Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Entertainment Games

PETA Using Games To Spread Its Message 477

Posted by Soulskill
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This discussion has been archived.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.

PETA Using Games To Spread Its Message

Comments Filter:
  • by arth1 (260657) on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:49PM (#25880841) Homepage Journal

    Somehow it would be funny if PETA sponsored Natural Fawn Killers.

  • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:50PM (#25880853)

    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.

  • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:51PM (#25880857) Journal
    We should respond by releasing a flash game targeted at 8-12 year olds entitled "Butcher Mama," showing a farm-life environment where you have to slaughter and butcher hogs, chickens, cattle, and fish (from a fishery!). Target the age when your grandpappy taught you about farming, and even have such heart-felt phrases like "this is the best part, they dance around after ya kill 'em" that you should be familiar with if you were raised around livestock.
  • Hrmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by acehole (174372) on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:53PM (#25880871) Homepage

    So I guess a remake of "Duck Hunt" is out of the question?

  • Irritating. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:53PM (#25880873)

    That's it - every time they make one of those parodies, I'm eating a puppy.

  • lol peta (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kevind23 (1296253) <dodge.kevin@gmai ... m minus math_god> on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:55PM (#25880889) Homepage
    Even as a vegetarian, I'll admit peta is out of control.
    • by OakDragon (885217) on Monday November 24, 2008 @10:15PM (#25881053) Journal

      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...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kevind23 (1296253)
        Peta does manage to convert people to their cause, but the majority are turned away from it because of the methods they employ. I am for ethical treatment of animals, including farm animals, but I don't need a shock video to convince me. It's more disturbing than anything else.

        I wish they could find a better way to spread their message.
        • by hedwards (940851)

          Precisely, it's hard for me to take them at all seriously when they're that cartoonish. Really they're more suited to James Bond films, or more probably Austin Powers than actual progress.

          It's difficult to take a message seriously when there's so little actual substance to it.

          Here's a hint, try actually coming up with a message that isn't repugnant and is well executed. Otherwise it'll be turning off the majority of the sympathetic audience.

      • 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.)

        The same could be said of children, for what it's worth. Whether or not something can exercise or claim its rights should not vitiate them.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I'm sorry but...

        Animals have the right to be damn tasty.

        Be it fried, grilled, baked, or whatever.

        People for the Eating of TASTY Animals.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I agree that PETA is out of control. They've even been parodied in World of Warcraft as the D.H.E.T.A (Druids for the Humane and Ethical Treatment of Animals), but I must refer back to Genesis in this respect. God gave Adam dominion of all life on the earth to use as he saw fit.

        As it stands, this original mandate, before being cast from Eden, allows us to do what we will with these animals. Later, in Leviticus, certain restrictions on diet and deviate sexual practices (bestiality) were later forbidden, b

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JoshJ (1009085)
          How about we ignore bronze age mythology and have a rational discussion about this matter?
        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by ndogg (158021)

          I wanted to be with you on all of that, except that you had to invoke religion. Can't rational arguments be made without it?

        • by Missing_dc (1074809) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @07:36AM (#25884579)

          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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jonadab (583620)
          > I must refer back to Genesis in this respect. God gave Adam
          > dominion of all life on the earth to use as he saw fit.

          Umm, before you cite Genesis in support of your ideas, maybe you should read Genesis more carefully so you can get your citations right. God instructed Adam to look after the animals, but he gave him plants for food. Adam was a vegetarian. Genesis is very clear on this point.

          Animals *were* given as food also, but not until the time of Noah (i.e., hundreds of years later) and even th
    • No, kidding.

      I'd wish they would quite wasting their time on virtual reality, and focus on the real physical problems such as these sick people who skin animals alive.

      WARNING: Do NOT watch unless you have a strong stomach...
      http://gegen-tierquaelerei.6x.to/ [6x.to]

    • by Dutch Gun (899105)

      What in the world would make you say that? [furisdead.com] All they're doing is passing our literature to children attending the Nutcracker with their parents. [furisdead.com]
         

    • Being vegetarian has nothing to do with these acrimonious little fucks.

      Love the way they don't point out the number of animals they slaughter themselves every year that they "rescue".

  • In my world (Score:4, Informative)

    by fishthegeek (943099) on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:58PM (#25880913) Journal
    Vegetables are what food eats.
    • Food is cruel, then (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I personally don't see a clear dividing line between an animal's right to life and a vegetable's right to life. There is a continuum of intelligence, for lack of a better word, from man down to microbe. Humans should clearly have rights because society requires it; beyond that, the decision to protect or purchase is based on an arbitrary value choice.

      I'm not being entirely facetious, either; the bits I've read about the lives of plants (i.e. they communicate, actively respond to their environment, and activ

    • by shma (863063)

      Vegetables are what food eats.

      And that kids, is why you should NEVER eat your vegetables.

  • As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acehole (174372) on Monday November 24, 2008 @09:58PM (#25880917) Homepage

    If animals werent meant to be eaten, they wouldnt have been made so tasty.

    • by OakDragon (885217)

      If animals werent meant to be eaten, they wouldnt have been made so tasty.

      Actually, I believe it's : If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Garridan (597129)
        So God wants us to eat people, too, right? Seriously, though. If people have a problem with killing to eat, they shouldn't eat vegetables, either.
  • Of a game that involves showing how sausage is made. I seem to remember hearing that if you ever have seen it made you would never want to eat it.

    Of course they would probably make a game of hiding the sausage over and over again too. I fits with their mantra of going naked to draw publicity.
  • PETA (Score:2, Funny)

    by tkrotchko (124118) *

    PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

    Remember, there's room for all of god's creatures... on the plate right next to the mashed potatoes and green beans.

  • by RocketJeff (46275) on Monday November 24, 2008 @10:03PM (#25880959) Homepage

    Of course it would be based on the actual experiences of PETA staffers: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ [petakillsanimals.com]

  • The video after you play the game is the best part "Turkeys throats are slit while they're actually ALIVE!!!!!" Ummm, duh, I think that is kind of the point.
  • Who think Majesco's decision to laugh it off instead of sic the lawyers was due to PETA's reputation for bordering on domestic terrorism and Majesco just decided they would be better off to avoid any escalation?

    Perhaps we need a new PLO - Parody Liberation Organization - to scare the crap out of companies that issue bogus DMCA notices.

  • by rpillala (583965) on Monday November 24, 2008 @10:41PM (#25881245)

    There are a number of arguments against meat and whatever other cruelty to animals, but most of them center on the audience regarding animal cruelty as wrong. Without that basic level of common ground, no further rational argument is possible. Lucky for PETA, many people do have problems with cruel treatment of animals, and with the fact that much of the cruelty is not for any good reason. The question is where to draw the line, and I think that's the only question. PETA and I draw it pretty far back, others will trade lots of animal cruelty for some physical pleasure, stopping I guess just short of bestiality.

    So PETA is in the awkward and unenviable position of reminding people of their own moral standards. Not PETA's standards, but the audience's. Most people avoid information about the cruel and inhumane treatment of their meat products. The only explanation I have for this is that they lack the willpower or perhaps the technical knowledge to make the decision they believe to be right. However, I know that slashdot has a ton of tough guys who pride themselves on having absolutely no compassion. Maybe they'll chime in on this post, overcompensating for their meat guilt by describing how little they care and how much they enjoy meat. I already see some of it in the thread, and they're making my point for me.

    Over the years, after being asked to defend being vegetarian, I understand PETA's position pretty well. People ask, idly, "why" and expect an answer related to cholesterol or "energy" or some shit. That's not my reason at all. I was raised vegetarian, being from South India, so it's pretty easy for me to be all self-righteous and you can see some of that in this post too. It used to be a lot worse. At some point, how you were raised is not enough of an explanation, and you have to either figure out the real reasons independent of your parents or just shrug it off and start eating meat. So as soon as I even mention pain and suffering, people start the handwaving and cut me off because even though they asked, I'm the jerk for actually telling them. They don't want to make the decision independent of how they were raised, I guess. In fairness, I don't know if I could either.

    PETA is, obviously, more militant than I am. Conscience can be like that. As always in these meat posts, I refer the reader to Hard To Swallow [theatlantic.com], which makes these points in a better way.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pi_rules (123171)

      So as soon as I even mention pain and suffering, people start the handwaving and cut me off because even though they asked, I'm the jerk for actually telling them.

      They cut you off because they've heard the argument before.

      You're better off starting with the "I'm from South India where it's just common." That's something most people don't know, and would give you an "in" to explain what the diet consists of. Education is always better than trying to pull the ethics/morality card out.

      • by rpillala (583965)

        That's certainly true. They do ask sometimes "well what do you eat" then I start telling them about how great Indian food is. Which it is, and that works in my favor.

        But I also think they're looking for some kind of validation, i.e. for me to say something that goes along with their frame of "it's just a personal choice" as opposed to a moral issue. I'm not interested in validating anyone, and sometimes I get more antsy than others.

        Good advice, though.

        • by pi_rules (123171)

          I start telling them about how great Indian food is. Which it is, and that works in my favor.

          Indeed.

          The only way I could ever go vegetarian would be to include a LOT of Indian food in my diet. I don't mind it when the meat's missing in Indian food, and I know that the lentils, garbonzo beans, tofu (I use it instead of paneer), etc. are giving me the protein I need.

          It's low fat, low calorie, gives you what you need, and you can cook a dish with a single skillet. I really wish it was more popular here in th

        • by arkhan_jg (618674)

          As if moral issues are any different than personal choices. None of us are born with a particular moral framework, we learn it from our parents, culture, religion and sometimes we come to it on our own. No matter, it's still a personal choice of rules to live by.

          You choose to assign a higher value to animal life than others, that doesn't make you defacto a better person. I also disagree with your premise that to be a meat eater requires 'meat guilt', ignorance, or callousness. I know full well the process o

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      Perhaps we just don't think that killing animals is necessarily cruel and/or inhumane.

      • by pi_rules (123171) on Monday November 24, 2008 @11:36PM (#25881669)

        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.

        • by blueg3 (192743)

          The one I can't stand is people who claim that "natural is better" and then turn around and talk about vegetarianism.

          There's plenty of room to complain about animal cruelty, but I don't agree that eating animals is necessarily cruel. (It seems that genetically, being desired by humans is practically a Darwinian trump card.) But then, I only eat the free-range organic non-cruel stuff -- it's what's available locally, and it's much tastier than grocery-store meat.

    • by garett_spencley (193892) on Monday November 24, 2008 @11:33PM (#25881643) Journal

      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.

    • The question is where to draw the line, and I think that's the only question. PETA and I draw it pretty far back, others will trade lots of animal cruelty for some physical pleasure, stopping I guess just short of bestiality.

      Shouldn't a tolerant open-minded society allow individuals to draw their own line? (So long as the consequences of such actions do not do harm to or disrupt the rights of other people)

      So PETA is in the awkward and unenviable position of reminding people of their own moral standards. No

    • There are a number of arguments against meat and whatever other cruelty to animals, but most of them center(sic) on the audience regarding animal cruelty as wrong.

      I have two problems with this. First, and foremost, it is not cruel to eat animals as long as they are treated appropriately beforehand and that we don't waste as little as possible of them once slaughtered. Left to their own devices the animals we eat today would simply be eaten by other predators...and I doubt a pack of wolves will be too concerned about how they kill their prey nor will they be worried about keeping it well fed and disease free beforehand. While it is true that not all animals are appro

  • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Monday November 24, 2008 @10:58PM (#25881395)
    They are a bunch of sick hypocrites with too much money and time on their hands.
  • by duckInferno (1275100) on Monday November 24, 2008 @11:02PM (#25881423) Journal
    While a bit of a squeamish action if you're not a butcher or farmer or hunter, what message are PETA actually trying to get across? That it's bad to eat meat because it's... from an animal? Kind of redundant.

    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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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?

      This seems to be the sticking point with most non-(seemingly-)dogmatic vegetarians I've met. I cannot understand this magic line that is drawn between 'sensory input->reaction' and 'pain->reaction'. They are one in the same. As humans we empathize with cry of a mammal. Is this not a reason FOR distant far-off slaughterhouses rather than for the removal of a (reasonably) critical fraction of our natural diet?

      I'm also a biochemist - I know very well the processes involved. I understand that the pai

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      Should've ordered 6 near the beginning; the rest are a logical path, that really terminated with 5.

      Since we are animals, we strictly require the consumption of other living organisms for survival. You'd have to be awfully extremist to contend that this is unethical -- it's true for all animals. Today, we are capable of subsisting only on plants, though some vitamins and amino acids are a little tricky to get. It is an arbitrary ethical line, though, what organisms we will and will not eat. It's agreed that

    • by Null_Void (149097) on Monday November 24, 2008 @11:54PM (#25881821)

      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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by panthroman (1415081)
      I'm a vegetarian, and I'd like to respond to your comments.

      (You might be like to know this long-time reader just created an account to reply to your post. So... first psot!)

      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...

      To be precise, that isn't a reason to preach vegetarianism. It's a perfectly fine reason to be a vegetarian. I don't eat raisins because I don't like the taste, but I wouldn't demand the same of you. (I'm just being precise, but I know the OP understands this perfectly. S/he says as much in reason 6.)

      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".

      You're right that "its unethic

  • Was I the only one who thought that it was actually kind of fun playing the "Gruesome Cooking Mama" games on PETA's site? Completely not their purpose, I know. We're supposed to be so grossed out by the preparation that we skip turkey on Thanksgiving. Instead, I found plucking the feathers, cutting the neck up, etc rather enjoyable (for a short Flash game designed by a group that often goes completely off the deep end).

    • by retchdog (1319261)

      No, you're not the only one. I enjoyed the hell out of it, cheezy soundtrack and all (I've never played the original game, so I don't know if that's intentional or not). I'm an ex-vegan; I think I'd have enjoyed it even when I was one.

      I don't know if this game really helps their "mission"; maybe if you've not been exposed to their leaflets yet and you actually watch the videos/"bonuses" it has a different effect.

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      Someone sent me a link to the site so I went and tried it out. I would have been convinced it was a parody OF PETA, except that it was on their official site!

      Of course, I grew up in a small town with farm kids for friends. The guy who sent it to me had the interesting experience of marrying a farm girl friend of mine. The father of the bride took him out one day to the field and asked him which cow he'd like for the reception. Then made him help slaughter it. It was delicious.

    • by FLEB (312391)

      Personally, I think it could have used a bit more challenge. The skill tests were adequate in theory, but the levels were rushed and simplistic, and the continuation thresholds really set the bar low. Actually, I think I could have used a little clearer negative feedback when I didn't do the level fast enough. Granted, I've never played the game it's parodying, so perhaps I'm missing a connection there. It could have also used some more overall plot development, especially between "nasty, half-cleaned, half

  • PETA has previously handed out graphic pamphlets to school-age children in an effort to convince them that their parents are murderers.

    From the pamphlet:

    "Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next."

    • by TheSpoom (715771) *

      Oops, meant to link to the PETA pamphlets in question [wikipedia.org].

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      Excellent. The sooner kids learn that the world is full of nut jobs, the better.

      On another note, thanks for the link! I didn't realize that PETA activists run through the streets of Pamploma naked right before the running of the bulls! Two events to see with one trip! Do the spectators get to tease the activists? Stick them with spears?

  • Run around collecting cute little stray animals, and instead of trying to find them homes you kill them. Extra points if you collect them by duping their current possessor into thinking you're going to find them homes. The boss level is your trial for the crimes you committed, extra life if you're found not guilty.

    You win if in the end the general uninformed public still thinks you love animals.

  • 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)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @09:29AM (#25885639) Homepage Journal
    Are they going to do a clubbing baby seals one? I always wanted to try that in the comfort of my own home, and shipping from Alaska is a bitch! They're always dead when they arrive. Personally I think the shipping guy might be clubbing them before they get here. Either that or maybe I should spring for overnight one of these days...

Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.

Working...