Yet another reason I do not support PETA

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

PETA, Greenpeace and their like are terrorist organisations.

ford family

terrorists?

I looked up a number of definitions for terrorist most used "use of violence" and some used "use of terror". For the record, Greenpeace (you can say what you want about PETA - I have no respect for them) is a pacificist/anti-violence organization. I don't see how scaling buildings, hanging from bridges, etc is terrorist?!?! PETA goes too far - Greenpeace does not because they know it does no good to turn of the majority of people - either for the cause in general or their organizations efforts, fundraising, etc.

PETA is one thing, but you can hardly put Greenpeace in the same category.

 

[bicker]

PETA needs to leave the children out of this!!!!!!

PETA's point is that McDonald's needs to leave the children out of this. McDonald's is targeting children, with their marketing and packaging. McDonald's crossed the line; PETA is simply trying to get McDonald's to stop its predatory practices that foster what they consider cruelty.

While I don't really like the McCruelty campaign, PETA isn't all that extreme. If you want to talk about extreme, we can find you examples of actions people take in the interests of animals that PETA would condemn as too extreme. If you're way on the far side of the issue, then yes, of course, PETA's measured animal-advocacy perspective could seem extreme to you, but that's more a reflection of your own extremism in the other direction than PETA's actual position in the spectrum, AFAIC. No, they're not middle-of-the-road, but they're not extreme.

Having said that, I don't blame McDonald's for doing everything (legal) that they can to make the most money for their owners. That's their fiduciary responsibility, even if it violates someone else's strident concern for the ethical treatment of animals. Plain and simple: Like it or not, people are allowed to be cruel to animals, in the manner that most chicken farmers in the US are cruel to chickens. McDonald's says that they "expect" humane treatment by their suppliers, but the reality is that animals often suffer needlessly solely due to financial considerations. As I said, that's a right McDonald's and all corporations have, but that doesn't mean that PETA needs to be happy about it, or stand back silently and let it happen, without expressing their horror.

I also agree that parents have an absolute right to decline anything being handed to their children, without exception, without predjudice.

So, while I applaud PETA's protest, I respect McDonald' refusal to change, and parent's wish to have control over whether their children receive one of these kits. This is a battle for the minds and hearts of Americans -- not a matter of a single product at a single purveyor. I don't think either side deserves to "win", but both sides deserve to have their say, in the public arena, and try to affect change in their preferred direction. If people want to be insulated from the disagreement, or want their children to be insulated from it, then stay home.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I would guess if the meals could be "rated" they would be rated R and thus they are guilty of distributing inappropriate material to children.

How'd they know that the child isn't a vegetarian! I tell you that I have known parents that just order a cheeseburger without the burger.

Using violent depictions to spread their message--just simply means that they can't convince anyone with words.

And no--they do not have the right to approach any "child" with their message.

 

[bicker]

I would guess if the meals could be "rated" they would be rated R and thus they are guilty of distributing inappropriate material to children.

Remarkably, while our society has laws about exposing obscene materials to children, it has no laws about exposing children to violence. The MPAA rating system you referred to is wholly voluntary, a reflection of that industry's own perspective, and not applicable beyond the bounds of participating movie houses.

Of course, the greatest depiction of violence that those children are being subjected to is the actual dead bird that their parents are feeding to them.

 

[shortbun]

PETA does some good work, this isn't that. I would object to my child being given this material big time. That said, we really try to avoid McDonalds and my son has been a vegetarian(I'm not) since he was 8-his choice and for moral reasons. So-small children GET that animals are dying to feed them sometimes. But small children are also attracted to toys, colorful packaging and dancing clowns. THIS is what PETA is trying to say to you. Having friends that are PETA members and actually two who are very active PETA members, all PETA people are not crazy. They don't wear leather, they are vegan, they talk the talk and walk the walk. I respect them. I respect all the 'crazy' environmentalists in this world who risk their lives to call attention to the horror animals and Mother Earth are experiencing at the hand of man. They make us think rather than walking around numbed by the drone of our lives and the drugs that are in our food.

 

[ma2jr]

PETA does some good work, this isn't that.

I agree

 

[shortbun]

I keep watching Whale Wars, hoping that one of those whaling ships will sink the terrorist vessel...

Wow! This is a really violent post. People trying to save whales are terrorists and deserve to die? Pretty reactionary and scary -more scary than getting a meal with a rubber chicken in it- a lot more scary.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

It's up to the parents to educate their children according to their own beliefs..

I put PETA in the same classification as people who stand around holding up signs of aborted babies - for "shock" value.. They're nut cases - pure and simple.. If that is the only way to get ones "cause" across to others, they have already failed in their mission..

Totally agree with you!

My DH would not take to kindly to someone who gave my child that garbage.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Wow! This is a really violent post. People trying to save whales are terrorists and deserve to die? Pretty reactionary and scary -more scary than getting a meal with a rubber chicken in it- a lot more scary.

Who said anyone should die? Do you want them to die? With the cameras and everything else, I suspect that they would all live. But if a few should die, they are in a self-proclaimed war against people who are breaking no laws. Their choice, not mine. Based on some of the things that I have seen on that program, they belong in prison, at a minimum.

If you are scared by my post...

 

[npmommie]

I keep watching Whale Wars, hoping that one of those whaling ships will sink the terrorist vessel...

Who said anyone should die? Do you want them to die? With the cameras and everything else, I suspect that they would all live. But if a few should die, they are in a self-proclaimed war against people who are breaking no laws. Their choice, not mine. Based on some of the things that I have seen on that program, they belong in prison, at a minimum.

If you are scared by my post...

umm you said you hope their ship is sunk by the whalers, so therefore You are saying you hope they die.
the cameras aren't going to save them, the camera men are on the ship with them.
they would die if their ship was sunk, pretty simple.

the issue with the whaling is larger than anyone wants to admit. its not just protecting a beautiful animal that is smarter than a lot of humans.
whales keep the ecological balance of the oceans in check. it all trickles down.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

umm you said you hope their ship is sunk by the whalers, so therefore You are saying you hope they die...

 

[LuvOrlando]

These activists have my sympathies to an extent. Like most causes, they lose me when the cross over into a realm where their cause, whatever it is, crowds out someone elses' rights. In this case, when the lives of animals, which are important, cross over into being more important than human life. That's where my personal ethics kick in and I just can't follow.

 

[npmommie]

just thought I would join in............

 

[toledo13]

http://www.slashfood.com/2009/08/07.../2009/08/07/peta-unhappy-meals-targeting-kids


You know I try to make humane, sustainable, eco friendly choices. But I have never been a fan of Greenpeace, or SeaShepard or PETA. I find any form of extremism distasteful, even when it's for a good cause. But I tend to take a stance of "I'm responsible for my choices and others have to make their own". However if someone had handed that to my young child without my permission I would seriously consider throwing a punch. You don't target kids, not like this.

I wrote them a email on thier site letting them know how disgusting I found this campaign and how they had lowered themselves below the level of the very people they campaign against. I was just so mad when I read it.

WOAH! This crazy vegetarian over here wave2 even thinks this is nuts! Bad PETA... bad bad PETA!

 

[Carly_Roach]

And no--they do not have the right to approach any "child" with their message.

I hate to tell you this but children are approached with messages all day long, every day, 24/7/365. Mostly through TV or the internet, but also through school, friends, other parents, etc. I think what you're really saying is that no one has the right to approach any child with a message you disagree with. Which is absolutely, 100% wrong. This is America and everyone has a right to free speech.

Kids are pretty resilient. If a child were handed that "happy meal" on the way into McDonalds and they asked their parent about it, a simple "No dear. That's a lunatic and we don't take things from lunatics" clears the air pretty effectively and the child forgets about the whole thing. It's how we handle our neices and nephews if/when they're handed a religious tract and asked if they're "saved" when we're out together.

The less brou-ha-ha the better. The more emotion you give to a situation, the more reason the child watching you has to wonder if the lunatics might be right. If you're calm and sure of yourself when you respond to zealots (whatever their cause may be), then the child you're with will have more confidence in the values that your family holds.

At least, that's always been our experience. YMMV.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Remarkably, while our society has laws about exposing obscene materials to children, it has no laws about exposing children to violence. The MPAA rating system you referred to is wholly voluntary, a reflection of that industry's own perspective, and not applicable beyond the bounds of participating movie houses.

Of course, the greatest depiction of violence that those children are being subjected to is the actual dead bird that their parents are feeding to them.

Clearly I wasn't expecting a voluntary rating system to apply.

Your last statement is absurd.

Suprisingly that eating meet goes back for thousands of years (and for those watching the Bible--this would be after Adam and Eve got booted from the garden).

It is simply a source of food. I always wondered how PETA reconciled the animal kingdom eating each other.

I'm not defending slaughterhouse practices--but to say that the children are being subjected to it--is poor vernacular when all they see is a finished product. They aren't being subject to anything--but unhealthy food. Which is a whole other topic together.

 

[HSMndLKfan92]

Thanks for the good laugh!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I hate to tell you this but children are approached with messages all day long, every day, 24/7/365. Mostly through TV or the internet, but also through school, friends, other parents, etc. I think what you're really saying is that no one has the right to approach any child with a message you disagree with. Which is absolutely, 100% wrong. This is America and everyone has a right to free speech.
.

Well--I homeschool, so they aren't getting exposed to anything that I haven't blessed. And yes, we monitor commercials.

So I hate to tell you--but they aren't really getting exposed to anything that I don't know about. And if some creep comes up with a murdering clown on a box-they're going to have a serious problem on their hands for harrassing my child.

 

[bicker]

In this case, when the lives of animals, which are important, cross over into being more important than human life.

Nothing they're doing endangers anyone's life.

Your last statement is absurd.

Your saying so is pretty absurd, actually. My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, hence the smiley indicating I wasn't really serious. However, since it struck a nerve with you, perhaps there was more actuality and importance in my statement than I originally gave it credit for. I can see how there is some real irony in objecting to faked depictions of violence against chickens when the food just purchased reflects real depictions of violence against chickens.

Suprisingly that eating meet goes back for thousands of years

I'm glad you mentioned that. It reminds me of a story my wife never gets tired of sharing with me, of how she grew up on a farm, raising chickens, and at the tender age of four her Mamaw introduced her to the manner in which Sunday dinner was acquired, starting with the dispensing of the chicken, the defeathering and such, and so forth (with my wife, again, at age 4). The fact that chickens die so humans can eat really shouldn't be a big revelation for anyone, and really isn't the issue in this case. Sure, PETA would rather it not occur. However, that's not the point in this case. The point goes back to Mamaw and the fact that her chickens were as happy as chickens could be, before they were taken for Sunday dinner, and their dispensing was as humane as possible -- immediate and definitive. There are ways that McDonald's can treat chickens even better than Mamaw did. They choose not to. And you know I'm the first person to defend their right to operate as they do, and indeed I did, above, but that doesn't mean that PETA's concerns in this regard are any less worthy of respect, as well.

 

[a1tinkfans]

http://www.slashfood.com/2009/08/07.../2009/08/07/peta-unhappy-meals-targeting-kids



You know I try to make humane, sustainable, eco friendly choices. But I have never been a fan of Greenpeace, or SeaShepard or PETA. I find any form of extremism distasteful, even when it's for a good cause. But I tend to take a stance of "I'm responsible for my choices and others have to make their own". However if someone had handed that to my young child without my permission I would seriously consider throwing a punch. You don't target kids, not like this.

I wrote them a email on thier site letting them know how disgusting I found this campaign and how they had lowered themselves below the level of the very people they campaign against. I was just so mad when I read it.

When an Organization has to Target Happy Meal Eating Children, you know that they are SO FAR OUT that you disregard what they say all togther....
So, all they did for me was further remind me what a SICK group of individual RADICALS they really are, SAD.
I don't think any of us want poor treatment to ant living thing, but they go to far, to grab attention and SHOCK VALUE is the only way they feel they can make their goal, SAD INDEED!