PETA proves that they're idiots once again...

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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.

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.

Originally Posted by Sean

...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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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.

Originally Posted by Deckard

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.

Originally Posted by Deckard

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.

Originally Posted by Deckard

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" 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, 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]

Originally Posted by Sean

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]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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.