catsittingstill (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
catsittingstill) wrote2009-06-04 09:43 am
catsittingstill) wrote2009-06-04 09:43 am
Not quite getting the outrage...
PETA is planning to put up two billboards. They have the same picture of cute baby chicks.
One will say "Pro-Life"? Go Vegetarian"
One will say "Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian"
Some people are really mad about this. Now I understand being mad about the murder of Dr. Tiller. I'm mad too. But the billboards are referring to this only in an extremely meta way ( if I may use the word that way)--in their timing. And in the meantime, I'd *much* rather see PETA putting their time and efforts into billboards (billboards that don't even degrade women--which I understand is kind of a step forward for them) than see them vandalizing labs and stealing lab animals (white, with red eyes, spent their entire lives in cages with food and water conveniently on hand) and throwing them over the tailgate in the middle of the desert to live or die as best they can manage. Or any of the other objectionable things they do.
They are trying to persuade people to become vegetarians. Persuade, not force, not intimidate--just persuade people to consider the idea. And they're trying to appeal to both sides, which makes sense to me, because vegetarianism really has nothing to do with abortion either way, so both sides should be potentially persuadable.
And it does seem likely that people will have been thinking about which side of the abortion issue they are on (or where in the middle) and why, so the billboards might catch their eye.
Is that what makes it objectionable, that the billboards bring the murder back to mind?
One person in the article says "How long was PETA hoping for a doctor to get killed to get these signs up?"
I don't support PETA but even I don't think that is quite fair. Any major newsworthy incident would have done. I do think that an act of violence was the most likely newsworthy event, and when I think about the two groups, I see a pretty good guess at which way the act of violence will go, and only a couple of possibilities of what it will be, but I don't think PETA was hoping for this outcome. If the newsworthy event had been a pro-choice person murdering an anti-abortion person, or a clinic bombing, or a pro-Choice person bombing an anti-abortion Church or something, they would have used the same billboards. Or for that matter a *good* newsworthy event, like, um....say pro-choice and anti-abortion people working together on a major nation-wide birth control campaign to make sure every person of fertile age had it and knew how to use it.
All it had to do was hit the news and make a splash.
One will say "Pro-Life"? Go Vegetarian"
One will say "Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian"
Some people are really mad about this. Now I understand being mad about the murder of Dr. Tiller. I'm mad too. But the billboards are referring to this only in an extremely meta way ( if I may use the word that way)--in their timing. And in the meantime, I'd *much* rather see PETA putting their time and efforts into billboards (billboards that don't even degrade women--which I understand is kind of a step forward for them) than see them vandalizing labs and stealing lab animals (white, with red eyes, spent their entire lives in cages with food and water conveniently on hand) and throwing them over the tailgate in the middle of the desert to live or die as best they can manage. Or any of the other objectionable things they do.
They are trying to persuade people to become vegetarians. Persuade, not force, not intimidate--just persuade people to consider the idea. And they're trying to appeal to both sides, which makes sense to me, because vegetarianism really has nothing to do with abortion either way, so both sides should be potentially persuadable.
And it does seem likely that people will have been thinking about which side of the abortion issue they are on (or where in the middle) and why, so the billboards might catch their eye.
Is that what makes it objectionable, that the billboards bring the murder back to mind?
One person in the article says "How long was PETA hoping for a doctor to get killed to get these signs up?"
I don't support PETA but even I don't think that is quite fair. Any major newsworthy incident would have done. I do think that an act of violence was the most likely newsworthy event, and when I think about the two groups, I see a pretty good guess at which way the act of violence will go, and only a couple of possibilities of what it will be, but I don't think PETA was hoping for this outcome. If the newsworthy event had been a pro-choice person murdering an anti-abortion person, or a clinic bombing, or a pro-Choice person bombing an anti-abortion Church or something, they would have used the same billboards. Or for that matter a *good* newsworthy event, like, um....say pro-choice and anti-abortion people working together on a major nation-wide birth control campaign to make sure every person of fertile age had it and knew how to use it.
All it had to do was hit the news and make a splash.
no subject
PETA praised the break-in and said that the animals had been examined by a vet and adopted to good homes.
Four of the (white) antibody rabbits were found in a blinking huddle in the desert south of Roseburg, Oregon. Well, technically five rabbits, but the fifth one died before they could be rescued. They couldn't be used for research anymore, but at least they were saved.
no subject
Let me amend my comment: It is not an exaggeration to say that PETA is the Westboro Baptist Church of animal rights.