PDA

View Full Version : PETA proves that they're idiots once again...


Sean
02-11-2009, 11:48 AM
...this time, at the Westminster Dog Show (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-02-09-peta-westminster-kkk-protest_N.htm) that just concluded last night. They sent a few folks dressed as KKK members out to distribute fliers condemning the show, because like the KKK, the Westminster people are encouraging a "master race" of dogs through "pure bloodlines".

Morons.

//\/\/
02-11-2009, 02:18 PM
A good point (about in-breeding) - but undermined by, as you say, a bunch of idiots who express it in such a ridiculous manner.

Sean
02-11-2009, 03:08 PM
A good point (about in-breeding) - but undermined by, as you say, a bunch of idiots who express it in such a ridiculous manner.Honestly, I'm not even sure that in-breeding was at issue. It isn't mentioned in the article at least. In fact, after a little more quick digging, in-breeding is not their problem. They released a series of commercials in New York leading up to the show that state their case very clearly and stupidly:

One of the commercials (http://origin.www.peta.org/feat/abc/video3.asp) shows a hooded Ku Klux Klan member walking into a meeting of the purebreds-only American Kennel Club, where the members eye him suspiciously. He gets the group to concede that they both believe in the “sanctity of pure bloodlines” and a master race. He sits down, saying, “I’ll fit right in here.” Then the message “All dogs are created equal” flashes on the screen.

and

PETA criticizes the show for promoting dog breeding and spurring interest in “purebreds” while animal shelters overflow with unwanted dogs in need of homes.

So sadly, they don't even have the "good point" you mentioned to fall back on. Just dumb-assedness.

Deckard
02-11-2009, 03:09 PM
"I can't speak for everyone, but the vast majority of the people exhibiting and handling and showing at Westminster are more interested in the health of dogs than anything else," Westminster spokesman David Frei told the AP.

Bullshit. They're interested in breed standards above health. Standards which, over the years have directly led to what we see today: various breeds having to live with painful deformities and prone to genetic diseases, whether it's breathing problems, joint deformity or prevalence to conditions like epilepsy.

All in the name of pure-breeding.

Health my ass. :rolleyes:

PETA's protest may be over-the-top and distasteful, but their position on in-breeding and dog showing is sound as far as I'm concerned. And if this protest has gotten them some publicity and got a few people talking about the issue (even while condemning the protestors), then that's no bad thing.

Deckard
02-11-2009, 03:16 PM
PETA criticizes the show for promoting dog breeding and spurring interest in “purebreds” while animal shelters overflow with unwanted dogs in need of homes.
That's a separate but also fair thing to protest about IMO - though not necessarily in the way they've gone about it.

dubman
02-11-2009, 03:46 PM
it's shit harassing shit as far as i can see it. peta even has a point, but they're idiots and cant make the better points with the gimmick they chose.

Sean
02-11-2009, 03:53 PM
Bullshit. They're interested in breed standards above health.Even if we look at it this clinically and assume they're cold, heartless people that care nothing about the dog's well-being, isn't it true to say that part of what makes a show-dog viable is good health and fitness? So even if it's for selfish reasons, I think it would be safe to say that people who breed and own show dogs would absolutely be concerned with their dog's health. I mean, you can hardly blame someone who owns and/or shows a French Bulldog with respiratory issues today for the breeding practices that created the breed back in the 1800's or earlier, can you? And what about German Shepherds with their frequent hip problems being used as police dogs? Should police and others who use them be condemned as well since they surely advocate the continuation of the pure breed?

Standards which, over the years have directly led to what we see today: various breeds having to live with painful deformities and prone to genetic diseases, whether it's breathing problems, joint deformity or prevalence to conditions like epilepsy.

All in the name of pure-breeding.

Health my ass. :rolleyes:Actually, the creation of different pure breeds originates with the mutualistic relationship between mankind and canines that has allowed both species to flourish in ways that would have been impossible otherwise. Huskies and Malamutes that served as sled dogs, allowing humans to venture further into polar regions than they could have otherwise. Dachshunds that helped with hunting for food, or helped farmers dealing with badger and rodent problems. Granted, there are certain breeds that were originally bred for no other purpose than to fight, like bulldogs and pit bulls, or to be companions, like the shih tzu and pugs. But generally speaking, most breeds originated out of necessity.

And of course, human tampering with evolution has led to some breeds having inherent health problems, like the bulldog and pug's respiratory system, the german shepherd's hips, dachshunds with their back problems, etc., so maybe it is worthwhile examining whether allowing certain breeds to continue is good or not. But the simple fact is, dogs would be a far, far more marginalized species had humans not formed the relationship with them that we did and started breeding them. And we wouldn't have advanced as a species as quickly and broadly as we have without them either. And while most of us with dogs own them as companions, we can't forget that a huge number of pure breeds are still needed as working dogs around the world

PETA's protest may be over-the-top and distasteful, but their position on in-breeding and dog showing is sound as far as I'm concerned. And if this protest has gotten them some publicity and got a few people talking about the issue (even while condemning the protestors), then that's no bad thing.As far as I'm concerned, any hint of good that may have come from this tact has been completely overshadowed by their incredible display of idiocy.

dubman
02-11-2009, 05:41 PM
this whole post yr talking about dogs' mutual relationship with people.
i dont see how turning them into competitive objects figures into this.

at least sledding has an athletic component thats beneficial and fulfilling for both parties.

i dont see much excuse for the luxurious pastime of customizing dogs to impress the dinner party crowd, whose owners regard them more as investments for the handlers to do all the legwork with.

i still watch it because it's kind of funny and my girlfriend would have it on anyway (she has the benefit of me not really caring about tv), but conceptually it seems pretty grotesque overall.

bryantm3
02-11-2009, 07:27 PM
they're feckin dogs. there's a genocide in darfur and they're worried about a bunch of dogs that are pampered better than most people are?

Deckard
02-12-2009, 04:40 AM
Even if we look at it this clinically and assume they're cold, heartless people that care nothing about the dog's well-being
Just to be clear, that's not what I said. Questioning their priorities doesn't mean I believe it's as black and white as them being cold and heartless or not caring about their dog's wellbeing. I'm merely disputing the spokesman's claim that "the vast majority of the people exhibiting and handling and showing at Westminster are more interested in the health of dogs than anything else." Or at least, there's some major cognitive dissonance going round if that's the case.

...isn't it true to say that part of what makes a show-dog viable is good health and fitness?
Partly. The problem is that the KC (certainly in this country) appears to display a shocking amount of blindness when it comes to diseases and deformities brought about by the selective breeding of owners looking to breed the perfect standard, whether that's for showing or for selling 'premium' show-grade/breed-quality pups. I don't call a bulldog that can barely breath healthy, or a GSD dragging its hind legs around healthy, or a spaniel with a brain too big for its skull healthy, even if the KC, exhibitors and showdog owners believe they have the perfect specimen. The problem with shows like this is that they attract and cultivate a certain culture of people who do still put breeding standards above health, effectively people deliberately breeding dogs to be disabled. An example is the Rhodesian Ridgeback, bred to have that prominent ridge and scored for it at dogs shows, even though Rhodesians without the ridges are actually healthier than those with the ridge. What does the (British) KC breed standard say about this? It advises the culling of pups born without a ridge. And yet we're told that people are "more interested in the health of dogs than anything else". Rubbish. It's positively ingrained that standards come above health, time and again.

Sure, the owners may well be concerned about their dogs' health to a certain degree and will no doubt love their dog, but that's not to say that concern isn't ultimately trumped by the joy of showing or the pride of winning.

I mean, you can hardly blame someone who owns and/or shows a French Bulldog with respiratory issues today for the breeding practices that created the breed back in the 1800's or earlier, can you?
If, as often happens, those people showing are also breeding and if the respiratory issues are severe and the animal is suffering, then I absolutely do blame the owner.

And what about German Shepherds with their frequent hip problems being used as police dogs? Should police and others who use them be condemned as well since they surely advocate the continuation of the pure breed?
No. GSDs experience hip problems, but I've never seen police dogs barely able to walk let alone run, or with the striking deformities of their hind quarters, as I have with "young and healthy" dogs at dog shows. Even in seniorhood they don't end up as bad as that. I'm not against the continuation of pure breeds or working dogs, and I don't doubt for a second that there are good, ethical pedigree breeders out there breeding healthy dogs. The problem arises from those breeders - more inclined than most to be involved in showing - who breed with a different set of priorities. That and the lack of sufficient testing in the first place.

Actually, the creation of different pure breeds originates with the mutualistic relationship between mankind and canines that has allowed both species to flourish in ways that would have been impossible otherwise.
I'm well aware of the history of the relationship between man and dog. The point is that somewhere along the line, it became, as Dubman suggests, about money, about elitism and cosmetic appeal, at the detriment to the animal's health. The breeding of extreme features purely for cosmetic reasons even though they impair the dog's health. You mention bulldogs - look at a picture of a bulldog today, and compare it with a picture of one from just 100 years ago. Do you think the massive change in skull shape that's occurred over the last century has anything to do with the mutualistic relationship between mankind and canines?

And of course, human tampering with evolution has led to some breeds having inherent health problems, like the bulldog and pug's respiratory system, the german shepherd's hips, dachshunds with their back problems, etc., so maybe it is worthwhile examining whether allowing certain breeds to continue is good or not. But the simple fact is, dogs would be a far, far more marginalized species had humans not formed the relationship with them that we did and started breeding them. And we wouldn't have advanced as a species as quickly and broadly as we have without them either. And while most of us with dogs own them as companions, we can't forget that a huge number of pure breeds are still needed as working dogs around the world
I don't disagree with this. I would also add that some breeds have been changed in order to fit into a pet environment - staffies for example - and I fully appreciate the reasons for that.

As far as I'm concerned, any hint of good that may have come from this tact has been completely overshadowed by their incredible display of idiocy.
Honestly, I'm finding myself far more outraged by practices that cause real suffering - sometimes agony - to dogs than I am by the consequence of a handful of 'offended' human beings. That's not to say I think PETA's approach is the right one. I just find myself more motivated to outrage by one part of this story than the other.

Deckard
02-12-2009, 04:47 AM
they're feckin dogs. there's a genocide in darfur
So let's eradicate all genocide before any of us protests about animal welfare, yeah? Ditto anything else less severe than Darfur I guess, like the surveillance state, gay rights, British jobs for British workers... after all, there are always more important issues to be dealing with.

and they're worried about a bunch of dogs that are pampered better than most people are?
The point is not the pampering but the suffering, and the continuation of practises that reinforce that suffering. There's enough room in the country for a few people to make this their issue, just as there is for a myriad of other issues all arguably less 'severe' than genocide in Darfur. Let's put aside whether their approach in this instance is right or wrong and just be glad there are people willing to speak out about something. God knows there are enough people who don't speak out about anything in society.

Deckard
02-12-2009, 11:42 AM
their priorities are out of place. i'm not saying that less important issues aren't valid, but honestly, we need to focus on more pressing issues affecting our own species before we start fretting about canines.

I just don't buy that either/or, I'm afraid.

Are the priorities of a veterinary surgeon all out of place? 8+ hours a day spent treating sick animals? How does that compare with someone like me who makes websites look pretty for a living? What about people who run a kennel or a cattery for a living?

Who has got their priorities most wrong - the activist devoting his life to campaigning for dog welfare, or the person who works 9-5 ensuring that the toilet roll we wipe our asses with has a figure of a dog embossed into it?

The way I see it, society is big enough for the animal rights campaigners and the anti-genocide campaigners, it's big enough for the AIDS research campaigners and the Alzheimers research campaigners, it's big enough for anthropologists, zoologists and botanists.

Be realistic. War and genocide are still happening, yet we're not all going to become politicians and campaigners. I have the utmost respect for people who do, but if someone instead focuses their life on animal rights, that's certainly no less important than if they focus it on graphic design or creating music.

Suffering isn't a human-only construct, even if we understandably elevate humans in importance. Push rarely comes to shove in that sense. I have nothing but respect for the decision by someone to devote themselves to the care and welfare of an animal. In my eyes, they're already doing a more profound thing than perhaps 90% of the rest of us.

Sean
02-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Well, there have been very valid points made here about the detrimental effects to the health of some pure-bred dogs, but to get back to the initial story and the further digging I did about it, the health issues are literally never even mentioned by PETA. Their entire campaign is centered around the slogan/idea that “all dogs are created equal” - that buying a pure-bred dog means a dog in the pound is going homeless, and that this is somehow equal to the goals of white supremacists. So I stand by my assertion that the PETA people are idiots....;)

dubman
02-12-2009, 05:56 PM
plus theres a lot of pure-breds that end up in the pounds too (i dont see the logic in that but it's true somehow), so i suspect that theyre also grossly assumptive as well.

Deckard
02-13-2009, 04:07 AM
Well, there have been very valid points made here about the detrimental effects to the health of some pure-bred dogs
My tangent on health was prompted by the comment of the spokesman in the article you linked.

...but to get back to the initial story and the further digging I did about it, the health issues are literally never even mentioned by PETA.
Because that's not what this particular campaign is about. It's about the 4 million dogs and cats put to death each year because people opt for pure-bred rather than rescue, and the culture that propagates it. Elsewhere PETA have drawn (and continue to draw) attention to the health-related problems (and they don't deny that pure-breds end up in rescues too). The fact that the health problems and deformities aren't part of this particular campaign will have more to do with the benefit from isolating and honing a single message, rather than a lack of awareness and concern for it.

and that this is somehow equal to the goals of white supremacists.
Three things I'd say to this. First, you're falling for a marketing technique, in the sense that it's got you talking about issues even if you think they're idiots. You're taking the parallel drawn in a deliberately provocative publicity campaign and drawing an equivalency. It's precisely because people are inclined to do that that PETA can be assured of column inches and radio time (and moveon.org can link Bush with Hitler ;) ). PETA take the hit for the benefit of spreading their message that bit further. Second, to re-iterate, I can't say I agree that turning themselves against public sympathy is - on balance - the best approach. I've never aligned myself with PETA as an organisation and certainly won't defend it unquestioningly or with any kind of allegiance. Third, drawing a parallel between the KKK and the American Kennel Club might sound extreme, but don't let that throw you off the genuine parallels that exist. A BBC documentary last year described how the Kennel Club in this country was borne from the eugenics movement, which, let's not forget, was a movement that believes "the human race can be improved and purified by breeding the best to the best". The KC undeniably does continue to embrace, even today, eugenics principles - even its most vehement supporters would have to admit that much. That doesn't mean to say the KC are as bad as Hitler or the KKK, but it's precisely the human tendency of interpreting a parallel as an equivalency that fuels a controversial campaign. Dressing up two of its members like this is undeniably a ploy, a deliberately provocative way to gain publicity and get the topic talked about (even if while criticizing the approach itself). My guess is it's backfired in one respect and worked in another, depending on what their expectations were. We're talking about the subject matter, and - in this instance - no-one has had to die for this to happen (which is always nice). Sure I will always question any tactic that involves causing offence, but if I'm being honest I struggle to feel that outraged about the possible offence caused, when viewed within the bigger picture.

Sean
02-13-2009, 11:54 AM
Three things I'd say to this. First, you're falling for a marketing technique, in the sense that it's got you talking about issues even if you think they're idiots.I'm not sure I quite agree. What I'm primarily talking about is that I think the people in PETA are idiots. I only referred to the marketing campaign because it's evidence of that idiocy. Frankly, their campaign doesn't inspire a single constructive thought in my head. The only thing that HAS inspired any constructive thoughts has been the discussion about breed health we've had here, which was actually unrelated to the moronic marketing campaign PETA put together about dog equality and it's parallels to white supremacists.

You're taking the parallel drawn in a deliberately provocative publicity campaign and drawing an equivalency. It's precisely because people are inclined to do that that PETA can be assured of column inches and radio time (and moveon.org can link Bush with Hitler ;) ). PETA take the hit for the benefit of spreading their message that bit further.I've never been a believer in the idea that "any publicity is good publicity". In the case of PETA, I remember when I actually used to think they were a good organization that was working for a just cause. That was before they started doing moronic things like equating chicken farms to the Nazi Holocaust, or the Westminster Dog Show to a KKK rally. So now, instead of hearing that PETA has made a statement about something and thinking "hm - I'm interested in hearing what these folks are trying to achieve", I actually think "oh shut the f#$k up you dumb sonsabitches". So in the case of PETA, yes, they may get more exposure from dumbass stunts like this, but that's all it is. MORE exposure - not effective, constructive, or good exposure. So unfortunately, I feel they've blown any credibility they once had which, in my opinion, has had a net negative affect on their ability to get a valid point across.

Third, drawing a parallel between the KKK and the American Kennel Club might sound extreme, but don't let that throw you off the genuine parallels that exist. A BBC documentary last year described how the Kennel Club in this country was borne from the eugenics movement, which, let's not forget, was a movement that believes "the human race can be improved and purified by breeding the best to the best". The KC undeniably does continue to embrace, even today, eugenics principles - even its most vehement supporters would have to admit that much. That doesn't mean to say the KC are as bad as Hitler or the KKK, but it's precisely the human tendency of interpreting a parallel as an equivalency that fuels a controversial campaign.It strikes me as being generous to assume that the morons over at PETA are simply drawing an innocent parallel, while any conclusions of equivalency are nothing more than the result of the viewer's innate tendencies. There is no way in hell that PETA could have drawn these parallels without the desire to also blatantly imply equivalency. In fact, it's so blatant and over the top that as far as I can see, the eqivalency was probably the primary goal of this campaign. It would be in keeping with statements and campaigns I've seen from them in the past.

That being said, you could also draw parallels between Darwin's "Origin of Species" and eugenics, but that doesn't mean it would be a good idea for proponents of creationism to make a commercial showing Darwin and Hitler out for a "guys night" together - tipping back a few beers, going to see a ball-game, and high-fiving as they picked up a couple hotties. Although on second thought, that does sound like an entertaining commercial - but the point remains that we can draw parallels between all kinds of stuff that doesn't warrant it.

Dressing up two of its members like this is undeniably a ploy, a deliberately provocative way to gain publicity and get the topic talked about (even if while criticizing the approach itself). My guess is it's backfired in one respect and worked in another, depending on what their expectations were. We're talking about the subject matter, and - in this instance - no-one has had to die for this to happen (which is always nice). Sure I will always question any tactic that involves causing offence, but if I'm being honest I struggle to feel that outraged about the possible offence caused, when viewed within the bigger picture.I hear what you're saying. I just think this campaign is idiotic and counter-productive. And frankly, while I'm not "outraged", it is offensive to me in that it inherently trivializes the brutality of what the KKK has done, and what it represents. Just as their "holocaust on your plate" (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31211) campaign trivialized what happened to the millions of victims of Nazi death camps. Their idiocy in delivering their message has completely overshadowed any valid points they could be making.

And to make my position on this as clear as I can, here's a commercial from an incredibly effective campaign from the ASPCA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy38ogBZTnI) that doesn't have to rely on any moronic parallels or equivalencies. It's enough to just bring attention to the realities we need to deal with without trivializing historic human atrocities.

PETA is populated by mental midgets.

Deckard
02-14-2009, 07:16 AM
I'm not sure I quite agree. What I'm primarily talking about is that I think the people in PETA are idiots... I've never been a believer in the idea that "any publicity is good publicity". In the case of PETA, I remember when I actually used to think they were a good organization that was working for a just cause. That was before they started doing moronic things like equating chicken farms to the Nazi Holocaust, or the Westminster Dog Show to a KKK rally.
Just a reminder that I'm not defending PETA as an organisation or saying that I consider their approach in this instance as necessarily the right one. However we appear to disagree on the strength of our feelings about it. Clearly there are going to be people such as yourself who find it offensive - perhaps a lot of people - which is why I would question it on the grounds of 'net' effectiveness compared with the publicity it receives. Personally I don't feel offended by it. I'm not going to say I think it's silly for people to get offended by two people dressing up, but for myself I genuinely don't feel that strongly about it at all. Nor would I if they dressed up in homosexual-exterminating Nazi garb to make their point.

I may or may not agree with the veracity of their comparisons, but the only time I'd feel offended is if they were actually advocating something along the lines of what their KKK/Nazi clothes might suggest they'd advocate.

In other words, the clothes have nothing to do with it, and nor does their comparison.

On the tight-rope between drawing parallels and implying moral equivalency, and the deliberate exploitation of that proximity for creating controversial publicity campaigns (<< apologies for how pretentious that sounds), I'm not sure what else I can say without repeating myself. Even if any of them have taken the parallel into direct moral equivalency, the above still stands.

However, let's say for the sake of argument that PETA are asserting that selective dog breeding/dog eugenics is morally equivalent, and is as wrong as the Holocaust. I still don't buy that, but for now let's just assume that's the real extent of their comparison. In my view, it's a mistake (a common one) to conclude that they'd be downgrading or trivializing the Holocaust, for the simple reason that we would be assuming the wrong moral starting point (and almost certainly be incorrect in doing so). Believing that selective dog breeding is morally as abhorrent as the Holocaust is not the same as believing that the Holocaust is morally as trivial as selective dog breeding. In other words, equating the two is only a problem if the two are being equated as similarly trivial rather than similarly serious.

Whether I agree with the equivalency is a purely intellectual argument about whether I consider animals and humans to be on an entirely equal footing, not about whether I think the object of that comparison is really that bad after all. As it happens (not being a 'fundamentalist' sort of guy), I don't agree about the moral equivalency between human and animal. But I wouldn't try to attribute to them a downgrading of the Holocaust (or rather the crimes of the KKK. Christ. Sorry, I got sidetracked by Mr Godwin back there... ) because it would be a disingenuous way to attack them.

That's why I think often in these controversies (and they crop up surprisingly often, whether it's off-the-cuff remarks by politicians or activist groups or whatever), the accusation that people are trivializing something is almost always based on fallacious logic, but because so many people in society make the same mistake, we end up pandering to this unnecessary notion of phantom offense, and the person or organisation concerned is obliged to bow down and deliver their utmost apologies for the 'comparison'. (Sometimes the whole thing comes across like a big public desire to simply utter the words, "How DARE they?!")

As for Charles Darwin, to the very best of my knowledge, he never once advocated, let alone practised, eugenic policies (though I understand his cousin was a different matter). Darwin 'observed' the world around him and 'proposed a theory' about how things came to be as they were. The gap between Darwin's explanations in On The Origin of Species and the advocating/practising of human eugenics is of several magnitudes greater than the gap between actively practising human eugenics and dog eugenics.

But I agree with you on one thing - it would make for a good commercial.

Future Proof
02-14-2009, 03:39 PM
they're feckin dogs. there's a genocide in darfur and they're worried about a bunch of dogs that are pampered better than most people are?

I don't think that the existence of more horrendous acts should mean that you ignore the minor ones. If anything, I think the world would probably be a better place if people were able to focus on the larger picture, and not just one thing.

And yea, I agree with Deckard. The various breeders and what-not may say that they care about the animals in their custody but the long-term effects of their breeding practices will create future generations of animals with grotesque abnormalities. I think that if it was people on display that people would have a much different outlook on things like dog shows, horse races and other "exploitations" of animals. But since they're of lower cognition people dismiss it, apparently oblivious to the fact that most animals do indeed experience pain, terror, joy and depression just like people do. Apparently if you don't have vocal cords to say "Hey numbnuts, I'm in a lot of pain" then it must not be so.

Then again, I would put the intelligence of most people that do stuff like this for a living to be only slightly higher than the animals they care for, so I suppose that my expectations are lofty.

As for PETA -- battling extremism with extremism is never a good way to handle things. But then again, it made you pay attention.................... But understand this, and read it closely... the next time you watch a horse race and one of the thoroughbreds snaps its ankle, and they put it down on the track... if watching that kind of barbarism doesn't curdle your stomach, then nothing will. Years of selective breeding have caused thoroughbreds' ankles to become thin to the point to where they break really easily, and then its us, people, after the breeding process that makes them run so fucking hard that they snap their limbs. And this is all done for your enjoyment.

As for myself, I'm fine with the symbology deployed. Too many damn people got their heads stuck up American Idol's ass and Jessica Simpson's girth to notice all the crap that goes on in the world. If a tailored bedsheet wakes someone up, then fine.