PETA Using Games To Spread Its Message 477
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."
lol peta (Score:4, Insightful)
As they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
If animals werent meant to be eaten, they wouldnt have been made so tasty.
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...
Re:Peta out of control (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish they could find a better way to spread their message.
The case against meat (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The case against meat (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Peta kills hundreds of Animals each year (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
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
Re:Peta out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
There really is no hypocrisy - the pro-life/pro-choice argument surrounds what exactly constitutes a "person," and ignores animals as outside of the scope of discussion.
Re:Peta out of control - Now in Warcraft! (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ok, Pulling the internal organs out of a turkey (Score:2, Insightful)
(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 unethical to eat meat" is at the core of this argument, but if you believe eating meat is unethical, then the ease with which you can avoid meat, I think, augments the culpability.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere!
I can't speak on behalf of all vegetarians, but you hit the nail on the head here. It IS unethical to cause suffering, and yes, we are 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.
Well, I'm a real vegetarian (and a vegan in my own home), and I say yes.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
I actually have no problem with killing qua killing.
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?
There is no magical line. I'd say capacity for suffering goes something like:
Humans > cows > fish > bivalves > trees
This is why I will eat fish on rare occasion*, but I haven't had a hamburger in 14 years.
* - I know, I know, "then you're NOT A VEGETARIAN!" they always scream. I am a vegetarian, but I'm not a social ass. Sometimes they conflict. When my brother and his wife invited me to dinner at their place a few months ago, we compromised with salmon. And you know what happened a decade ago when a kind family invited me to their home in Israel and made me "vegetarian" soup that had bits of chicken in it? I ate it.
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
The perfect human diet would include meat. (Though much, much less than the average American eats.) Having said that, I think I'm very healthy, partly because I have to watch what I eat.
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?
I hope this was answered already.
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?
Simple: the animals from which we get our eggs and milk lead wretched lives, and we don't want to support the institutionalization of cruelty to animals.
One last thing I should mention for folks to keep in mind:
Being a vegetarian is NOT 100% consistent, and we know it.
It's not just that I eat fish on occasion. I also can't give a great reason for refusing to
Oh really? (Score:2, Insightful)
You forget that you might be a bit to smart for your own good. The problem with smart people is that they presume other people are the same. They are not.
There are people out there who REALLY think milk comes from the factory. That meat is produced in a machine. They really have no idea where an egg comes from.
I might have lived close enough to farms to know the real deal, to know why the idea of "fresh milk" is so idiotic in ads, but a lot of people have no idea.
These shock videos are needed NOT for people who know where their meat comes from, but for those who don't.
Godwin time perhaps, but did you know that for years after WW2 the holocaust was just not known about. The images of the concentration camp you might be so familiar with just weren't known, not distruted. UNTIL these SHOCK images were distributed the holocaust was unknown, how could people say "Never again" if they never knew it happened?
Sometimes, if you want people to become aware of something, you must shock them first. Show them the truth, because else they just don't know. It ain't just ignorance. The world is complex and filled with information, you can't know everything. If I told you a tsunami killed millions that would mean little to you, if you didn't know what a tsunami is, what killed means or how much a million is. That of course is just basic english, but you can see what I mean, without knowning what something really means, you can't react to it. In the same way, until we see something bad, we can't really feel it.
The simple fact is that shock images work. The fact that you protest about them shows they work. They make people have to face what they are doing. Images of concetration camps FORCED the world to accept it happened. Images of the tsunami disaster forced the world to see the scope of this disaster. And images of diseased livestock being mistreated forces people one way or another to think about where they food comes from.
People that protest about these images seem to me to want to life in their fantasy world where hamburgers come from McDonalds.
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.
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.
Re:Peta out of control - Now in Warcraft! (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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 then one of the conditions was that you not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it, a restriction many people today no longer observe.
Later, even more dietary restrictions were placed on the Jewish nation, such as not eating pork, but those things never applied to Gentiles, unless they became proselyte Jews. The instructions given to Noah apply, presumably, to the entire human race, since we're all descended from Noah.
Re:Peta out of control (Score:3, Insightful)
I know exactly what happens in the commercial farms and slaughter houses, and it's one reason I prefer hunted wild game. But the PETA doesn't want me to do that either.
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.
Yes you should be bothered. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because as long as they aren't doing the whole "domestic terrorism" thing
They are. They say it's just their members, but that's like Sinn Fein saying they didn't bomb, it was the IRA.
or going after kids while the parents aren't looking I don't really give a damn.
Using video games would probably reach children directly and, even though this shouldn't be the case, there probably won't be much parental oversight. Most parents will just see a flash game featuring animals.
PETA believe that anyone who is involved in the use (even keeping pets) of animals is equivalent to a Nazi. That's not an overstatement or a strawman, it's exactly what they believe. The only thing someone who honestly believes a holocaust is being perpetrated can do is hope to have the courage to fight to stop it. Because they've made the basic mistake of thinking human rights = animal rights a lot of PETA members believe violent struggle is needed.
So, whilst they're not really a threat now they have the potential to be. They're well funded by clueless celebrities and so have the potential to win over lots of new recruits with their propaganda. Anyone who uses or produces any animal products whatsoever should be wary; whenever PETA is mentioned we need to spread the message that meat != murder.
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.