PETA derail from "I want my angry mob!"

[Matty]

"as soon as i grab a big Mac i'm throwing a brick through the window of some imperialist stool pigeon. Those motherfuckers, no one needs em, no one wants em. Now should i have fries or onion rings"


Every quizzed a PETA type on their clothing? Thats great fun. Its amazing how many think fake leather or fur is a defensible thing to wear for an animal rights protester. Fucking retards.

[Anne]

ok, I'll bite, Matty.

Why is synthetic fur a bad thing?

[Matty]

becasue it still propagates the idea that the use of fur as a fashion accessory as a desirable thing. It still says to anyone at first glance, that "Fur is a cool thing to wear, and you'll look desirable wearing it" which is exactly antithetical to a PETA stance. Really, from that stance the sight of anything approaching realistic fur (or oher products) should be totally abhorrent, not sexy enough to hunt out a fake version becasue you like the look but not the production, of the original.

Some obviously fake fur might be excluded from that (I've seen vivid blue fake fur etc) but it certainly applies to the ones that mimic real furs (or feathers, or leather etc) . Hence the reason that Pam "PETA spokesperson" Andersons "ah but they're fake leather pants" didnt fly with either critics of her hypocrisy or PETA.

[Anne]

meh--- that's nuts. It's FAKE--- who gives a shit what it looks like?

And how can someone like you dictate to someone like them what's morally ok in their view?

I mean--- you want me to say that pot smoking is evil, so your McD's stance is stupid, since you are already poisoning your body with that and drink?

grok?

[willynilly]

My cousin Kyle is hard core animal rights, no meat, kinda person. He wears no animal stuff, fake or not. He's not psycho on you for not being the same though.

[LoneWolf]

meh--- that's nuts. It's FAKE--- who gives a shit what it looks like?

And how can someone like you dictate to someone like them what's morally ok in their view?

I mean--- you want me to say that pot smoking is evil, so your McD's stance is stupid, since you are already poisoning your body with that and drink?

grok?

As much as it pains me to say it, I think Matty is right. ;)

How does everyone around him know it is fake? Maybe someone sees it and thinks "that looks nice" and goes out to buy something similar. Only they buy a real one. It isn't going to make animal rights activists go out and buy them, but people who don't give much thought to animal rights one way or the other just might. And he did exclude obviously fake outfits.

I also didn't see him tell anyone what to wear. He is just saying he thinks it is funny in the same way as someone protesting American capitalism while at the same time wearing a Coke shirt.

[Valheru]

Matty is 100% correct, Anne.

If they are supporting a visual result of the killing of animals (fake or not), then it is inconsistent of them to oppose the killing of animals. The fact that there is a fake alternative to fur, is irrelevant.

[Anne]

you see, I see it as 'you don't have to sacrifice something you may like (the look and feel of fur) just because you don't harm animals!'.

Probably why so many veggie foods are meat replacements.

So, I think you are all wrong. :p

[Matty]

And how can someone like you dictate to someone like them what's morally ok in their view? I dictate nothing., I have no issues with fur or leather full stop, in fact i think that the use of such as a by product of the food industry is an ethical responsibility to minimise wastage. What i do do is point out how wearing a PETA tshirt and apparent leather pants is according to their stated morals both laughable and hypocritical.

You'd be surprised, more than a couple have actually agreed just hadnt thought of it. And i know one or two more fervent veggie types who would beat me to the punch in pointing it out (then again these are the sort of morons who tut if they walk past someone in a restaurant with a steak)_


you see, I see it as 'you don't have to sacrifice something you may like (the look and feel of fur) just because you don't harm animals!'. yah but clothing is a personal expression and what you are expressing to others (in the absence of a big fucking sign proclaiming the fur's fakeness, or blatantly obvious fakes to start with,) is that fur/leather/silk/feathers are cool/sexy/desirable. That is in direct contrast to the stated aims of these sorts of organisations no?

[Anne]

Not in my opinion.

It just says 'it looks cool'.


Not everything has to be a Statement (tm)

[Matty]

But any animal product "looking cool" is antiethical to a PETA standpoint.
It should look about as cool as a puppy in a blender.

[Anne]

to an extremist, sure.

In real life, nah.

[Valheru]

It just says 'it looks cool'.

No, it says that "Animal skin looks cool", which is antithetical to the idea that draping the (follicle-encrusted?) dermis of an animal over yourself is cool.

[Anne]

no, the point is killing an animal to look cool is wrong. Not a lame attempt to look cool by looking like an animal.

Let me put it this way--- just because a person thinks rape is a bad thing doesn't mean they can't like playing master and servants in bed.

Jeez, guys.

[Matty]

Not according to PETA Anne. Using an animal or animal product in any way is "unethical". Shit, owning and loving pets is unethical as far as PETA is concerned. So is eating anything other than a vegan diet, wearing anything other than natural vegetable fibres or man made materials. These are the fucking clowns that have a web page devoted to the "torture of the silkworm" after all. You cant expect them to have a commonsensical view of anything.

to an extremist, sure.

In real life, nah.

well doesnt being a proselytising tshirt wearing member of PETA kinda peg you as an extremist to start with? Not to mention in the context of the OP, any type likely to feel strongly enough about animal rights to be arsed protesting, would be an extremist?

I'd have said so. (or a totally brainwashed idiot i guess, not that there is much difference, uninformed extremism is even worse then informed in many ways. )

[Valheru]

That's a bad analogy, because it's not rape.

[Anne]

obviously, a fake fur wearing peta person is not an extremist.

You should be happy.

Valheru--- and it's not fur. Exactly my point. Form the outside, M&S can look like rape. From the outside, synthetic can look like fur.

Neither is the REAL deal. Exactly the point.

[Valheru]

Besides, would it be okay if the tech existed to peel off the skin of an animal without it dying or feeling pain, to then harvest the skin?

That's the clincher right there - a lot of PETA morons are anti-wool, because it "exploits" sheep.

[Valheru]

obviously, a fake fur wearing peta person is not an extremist.

You should be happy.

Hehehe, no, not happy. That merely sounds like said person hasn't thought their ideology through properly, which in my view happens to apply to all them idiots. :)

[Anne]

No, a PETA person would be against enslavement of any animal, thus harvesting skin harmlessly would be anathema.

Of course, sheep won't live long out in the wild.

And modern sheep shearing techniques can be far from painless...

[Matty]

obviously, a fake fur wearing peta person is not an extremist.

You should be happy.

Hehehe, no, not happy. That merely sounds like said person hasn't thought their ideology through properly, which in my view happens to apply to all them idiots. :)

exactly

[Valheru]

No, a PETA person would be against enslavement of any animal, thus harvesting skin harmlessly would be anathema.

Are they against e. coli-synthesized insulin?

Of course, sheep won't live long out in the wild.

That's irrelevant. We could be talking Alpacas or Llamas which are perfectly capable of living wild.

And modern sheep shearing techniques can be far from painless...

That's down to carelessness or quota-driven haste. It can be done perfectly painlessly.

[Anne]

that's irrelevant. I'm on your anti peta side here.

[Valheru]

I'd like to get back to the issue of fake fur.

If there is a statement made (whether it's deliberate or not) that animal fur looks cool, then there is a non-zero acceptance of fur, fake or not. If it's okay to wear fake fur because it looks cool, then there is an implicit message that obtaining fur is a positive step, because if fake fur looks good, so does real fur.

Sure, it's countered by the proviso "do not harm the animal" so that the argument has a nett negative message against harvesting real fur, but that doesn't negate the implicit former message, and that's why it's contradictory.

It's like saying, it's okay to beat your kids for displine's sake, just don't beat them too hard because you don't want to harm them.

[Valheru]

that's irrelevant. I'm on your anti peta side here.

Yes yes, understood. See above :)

[willynilly]

So is driving a eco car the same as driving a regular car? I think wearing fake would give you the chance to discuss the fake option to someone. I personally hate PETA and anything that can make them look stupid is ok by me. I wonder considering the other thread does Pat wear fur/animal, fake or not? Does he eat meat?

[Matty]

Pat wears fur sometimes by the sounds of it, its just its still inhabited. :)

[Valheru]

So is driving a eco car the same as driving a regular car?

That's not the same, though, although it's eerily similar in another way.

There is no need for anybody to wear fake fur, but there might be a need to drive a car. The eco car is a compromise. Fake fur isn't a compromise - it makes a statement.

Let's consider some of the greenpeace fanatics who hate the automobile. They will gladly torch SUVs, but will buy an eco-car because they WANT to own their own car, despite having the option to take the bus. Same thing applies. These PETA morons WANT to wear fur/leather, despite having the option to not wear it at all.

[Valheru]

Pat wears fur sometimes by the sounds of it, its just its still inhabited. :)

Sounds like a knotty problem :D

Right, it's been real, kids, but it's 8:30PM and I need to go home.

[Anne]

So is driving a eco car the same as driving a regular car? I think wearing fake would give you the chance to discuss the fake option to someone. I personally hate PETA and anything that can make them look stupid is ok by me. I wonder considering the other thread does Pat wear fur/animal, fake or not? Does he eat meat?

Pat is an atheist and a meat eater. Pat wears leather boots. Pat would not wear fur because Pat is cheap. Pat will spring for leather car seats, though... ;)

For the record. :)

I still don't see how the logic is any different that the M&S game. Fake fur is cool, fake rape is cool. Neither one real is cool.

(OK, lie, I live in Buffalo. I like fur)

[Jobar]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants (http://carnevarians.com/)

Please, won't someone think of the trees and vegetables?!

:D

[Notta]

These posts were originally in "I want my angry mob!" found in the Lounge, which is not accessible to non-members.

[Goodchild]

So is driving a eco car the same as driving a regular car?

Something interesting I read recently, is that hybrid/green cars are intentionally made to look very different from normal cars (think Prius). The reasoning is that not only do the buyers want the more eco-friendly vehicle, they want people that see them to know that they own such a car. Hybrids that look like every other car out there tend not to sell very well at all.

Insert obligatory South Park "loves the smell of their own farts" joke here.

[dancer_rnb]

So is driving a eco car the same as driving a regular car?

That's not the same, though, although it's eerily similar in another way.

There is no need for anybody to wear fake fur, but there might be a need to drive a car. The eco car is a compromise. Fake fur isn't a compromise - it makes a statement.........


Never lived in Minnesota, have you? :evil:

[munnki]

If you ask me. The trade in furs, pelts..etc... though it has the potential to lead to some seriously kitsch and camp clothing stands to nothing against the diamond trade which is run as ethically as, say, Burma...

If somebody started harping on to me about animal rights I'd be looking very carefully around their neck and on their fingers. And then, I'd doubtless tell them to 'f34k right off'...

[Yahzi]

If there is a statement made (whether it's deliberate or not) that animal fur looks cool, then there is a non-zero acceptance of fur, fake or not. If it's okay to wear fake fur because it looks cool, then there is an implicit message that obtaining fur is a positive step, because if fake fur looks good, so does real fur.
Popularizing the look of fur may lead to animal harvesting. That would be bad, from PETA's view. However, popularizing fake fur may also lead to less animal harvesting, which would be good. Whether or not PETA should endorse fake fur should be determined by whether or not it advances or retards their goal. It should not be determined by some specious chain of logic.

If your point is that PETA is so deontologically retarded that they would rather choose actions based on ideology rather than consequence, well, I probably agree with you. However, the logic you present is unsound.

[Valheru]

However, the logic you present is unsound.

Please explain....?

[dancer_rnb]

In cold climates, fiber lined gloves, hats, coats, etc. are desirable to help trap warm air inside ones clothes. It's probably going to look something like fur or feathers in any case.

[Matty]

However, popularizing fake fur may also lead to less animal harvesting, which would be good.Only if the person were going to buy a real one but had an attack of vegan conscience or similar. If they purposefully went out to buy a fake fur coat its moot except for the fact that the look of fur as desirable is perpetuated.

plus either way, fake fur is much cheaper and mre accesible than real for the most part, so the increase in numbers of people wearing apparent fur and perpetuating the image is actually increased compared to if fake fur weren't available.

[frazier]

So Matty, is what you're saying that a person's clothing can unintentionally send a message, contrary to the person's wishes, influencing strangers to take action that the wearer finds offensive, so it's at least partially the wearer's fault? Is that really what you're saying?

Be careful how you answer....

[Matty]

So Matty, is what you're saying that a person's clothing can unintentionally send a message, Yup.
contrary to the person's wishes,
contrary to their stated ethics anyway. Loudly stated ethics where PETA members typically are concerned.
influencing strangers to take action that the wearer finds offensive, possibly
so it's at least partially the wearer's fault? whos assigning blame? and blame for what, the fur trade?

what fake fur/leather wearers are doing in the absence of it being an obvious fake, is sending the message that fur/leather is a cool thing to wear. Now that to me is okay. I dont give a shit. If the animal is being killed for food, use as much of it as possible. To a PETA member presumably that is an antiethical message to be sending, no?

I dont like the idea of fur farms, so i wouldnt wear fur, real or fake because i wouldnt want to send the message that i approve. Peoples own ethics are up to them but peer pressure can certainly play a part.

I wouldnt wear a PETA tshirt or a MAcdonalds branded cap for the same reason. (I dont have an issue with leather, mind, but i still l wouldnt wear leather pants either. Thats not an ethical stance, however, just that i'd look like a tool. :))

Is that really what you're saying?

Be careful how you answer....if i really got what you were asking i might have a clearer answer. I kinda got you up to the "fault" bit. Is it the fake fur wearers fault that someone went and bought a real fur coat? It could be an influential factor for sure ("oh nice coat, I'd like one like that" ) . Maybe, maybe not, I'm just saying that if were as vocally rabid as PETA morons tend to be, I'd think a little more carefully about the message i send and whether i look like a hypocrite.

[frazier]

so it's at least partially the wearer's fault? whos assigning blame? and blame for what, the fur trade?
Well, maybe "blame" is too strong a word, but the "who" is you. You are saying that wearing fake fur promotes the fur trade, by "sending the message that fur/leather is a cool thing to wear".

if i really got what you were asking i might have a clearer answer.
Well, I don't think it's the wearer's responsibility if a legitimate clothing choice is misinterpreted. Does a woman have a right to wear attractive clothing, even if she has no intention of having sex with any man who finds her clothing "provocative"? Would she be a hypocrite if she complained afterwards? That's why some cultures put them in burkhas.

I'm just saying that if were as vocally rabid as PETA morons tend to be, I'd think a little more carefully about the message i send and whether i look like a hypocrite.I do understand you here. I just feel that them wearing fake fur is the least of their problems.

[Matty]

Well, maybe "blame" is too strong a word, but the "who" is you. You are saying that wearing fake fur promotes the fur trade, by "sending the message that fur/leather is a cool thing to wear".its a tenuous distinction but i think more than promoting the fur trade, its undermining their proselytized stance. So does that witch in charge using (originally) animal derived insulin for her diabetes and the fact that their animal shelters kill an awful lot of animals in direct opposition to their stated purpose. One more in the bag, as you say and a relatively minor one.

Well, I don't think it's the wearer's responsibility if a legitimate clothing choice is misinterpreted. Does a woman have a right to wear attractive clothing, even if she has no intention of having sex with any man who finds her clothing "provocative"? Would she be a hypocrite if she complained afterwards? That's why some cultures put them in burkhas.apples and oranges. people have the right to wear what they want as far as i am concerned, just dont wear it and tell me a directly conflicting message without expecting to be called on it is all.

I do understand you here. I just feel that them wearing fake fur is the least of their problems.well yeah. no argument there, :)
I've just had the fake fur (actually it was fake leather) discussion in person.

[Yahzi]

the look of fur as desirable is perpetuated.
The problem is not that the look of fur is desirable. The problem is that fur is desirable.

Is PETA against the look of fur or against fur? You are presenting PETA's position as being against a look, independent of how that look was achieved. Now perhaps a fashion statement can be made that fake fur is untenable; but I didn't think PETA was making a fashion statement.

This is like being against shiny black boots because the Nazis wore them. It's not logic or politics; it's sympathetic magic.

There is nothing wrong with PETA promoting alternatives to animal use in an effort to reduce animal use. In fact, it's about the most sensible thing they can do.

[Matty]

The problem is not that the look of fur is desirable. The problem is that fur is desirable.Is PETA against the look of fur or against fur?
and unless every fake fur is an obvious fake, which defeats the point, how are people supposed to know the difference? As far as someone walking down the street goes its simply a fur.
PLus why would an animal rights activist, if they are true to their ideals, wear something that even resembles that skinned from the animals they hold so dear?

How are you not seeing the moral paradox here?

This is like being against shiny black boots because the Nazis wore them.
Nothing like it at all in fact.

[Anne]

The problem is not that the look of fur is desirable. The problem is that fur is desirable.Is PETA against the look of fur or against fur?
and unless every fake fur is an obvious fake, which defeats the point, how are people supposed to know the difference? As far as someone walking down the street goes its simply a fur.
PLus why would an animal rights activist, if they are true to their ideals, wear something that even resembles that skinned from the animals they hold so dear?

How are you not seeing the moral paradox here?

This is like being against shiny black boots because the Nazis wore them.
Nothing like it at all in fact.

I've never yet seen a fake fur that could pass as real. Fake shearling, yeah, until touched. But fake fur, no.

And still--- this doesn't make sense.

the look of fur as desirable is perpetuated.
The problem is not that the look of fur is desirable. The problem is that fur is desirable.

Is PETA against the look of fur or against fur? You are presenting PETA's position as being against a look, independent of how that look was achieved. Now perhaps a fashion statement can be made that fake fur is untenable; but I didn't think PETA was making a fashion statement.

This is like being against shiny black boots because the Nazis wore them. It's not logic or politics; it's sympathetic magic.

There is nothing wrong with PETA promoting alternatives to animal use in an effort to reduce animal use. In fact, it's about the most sensible thing they can do.

:notworthy:

[Matty]

and this bit?

PLus why would an animal rights activist, if they are true to their ideals, wear something that even resembles that skinned from the animals they hold so dear?




There is nothing wrong with PETA promoting alternatives to animal use in an effort to reduce animal use. In fact, it's about the most sensible thing they can do.Not so. If they really wanted to lessen the amount of animals that are killed they would promote the use of leather as a by product of the food industry so that one animal is killed rather than one for meat and one for hide.

Of course they cant do that without being even more horribly hypocritical.

the trouble is here that you two are approaching this like a sensible thinking person, rather than a ALF or PETA fundy. To anyone actually true to the stated ideals of either, the perpetuation of (apparent) animal products as at all desirable is antiethical.

[Yahzi]

PLus why would an animal rights activist, if they are true to their ideals, wear something that even resembles that skinned from the animals they hold so dear?
True to whose ideals? The ideal of "not using animals" is not the same as "not liking the color/texture/feel of fur."

The problem here is that you are positing their ideals for them, and then complaining that they aren't true to them. That's unfair and unnecessary. I'm sure there's lots of things PETA is for that are actually inconsistent. :D

Consider S&M. Lots of people like to engage in rape fantasies. That does not, in any way, suggest that they actually condone rape. In fact, the kind of "rape" that goes on in an S&M act bears about the same resemblance to real rape that fake fur does to real fur. Which is to say, superficial.

Not so. If they really wanted to lessen the amount of animals that are killed they would promote the use of leather as a by product of the food industry so that one animal is killed rather than one for meat and one for hide.
If that was the best they could do, then they would be morally obliged to do that.

However, PETA probably suspects they can do better.

Eventually science is going to figure out how to grow meat in a vat, divorced from any kind of central nervous system. Both I the meat-eater and my office-mate the Buddhist vegetarian are going to be eager consumers of vat-grown meat. I see nothing inconsistent in that.

the trouble is here that you two are approaching this like a sensible thinking person, rather than a ALF or PETA fundy. To anyone actually true to the stated ideals of either, the perpetuation of (apparent) animal products as at all desirable is antiethical.
I'm not sure that's the stated ideals of ALF or PETA. Even if it is, the problem here is not so much the ideals as an unhealthy fixation with deonotological morality.

[epepke]

Matty is 100% correct, Anne.

If they are supporting a visual result of the killing of animals (fake or not), then it is inconsistent of them to oppose the killing of animals. The fact that there is a fake alternative to fur, is irrelevant.

PeTA just loves killing animals. It makes them squirt on the ceiling. This is why in most of the states they operate, they get in trouble with the law for rounding up adoptable pets and killing them in particularly inhumane manners.