Slashdot Log In
PETA Using Games To Spread Its Message
Posted by
Soulskill
on Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:45 PM
from the looking-for-a-new-audience-to-harass dept.
from the looking-for-a-new-audience-to-harass dept.
Cooking Mama is a series of games for the Wii and the DS in which players go through a number of steps to prepare meals using a variety of recipes. Last week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) created their own Flash-based parody of the game, highlighting the use of meat products by having a more bloody-minded Mama do things like pull the internal organs from a Thanksgiving turkey. Cooking Mama's maker, Majesco, issued a light-hearted response, pointing out the vegetarian meals in the game. PETA then said they plan to continue making parody games as a way of "engaging the public."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Should I be bothered? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because as long as they aren't doing the whole "domestic terrorism" thing or going after kids while the parents aren't looking I don't really give a damn.
I know my food used to be alive, and I know it had internal organs. Some of them are quite tasty.
Re:Should I be bothered? (Score:4, Interesting)
I propose an "Eat a Beef Burger for PETA" day here on the Slash.
Parent
Re:Should I be bothered? (Score:5, Funny)
put bacon on it. Eat two animals because they won't eat one.
Parent
Re:Should I be bothered? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Butcher Mama (Score:5, Funny)
Hrmm (Score:4, Funny)
So I guess a remake of "Duck Hunt" is out of the question?
Irritating. (Score:5, Funny)
That's it - every time they make one of those parodies, I'm eating a puppy.
Re:Irritating. (Score:4, Funny)
Well, OK. As long as it's a free-range puppy, raised in a healthy and loving environment.
Parent
lol peta (Score:4, Insightful)
Peta out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
As an animal lover - and I mean that in precisely two different ways - I believe that Peta is wrong in its philosophy, and its actions.
First, I believe you can treat animals ethically and humanely without assigning them "rights [wikipedia.org]." Animals cannot claim their rights (as we understand them). If given, they cannot exercise them. (Except, of course, the right to life.)
Second, even though Peta has some right ideas, their love of shock theater can make even sympathetic people cringe. They are at their best when putting up billboards against chaining up dogs. And doing the most good, probably. Flinging fake blood at people, though...
Parent
Re:Peta out of control - Now in Warcraft! (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a lot of replies to this AC post crying "Foul, he mentioned religion"
Take a look around you at the rest of the world outside your basement. The majority of the world is religious and follows those "bronze age mythologies" as truth, regardless of what we think of them.
If they are going to use their religion against us, and try to cram it down our throats, the smartest move would be to learn to use it back, both to defend, and protect our beliefs and rights.
I feel it is a right for me to eat meat. No one should have the ability to remove that right from me. If I have to use their own holy books against them, so be it. Get past your own idiology and mental restrictions to look at the place everything has in this world, and listen fairly and with an open mind or you will NEVER rise above their level.
Parent
Re:Peta out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
If every meat eater has to kill his own animals there would be a whole lot more vegetarians.
There probably would be more vegetarians initially, however most people would rapidly adjust. Killing cleanly is a skill that used to be fairly common and could be again, its hypocritical to eat meat if you couldn't bring yourself to kill it in the first place.
It's only wealth which saves us the chore of killing and preparing our own meat, to be frank there is a lot of prepared meat products we eat regularly which we wouldn't eat if we knew what we were eating.
Parent
Re:PETA really are insane though (Score:5, Insightful)
...and, at the same time, PETA is killing a bunch of dogs it 'rescues' from animal shelters. Placing none of them in homes.
This is because it disapproves of pet ownership. So it thinks pets are better off dead. So it collects animals from unknowing animal shelters and kills them.
Oh, and it thinks we should 'liberate' cows. Despite the fact that cows can't survive in the wild. They'd all die giving birth. So it, essentially, wishes every cow dead, which fits nicely with it wishing every dog and cat running feral so we have to shoot them. (Horses, at least, would be fine, although I have to question where the hell they'd all live.)
PETA is completely insane. Everyone should oppose them at every turn. It doesn't matter if you happen to agree with some point of theirs. Don't support them, don't give them money, don't help them in any manner whatsoever. They are fucking lunatics.
If you want to help animals out, write your representative and ask him to require more humane ways of slaughtering animals for food, and donate your money to the local animal shelter.
Parent
In my world (Score:4, Informative)
As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
If animals werent meant to be eaten, they wouldnt have been made so tasty.
Their next game - Pet Killers (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it would be based on the actual experiences of PETA staffers: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ [petakillsanimals.com]
Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay -- I was being an asshole there. I know full well what they're trying to do, and that is simply to put people off eating meat because its "gross" and "its a doe-eyed living breathing animal". I would like to make my stance known now; I think this reasoning for being a vegetarian is retarded. I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.
Re:Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey (Score:5, Insightful)
I promise to try to answer this question in a way that's not preachy. However, I *am* vegan, so filter my post in whatever way suits you.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.
While I can't speak for all vegans, the general consensus is that we don't eat byproducts (milk, eggs, honey, etc) from humanely raised animals because it's not freely given. It's still unnecessary exploitation, in our opinion. This is why breastmilk is vegan (it is freely given), but cow's milk is not. I'm quite happy that you didn't come out with the "cows would be in pain if we didn't milk them" argument. I get that one a lot, from people who haven't done much research on biology (this wasn't a dig, I promise).
As for your other points, I'll touch on a couple of them, if you don't mind.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Er... no. Again, in my own personal opinion, it's about reducing exploitation. Would it be ethical to do this to people? Most people would claim that it is not. When one asks why it's okay to kill an animal but not a person, one often gets the answer that humans are smarter. Yet, when you ask if they would treat a mentally retarded person as an animal, it seems to be out of the question.
In general, my stance is that we should grant, to as many beings as *practical,* the "rights" of life and self-ownership. I don't want rabbits to be able to vote, because they're not capable (so far as we know) of agreeing to societal contracts. However, we generally afford those basic rights to anyone.
Frankly, the decision to grant the rights of life and self-ownership to humans only seems a bit arbitrary. At one point there was certainly a practical aspect to this, but I doubt many people (at least in the USA where I am, and many other parts of the world) would be able to claim much hardship if they gave up animal products.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Again, the objective is "as much as is practical." It's fairly easy to live without eating animals, or their byproducts. As far as I know, it's not at all practical to live without eating plants.
As for the ethics of killing plants: If you're really concerned about it, the best way you could reduce the killing of plants is to stop eating animals. The energy conversion rates are astoundingly bad. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think y
Parent
peta is a luxury of the rich (Score:4, Insightful)
its about being disconnected from the sources of your food, about being coccooned from the roots of the highly processed products that define your life from infancy, and having no bearings or anchor to the larger, natural world
we eat animals, we evolved that way. if you want to talk morality, that's natural morality. vile horrendous forms of suffering happens every minute on this globe, predators squeezing the air out of animals as they slowly suffocate, bovines having their throats ripped out after a terrifying all out race across the grasslands, baby birds being swallowed alive whole... its all completely normal and natural. what is there to argue with about that?
how we treat other human beings matters, because it forms a basis for human morality. morality is important in the realm of HUMAN interaction, to maintain social coherence and cohesion. if humans break moral codes amongst themselves, they represent dangers to us all that must be punished. this is the reason for human morality
but extending morality outside human-human interaction is some sort of rich isolated child's game
its the kid in their SUV driving by a mack truck hauling pigs and looking in the slats and making eye contact with the swine, and having an auschwitz moment. its contrived, maudlin, self-pitying foolishness from feeble minds unaware of the larger world
we need to care more about human beings in the third world, a million times longer before we even care one tiny bit about some future hamburger. now THAT'S a moral statement
i saw a chick walking down the sidewalk once in manhattan, wearing a t-shir that read "animals are people too"
that succinctly sums up the delusions of peta
Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Which games? (Score:5, Funny)
Damn straight. Around these parts, I hunt deer and they hunt me. I use a 2 ton missile, and they use their bodies :(
Too bad Ive wrecked 2 cars, including cracking the engine block in 2 on a 10 point buck. That one sucked.
Parent
Re:Which games? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ALF, which is funded by PETA? Or perhaps I'm actually talking about actual PETA assaults [cbsnews.com] on people?
Take your pick. I have no problem with treating animials humanely, but not by a group that wants to force me to be a vegitarian through violence.
Parent
Re:eww (Score:5, Funny)
What's PETAs stand on human cruelty?
Don't quote me on this, but I believe that they are against the eating of human beings.
Parent
Re:The case against meat (Score:4, Informative)
I grew up with a love of animals and I'm also a culinary student and an aspiring chef. As such, I eat meat. Lots of meat. I can't get enough of it.
I satisfy my moral issues by caring about where my meat comes from. I won't give money to super farms that raise animals in poor conditions and give them antibiotics, steroids and cheap feed. These farms also often employ workers who really don't give a rats ass about the treatment of the animals or the quality of the meat that they're producing. They're getting paid crap and they follow the procedures in order to keep their jobs without any kind of care what-so-ever. A close friend of mine worked on such a farm when he was a teenager and went vegetarian.
I prefer free-range, organic. Before I started cooking I used to think those were just buzz-words. But in Canada, the US and the UK they're not just random marketing gibberish. They're regulated. You can't advertise a product as organic unless it's been certified (and in Canada, where I'm from, the packaging has to state the name of the certification body that certified the product - I can't say for other countries). Free-range means the animals aren't confined in cages and are free to roam around the farm etc. I firmly believe that this meat is better for you and far better quality. It's produced by people who care. They care about the product that they're selling you and thus they care about the animal. The end result is meat that tastes better and comes from an animal that wasn't mistreated.
The abattoirs are also important. In countries that regulate, animals need to be slaughtered in licensed abattoirs that slaughter the animal in a humane method. Cows are slaughtered by injecting them with a powerful sedative to knock them unconscious and then their throat is cut and the animal is drained. It's over very fast. Most other animals are slaughtered via a powerful electrical current through the brain, followed by draining.
If you can't get over raising an animal and killing it for food then it won't matter how the animal is raised or slaughtered. The way I see it, the earth is extremely brutal. If you look at animals that use venom to subdue their prey sometimes it's terrifying what the prey goes through. Humans can be better but in the end we're just another animal. Everything eats other life, even vegetarians. If we want to take a moral high ground then I believe we can do that with how we treat our food before it becomes food. Not all farms mistreat their livestock and there's a whole industry growing around farms that give their livestock better lives than many humans get.
Parent
Re:The case against meat (Score:5, Insightful)
BINGO!
Vegetarians playing the morality card are associating gruesome with cruel, and that's simply not the case when we're talking about execution methods. Sure, it looks ugly, but that doesn't mean it wasn't mostly painless.
Now, the actual life that the animals live, I can grant them some ground on the cruelty charges there. I've seen chickens raised for eggs kept in horrible conditions. Three years in a cage with the 18 birds above you literally shitting on you. Every feather on them was black, and half of 'em didn't even have any feathers at all. I felt bad for those critters.
But the cows at the dairy farm across from me seemed to be treated well. The cattle out in Montana roaming the ranges seemed perfectly normal to me too.
Parent