is history in my part of the world being taught differently to what actually happened? Maybe the PETA people could learn a thing or two from Rosa.

Originally Posted by Primm:
That's funny, because I remember (not that I was there!) the turning point in the civil rights movement as being the day that Rosa Parkes refused to give up her seat on a bus.

Certainly not a violent or forceful protest there.

Or is history in my part of the world being taught differently to what actually happened? Maybe the PETA people could learn a thing or two from Rosa.

Rosa Parks was one of the catalysts of the Civil Rights movement, but no, it was not the turning point. It doesn't necessarily sound like you've been taught anything wrong or even differently, but attributing so much of the movement to Rosa Parks is, IMO, an oversimplification of a turbulent and complex period of U.S. history. I didn't mean to change the subject...

blah. I think Peta is ridiculous.