PDA

View Full Version : Oh, come on!!!



Wally
2005-Feb-25, 06:03 PM
Don't the animal rights people have better things they could concentrate on than this??? (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/25/roadkill.candy.ap/index.html)

Doodler
2005-Feb-25, 06:15 PM
No, unfortunately, they really are that trite.

Kizarvexis
2005-Feb-25, 06:22 PM
Ooh, where can I get some? That's too funny. (Well to me anyways.)

Kizarvexis

frogesque
2005-Feb-25, 06:26 PM
Ohhh!!! gummy roadkill. Me want too :lol:

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-25, 06:26 PM
Have they ever mentioned the goldfish cracker jingle, where you "bite their little heads off"?

Jpax2003
2005-Feb-25, 06:30 PM
I think they make an interesting point about children and cruelty to animals, but since most young children can't drive cars... :roll:

I think they should make gummi animals with gunshots to the head indicating that they went quickly and didn't suffer. Ya know, kinda how they kill real food animals. I can hear the ad now with Bon Jovi singing 'Shot down, in a blaze of gummi..." Or how about PETA activist shaped gummi treats with tire marks on them?

Disinfo Agent
2005-Feb-25, 06:34 PM
I think they make an interesting point about children and cruelty to animals, but since most young children can't drive cars... :roll:
Although they do tend to grow up... :wink:

Jpax2003
2005-Feb-25, 06:37 PM
I think they make an interesting point about children and cruelty to animals, but since most young children can't drive cars... :roll:
Although they do tend to grow up... :wink:If they grow up, then it's not an issue, if they merely grow old, then perhaps it may be problematic.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-25, 06:39 PM
No, it seems that's the sort of thing that animal rights activists get upset about these days. Apparently when you sign on to be an activist you are supposed to check your sense of humor at the door.

What's really funny is when one activist group uses strategies that go against the goal of another activist group - for example PETA using women dressed in a variety of scanty outfits (lettuce bikini's ...) to promote their cause seems to fly in the face of organizations that attack exploitation of women.

Or then there are the alternative energy activists that want more wind power vs. the endangered species activists upset that the wind generator blades hack up birds.

Gummy bear roadkill - I'll be sure to get some of those for my kids. Good for keeping a healthy sense of humor.

Lurker
2005-Feb-25, 06:42 PM
I think that this definitive proof of the hypothesis that "in modern technological society too many people have too much free time on their hands". #-o

With all that is going on in the world I simply CANNOT get bent out of shape by a lump of sugar and gelatin that is shaped like an animal with a tire print in it. Frankly I'm much more worried about whether my country is going to decide to invade the country of the woman I love!!

I don't mean to get political, but lets get some perspective here...

Nergal
2005-Feb-25, 06:44 PM
No, it seems that's the sort of thing that animal rights activists get upset about these days. Apparently when you sign on to be an activist you are supposed to check your sense of humor at the door.
Exactly. My son loves animals and wants to be a vet someday...and he sees the humor in this candy.

sts60
2005-Feb-25, 08:09 PM
I'm a strong supporter of animal rights. Please don't lump me (or the majority of animal rights supporters) in with the extremists. No more than being an environmentalist makes me an ELF arsonist, or being a supporter of nuclear power makes me a Larouchite, etc.

As for the candy... well, it's kinda dumb. But nothing to get worked up about.

pghnative
2005-Feb-25, 08:15 PM
Have they ever mentioned the goldfish cracker jingle, where you "bite their little heads off"?

[jingle music]
did you know they're made with real cheese
even though they look like fishies
the snack, that smiles back, goldfish
[/jingle music]

beskeptical
2005-Feb-25, 08:27 PM
It sends the wrong message to children, that it's OK to harm animals. No it doesn't. It sends the message it's OK to eat road kill. :P Hey, why waste it?

Lurker
2005-Feb-25, 08:52 PM
It sends the wrong message to children, that it's OK to harm animals. No it doesn't. It sends the message it's OK to eat road kill. :P Hey, why waste it?

Actually there is a lot of truth in this beskeptical. My sister was driving in Alabama when a deer got spooked and jumped out of the woods right into her car. With in minutes a man stopped to help and asked if he could hall the carcass away for her. Aparently venison is a delicacy. So either he want a freezer full of veneison or wanted the extra cash that he could make selling the meat to a butcher.



Edited to Add:

So... like... one could argue that its death was an accident man... and natural so... like... it's ok to eat cause this was its Karma baby... no bad vibs... like... ya know....

beskeptical
2005-Feb-26, 12:20 AM
Of course venison is good.

When I lived in Colorado any freshly killed deer or elk would go to the local food bank.

Maksutov
2005-Feb-26, 12:23 AM
If you like the gummis, then you have to love this:

Earl, T.D.C. (http://www.maddogproductions.com/earl.htm)

I used to have a mini-poster of Earl back in the 1980s. Copies were used as commentary when I'd review really bad engineering designs. Just insert "Earl" and return to structural engineering.

If the PEThAtic people get really upset by the above, I'd recommend they take a stress pill, think things over, and travel to Texas where they can sit down and dine at this cafe (http://chefmoz.org/United_States/TX/Leakey/Toad's_Roadkill_Cafe1003560843.html).

Moose
2005-Feb-26, 12:35 AM
[obligatory pEta punchline] It doesn't hurt any less just 'cause they're synthetic! [/pEta]

Lurker
2005-Feb-26, 12:37 AM
Of course venison is good.

When I lived in Colorado any freshly killed deer or elk would go to the local food bank.

Never had the chance to try it... gotta round out my education...

As long as it isn't bambi's mother.... :cry:

ducks thrown veggies 8)

Maksutov
2005-Feb-26, 12:53 AM
Of course venison is good.

When I lived in Colorado any freshly killed deer or elk would go to the local food bank.

Never had the chance to try it... gotta round out my education...

As long as it isn't bambi's mother.... :cry:

ducks thrown veggies 8)
Heck with Bambi's mother (Whoops! What was I aiming at?), Bambi T-bones are juicy, tasty, and very tender. Great way to get your taste buds out of a rut. :D

Darn, this causes me to be reminiscing about a girlfriend who used to make the best venison chile. Didn't matter which deer season it was. The motivation to get out there immediately with whichever weapon and bag one so she could go to work on it, was very strong, as was the chile. Yum!

Lurker
2005-Feb-26, 01:00 AM
Heck with Bambi's mother (Whoops! What was I aiming at?), Bambi T-bones are juicy, tasty, and very tender. Great way to get your taste buds out of a rut. :D

This is why scientists are NOT allowed to go see Disney films with impressionable young children!! [-(

:P

I was bad enough going years ago with a father who kept mumbling "Fire breaks, damn it, fire breaks!!

paulie jay
2005-Feb-26, 01:16 AM
May I point out that it IS possible to support animal rights without having to to be as extreme as the people in this article. Don't paint us all with the same brush please. [-X To pick out one paricular group and say "all animal rights activists are like this" is just the kind of sweeping statement that I wouldn't expect to see on this board. :-s

frogesque
2005-Feb-26, 01:49 AM
Bambi burgers (http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1154632004)

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 01:56 AM
I'm a strong supporter of animal rights. Please don't lump me (or the majority of animal rights supporters) in with the extremists. No more than being an environmentalist makes me an ELF arsonist, or being a supporter of nuclear power makes me a Larouchite, etc.

As for the candy... well, it's kinda dumb. But nothing to get worked up about.
I'm with you on that thought, sts60. I get tired of being lumped in with some of the more extreme groups, some of what they do is a waste of time, other things I gotta hand it to them for their guts. I think this is being a bit oversensitive, after all when I was a kid we had those sick Wacky Stickers in the early 70's and we bit off the heads and feet of Animal Crackers. I use to stretch and torment Gummi Bears too. Road kill is a fact of life and there are all those "Roadkill Cookbooks" out there, as well.

On the other hand, from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' perspective, if you are constantly bombarded and hear about cruelty to animals you get a bit oversensitive at times, just as scores of other groups make a big deal of something or another. Every week, it seems, I hear of someone else being arrested here in Texas for keeping too many animals under cruel conditions; kittens being thrown out of cars; once some kids grilled a kitten on a grill; I went riding with a cop once and someone shot some guy's Labrador outside a bar for no reason; dragging an alligator by a pick-up truck, beating cats...it goes on and on. Every day hundreds of animals are being treated cruelly and by adults, no less. When you're saturated with that info you just hate anything that seems to contribute to disrespect for animals.

You also have to consider this:

Kraft officials pulled an animated advertisement from Trolli's Web site that featured car headlights and animals.
There are people who just don't care if they run over an animal, they don't even slow down. So, they think that kids might think dead animals are a cool thing, but kids like gross-looking candy and toys and I don't think they will get brainwashed by it; they learn to respect animals from those around them and the consequences when they do something to an animal. Some kids were throwing rocks at a squirrel outside my window one day and I yelled at them, scaring them silly and they never came back around. If they ride with a parent who doesn't care if they hit an animal that will affect them more than silly candy.

(Rant over)

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 01:57 AM
I'm a strong supporter of animal rights. Please don't lump me (or the majority of animal rights supporters) in with the extremists. No more than being an environmentalist makes me an ELF arsonist, or being a supporter of nuclear power makes me a Larouchite, etc.


May I point out that it IS possible to support animal rights without having to to be as extreme as the people in this article. Don't paint us all with the same brush please. To pick out one paricular group and say "all animal rights activists are like this" is just the kind of sweeping statement that I wouldn't expect to see on this board.

Please don't take this as an insult because its not intended as such. But I think you both have fallen victim to one of the tactics used by extremist groups: the "you're with us or you're against the environment/animals" mentality.

One of the most annoying things about the PETA's of the activist world is that they try to paint it such that if you don't agree with them and their actions, then you're against the creatures/environmental health they claim to be trying to "save". Its a bunch of hogwash.

How many people actually think its ok to be abusive to animals? How many people actual think there is no problem with adding pollutants to soil, water, and air to the point that it is a health hazard? The answer is a very small minority of people.

My point is you don't have to raise you're hand and announce that you care about the animals and a clean environment. Most everybody does - and most people can intuitively tell you what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.

What these extremist groups do is take things that the average person understands is reasonable - and tries to make some ridiculous claim that harm is being caused - such as our gummy bear story. They want everyone to think that they hold some superior high ground on caring - and they don't.

I'll criticize their actions and their arguments and that criticism is a laser beam pointed at their specific extremism. The rest of us rational thinking people that understand a gummy bear is a harmless piece of candy can go about our business without feeling we have to defend ourselves with the "I care too - don't lump me with them protest."

If you succumb to their phony claim to the high ground, you let them win.

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 02:06 AM
Maksutov:
If you like the gummis, then you have to love this:

Earl, T.D.C.
That's kind of funny...now you want to come over and meet Grendel and Slinky, who has inordinately long fangs? Grendel, too, didn't get that name for nothing, ya know.

Just kidding. I might buy Earl for my sister's Golden who has a "thing" for stuffed animals...there's no polite way to say it on a family oriented board, but the dog has this whole ritual. It would be funny with a cat. Thanks for the link.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-26, 02:15 AM
How many people actually think its ok to be abusive to animals? How many people actual think there is no problem with adding pollutants to soil, water, and air to the point that it is a health hazard? The answer is a very small minority of people.

My point is you don't have to raise you're hand and announce that you care about the animals and a clean environment. Most everybody does - and most people can intuitively tell you what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.
There's a difference between having an opinion and promoting it. What you seem to be saying is that it's fine to say "those animal-rights people" when you mean only the extremists, because people with non-extreme views on the subject shouldn't need to identify themselves as animal-rights supporters. But some people may have non-extreme views on the subject but still consider it more important than most people do, and they may actively promote their viewpoint while others do not. You don't have to be an extremist to be an activist.

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 02:28 AM
dgruss said:
How many people actually think its ok to be abusive to animals? How many people actual think there is no problem with adding pollutants to soil, water, and air to the point that it is a health hazard? The answer is a very small minority of people.
The problem is a lot of people don't know what's being done to animals out there. For instance, I didn't know how these horses were being killed in Texas until my local station showed a videotape in a special report. It was absolutely cruel and horrifying. Sure, a lot of people will say that being abusive to animals is not OK, but they don't know what's going on or are doing anything about it. Give some credit to groups and societies that try to make people aware and are fighting to change laws while a majority of us sit on our butts.


My point is you don't have to raise you're hand and announce that you care about the animals and a clean environment. Most everybody does - and most people can intuitively tell you what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.
Talk is cheap--caring, but not doing anything about it doesn't mean a thing. All of these groups lobby Congress to change laws, etc. Yes, they're making a bigger deal over candy than is probably necessary, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


What these extremist groups do is take things that the average person understands is reasonable - and tries to make some ridiculous claim that harm is being caused - such as our gummy bear story. They want everyone to think that they hold some superior high ground on caring - and they don't.
Do you really think that? Do you think the SPCA gets off on thinking they hold some "superior high ground?" Do you consider the SPCA "extremist?" This is one chapter, by the way, among hundreds throughout the country. From most people I know who are involved with the SPCA and other animal-related groups, they have a very deep concern for animals and do something about it. I don't know any PETA members....

Lurker
2005-Feb-26, 02:33 AM
Well... there are innocent women and children losing arms and legs over in Iraq every day. There are people in this country being killed on the highways, by hand guns, and in domestic quarrels. There are also animals being killed every day in this country and in others in savage ways also.

There is only so much that one can do in my opinion.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-26, 03:12 AM
Please don't take this as an insult because its not intended as such. But I think you both have fallen victim to one of the tactics used by extremist groups: the "you're with us or you're against the environment/animals" mentality.
No I haven't. My precise point is that it is quite possible to support animal rights, be active, contribute financially and still not hold extemist views. I'm not saying that you are against animal rights because you disagree with these people, what I am saying is that you shouldn't lump all animal rights activists into the same barrel in order to ridicule them.


My point is you don't have to raise you're hand and announce that you care about the animals and a clean environment.
And my point is that if i do - it doesn't make me an extremist.



You don't have to be an extremist to be an activist. Pretty much hits the nail on the head for me. There is no way that I agree with the extremists when it comes to this candy. But I still take offence at comments like
Apparently when you sign on to be an activist you are supposed to check your sense of humor at the door.
So do we all make such generalisations about every group of people in the world...?

* Apparenlty when you sign on to be a taxi driver you are supposed to forget the road rules and start sprouting rednecked opinions.

* Apparently when you sign on to be an accountant you are supposed to wear glasses, dress like a dork, and develop a fondness for brown velour.

* Apparently when you sign on to be a touring musician you are supposed to drop 50 IQ points and become a drug addict who won't go on stage until somebody provides you with purple jelly beans.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 05:12 AM
Oh for goodness sakes - this is ridiculous. :lol:


W.F. Tomba: You don't have to be an extremist to be an activist.

I never said you did, but in the case of the OP of this thread - we're talking about extremism. That's what my point is toward. Anybody whose getting upset about "lumping" or "generalizing" is overgeneralizing their interpretation of my comments:


One of the most annoying things about the PETA's of the activist world

The phrase "PETA's of the activist world" was meant to distinguish reasonable activism from extremism. PETA clearly falls in the extremist catagory.


What these extremist groups do is take things that the average person understands is reasonable - and tries to make some ridiculous claim that harm is being caused - such as our gummy bear story.

Extremists was the point again.


I'll criticize their actions and their arguments and that criticism is a laser beam pointed at their specific extremism.

And again.


But I think you both have fallen victim to one of the tactics used by extremist groups: the "you're with us or you're against the environment/animals" mentality.

And yet again. I made it very clear I was talking about extremists. I never said you can't care about the environment/animals without being an extremist. I never said you can't be an activist without being an extremist. In fact my point was that pretty much everybody understands that animals should not be abused and that the environment should not be polluted.

But the problem with the extremist groups is that if you don't agree with their specific ideas on the issue - you're painted as thoughtless - or anti-environment. There is no dialogue or give and take. You do it their way or you're their enemy.


The problem is a lot of people don't know what's being done to animals out there.

Most certainly that is true. And the extremists will do a lot more for their cause if they'll stick to the real offenses rather than getting hysterical over childrens candy.


Talk is cheap--caring, but not doing anything about it doesn't mean a thing. All of these groups lobby Congress to change laws, etc. Yes, they're making a bigger deal over candy than is probably necessary, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are too many issues out there for every individual to take action on all of them. That's why groups form. You pick an issue that really matters to you and become an advocate for it. But some groups become extremists. PETA is the bathwater - unless one thinks funding ecoterrorists (http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htm) is normal activity.


Do you really think that? Do you think the SPCA gets off on thinking they hold some "superior high ground?" Do you consider the SPCA "extremist?"

SPCA is a legitimate organization. What makes you think I'm talking about them? I specifically said PETA and extremists in general. Is there some reason to think SPCA is extremist?


I don't know any PETA members....

Few do ... they're an extremist minority.


No I haven't. My precise point is that it is quite possible to support animal rights, be active, contribute financially and still not hold extemist views.

I've never disputed that. I agree with you. Look, its certainly valid for you to clarify that. I guess I gave the impression that you shouldn't seek to clarify such a view. What I was trying to say is that these extremists groups (on most any issue) force the rest of us into unnecessary defensiveness in the way they frame the discussion.

Why should anyone have to defend that they believe in animal rights in the next sentence after criticizing PETA et al? Basic environmental concern and animal rights concern is something that almost everybody shares. But there are disagreements over how to deal with those problems. If you disagree with someone's solution it doesn't make you anti-animal rights. Yet all over the place people feel the need to apologetically declare that while they think PETA et al are wrong about this or that, they do care about animal rights. Its unnecessary to say so.

But by all means anybody who wants to let PETA stake claim to moral high ground they haven't earned - go ahead and keep apologizing for disagreeing with their views and tactics.


I'm not saying that you are against animal rights because you disagree with these people, what I am saying is that you shouldn't lump all animal rights activists into the same barrel in order to ridicule them.

I didn't. I used the word activist in my first post, but if you didn't understand I meant extremists then, certainly it should've been clear from the last post. Its possible to put all this in proper context.


But I still take offence at comments like

Wait - you're saying that comment doesn't fit the profile of normal activists - which has always been my view - it was directed at extremists. But by taking offense you're becoming an example of someone checking their sense of humor at the door!

Why not have some fun with it?:

"dgruss - I'm an activist and I'd like you to know that I don't check my sense of humor at the door. I prefer to leave it in the glove compartment of my car. That way I'll be sure it doesn't get handed to someone else before I leave the party." :)

sts60
2005-Feb-26, 05:21 AM
I use a designated humorist.

sts60
2005-Feb-26, 05:28 AM
On a more serious note, I'm not apologizing for PETA, nor do I accept that I've "fallen" for their claiming the moral high ground. Some of what they say is legitimate, a lot of it is just wacky, and the wacky part hurts the cause IMO.

But that's pretty much it. You folks have already hashed over this, so I'll just mention a related either/or fallacy: the "you're so concerned about animals, what about all the [abused kids | murder victims | drug addicts | terrorism victims | etc.]?" It's true that one person can only do so much, but when I hear this kind of thing I get annoyed. As if, because I care about animals a lot, I don't care about kids? Grrr.

OK, that wasn't too structured, but I'm surfing under the influence of being tired... :)

dvb
2005-Feb-26, 05:30 AM
There are people who just don't care if they run over an animal, they don't even slow down.

I care if I run over an animal, but if that animal happens to be a skunk, I certainly don't plan to slow down. If that animal happens to be a moose, then you can bet that I most certainly will slow down. :o

Jpax2003
2005-Feb-26, 05:57 AM
Why should anyone have to defend that they believe in animal rights in the next sentence after criticizing PETA et al? Basic environmental concern and animal rights concern is something that almost everybody shares. But there are disagreements over how to deal with those problems. If you disagree with someone's solution it doesn't make you anti-animal rights. Yet all over the place people feel the need to apologetically declare that while they think PETA et al are wrong about this or that, they do care about animal rights. Its unnecessary to say so.
I find that amusing. Not that I disagree with you, it's just that I look at it the other way. I think animals should be treated ethically. However, I don't think animals have rights. Otherwise, their treatment would be a matter of morality and not a matter of ethics. Just my opinion.

My aunt has a farm. We would take the time to raise cows, run out in the winter cold to make sure their water was not frozen, make sure the fences were mended so that they didn't wander out into traffic, stay up late at night during calving season, work through the night planting or harvesting corn for their feed and then we would take them to the butcher who put a bolt into their brain. We treated them ethically, right up to the point where we killed them.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-26, 06:27 AM
Wait - you're saying that comment doesn't fit the profile of normal activists - which has always been my view - it was directed at extremists. But by taking offense you're becoming an example of someone checking their sense of humor at the door!


No I'm not! degruss23, this is your quote...

No, it seems that's the sort of thing that animal rights activists get upset about these days. Apparently when you sign on to be an activist you are supposed to check your sense of humor at the door.
I took offence because I always take offence at gross generalisations. It's just my nature. (And that "always" isn't a gross generalisation either :wink: )

Up until this point you had made no mention of PETA, nor had you made any disctinction between extremists or others. Please understand that I'm not trying to be pedantic here. When you use the term "activists" in an apparently general sense how is one meant to interpret your comments other than by how they appear? You have now explained what you meant =D> , but up until that point I had no way of knowing that what you had said and what you had meant weren't in synch. Now I do.

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 06:39 AM
Oh for goodness sakes - this is ridiculous. :lol:

Well, to be honest Degruss, you immediately launched into derisive comments about animal/environmental activists when the article was about one New Jersey SPCA group that got oversensitized to Gummi Roadkill.


Degruss:
No, it seems that's the sort of thing that animal rights activists get upset about these days. Apparently when you sign on to be an activist you are supposed to check your sense of humor at the door.

What's really funny is when one activist group uses strategies that go against the goal of another activist group - for example PETA using women dressed in a variety of scanty outfits (lettuce bikini's ...) to promote their cause seems to fly in the face of organizations that attack exploitation of women.

Or then there are the alternative energy activists that want more wind power vs. the endangered species activists upset that the wind generator blades hack up birds.

Gummy bear roadkill - I'll be sure to get some of those for my kids. Good for keeping a healthy sense of humor.
You immediately generalized, even though a majority of what the SPCA deals with is a people problem--the fact that people can't be responsible for their animals, they don't get them fixed, abandon them, etc. It appears that every group that advocates for any cause always manages to go to an extreme at times, because they are so sensitized to their cause, especially when it's an emotional issue like discrimination, animals, abortion, violence, etc. Like the Christian group who had a conniption over cartoon characters singing "We Are Family," because they are so sensitized to homosexuality. It's like "Puh-leaze...get a life!" Or people who don't think kids should play with toy guns. So, here's a non-extremist group and in your first post you light into other environmental activists, as well. Yeah, it's so funny that windmills hack up birds. Your derision toward these groups can't be any more clear.

There are hundreds of animal rights groups and they aren't getting upset these days over just things like this--stupid things like this make the news, not the tons of other stuff they're doing. In PETA's case, their flamboyance works well for them, because they continue to rake in the bucks and support.


But the problem with the extremist groups is that if you don't agree with their specific ideas on the issue - you're painted as thoughtless - or anti-environment. There is no dialogue or give and take. You do it their way or you're their enemy.
Your first post pretty much paints you as thoughtless and I'm not an extremist.

Most certainly that is true. And the extremists will do a lot more for their cause if they'll stick to the real offenses rather than getting hysterical over childrens candy.
...which real offenses, like energy consumption and birds getting hacked up by windmills?

[quote=Grendl] Do you really think that? Do you think the SPCA gets off on thinking they hold some "superior high ground?" Do you consider the SPCA "extremist?"

SPCA is a legitimate organization. What makes you think I'm talking about them? I specifically said PETA and extremists in general. Is there some reason to think SPCA is extremist?
Because the article was about the NJSPCA and the first paragraph of your first post (see above).



I don't know any PETA members....

Few do ... they're an extremist minority.
That happens to get $27 million in funding and does a lot more than people hear about. Go see their site. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.


I've never disputed that. I agree with you. Look, its certainly valid for you to clarify that. I guess I gave the impression that you shouldn't seek to clarify such a view. What I was trying to say is that these extremists groups (on most any issue) force the rest of us into unnecessary defensiveness in the way they frame the discussion.

Why should anyone have to defend that they believe in animal rights in the next sentence after criticizing PETA et al? Basic environmental concern and animal rights concern is something that almost everybody shares. But there are disagreements over how to deal with those problems. If you disagree with someone's solution it doesn't make you anti-animal rights. Yet all over the place people feel the need to apologetically declare that while they think PETA et al are wrong about this or that, they do care about animal rights. Its unnecessary to say so.
I'll tell you why the defensiveness comes in. Every time I say something that seems to promote animals or wilderness I get these remarks like "Oh, you're a treehugger or you're a PETA person," in so many words. I hear customers who are constantly complaining about the environmental standards they have to adhere to before they build or construct something--they're always deriding the "treehuggers" and "PETA people" and "animal rights activists." If I said, "I'm an animal rights activist," people immediately think PETA. I'm not exaggerating. That's why a lot of animal rights group resent PETA, because they don't like being lumped in with them. Other groups like SNAP don't like them, because they have a policy of euthanization. Oh, I've also heard comments like, "Animal rights activists also care more about salamanders than people." There's room to care about both, though I have to say that people can be much more cruel than animals.


But by all means anybody who wants to let PETA stake claim to moral high ground they haven't earned - go ahead and keep apologizing for disagreeing with their views and tactics.
You say PETA is a minority, yet you seem to be fixated with them.

I didn't. I used the word activist in my first post, but if you didn't understand I meant extremists then, certainly it should've been clear from the last post. Its possible to put all this in proper context.
Yes, you did, Degruss. You wrote it. Just step back and read your first post and hear what it sounds like.

Wait - you're saying that comment doesn't fit the profile of normal activists - which has always been my view - it was directed at extremists. But by taking offense you're becoming an example of someone checking their sense of humor at the door!
You know, I've seen comments similar to the first page of this thread here before and I've seen Sts60 say he cared about animal rights before too and his not wanting to be lumped in with PETA people. So, this isn't the first time and maybe it deserves a discussion in itself. I can laugh at a dead cat stuffed animal and the roadkill candy doesn't phase me, but your comments weren't about humor (as your second post further displays), so expect to get some serious replies. That OK?

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 06:45 AM
There are people who just don't care if they run over an animal, they don't even slow down.

I care if I run over an animal, but if that animal happens to be a skunk, I certainly don't plan to slow down. If that animal happens to be a moose, then you can bet that I most certainly will slow down. :o
Why would you not slow down to avoid hitting any animal? If you can avoid hitting an animal, why wouldn't you try to do so? Fine, let the skunk stink up your tires! I hope you get sprayed by a skunk tomorrow and you have to bathe in tomato paste. :D

Enzp
2005-Feb-26, 07:58 AM
You come upon an animal in the road, adn it leaves you no time to avoid it often enough. Given reaction time, I will try my best to avoid the animal. Trying to avoid one critter though, I veered, lost control and totalled my vehicle against a tree at 55mph. I was a bloody mess and hurt for a week. I have no idea if critter escaped or not. Hit a deer - as often happens in Michigan - and your car is totalled. Since I crossed a lane, it is fortunate that the critter avoidance manouver didn't claim othre human lives. it is not so simple as "don't smash the animals."

Venison is popular meat. You can even buy venison jerky if you like. Here in Michigan, opening day of deer season. Make that opening day of firearm deer season. That day many small businesses close and absenteeism skyrockets as all the hunters gather in the woods trying to bag one. My rural home is near a state nature area where hunting is welcomed, and the roadsides are lined with cars. At the moment of sun up, instantly in all directions pop bang pow.

I love Earl the dead cat. Down to the cartoon cliche Xs where his eyes ought to be. I gave my sister one years ago and she stil has it out on the shelf. People need to lighten up on this candy thing. What next, chocolate Easter bunnies? Sends a message it is OK for kids to chew the ears off defenseless bunnies?

Whenever I see the phrase "it sends a message," I can always substitute the phrase "here is a rationalization I cooked up for my point of view." To think that this candy actually affects the way kids view animals is ludicrous. How stupid to we think our kids really are?

We take ourselves far too seriously. We can't make fun of anything really without stepping on toes. MAke roadkill candy and it makes kids think ot os OK to mistreat animals? Well, war is horrible, so we shouldn't view and certainly not enjoy movies like MASH, Catch 22, Dr.Strangelove, Mr.Roberts ( a personal favorite), Operation Petticoat, and so on. Titanic? How dare we disrespect the memory or those poor people. How horrible we seek entertainment based on their terror. Or just about every sitcom on the TV. They all send the message it is funny and entertaining for people to lie to their spouses.

Jpax2003
2005-Feb-26, 08:40 AM
I'm surprised no one considered that the whole thing is a publicity stunt. Ad executives may have expected PETA to go off on them, generating publicity in the process. Now everyone is gonna want to get some roadkill candy before it is removed from the marketplace.

sts60
2005-Feb-26, 11:49 AM
One funny thing about this thread is that (as far as I can tell) no BABBer is actually complaining about the candy... only about one small group's reaction to it. We're disputing a metareaction.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 01:17 PM
On a more serious note, I'm not apologizing for PETA, nor do I accept that I've "fallen" for their claiming the moral high ground. Some of what they say is legitimate, a lot of it is just wacky, and the wacky part hurts the cause IMO.

The wacky part is what hurts their cause. If they can't find humor in things like gummy bear road kill they're taking themselves too seriously. This reminds me very much of the big stink that was made over Gary Larson's tethercat (http://mahi-mahi.com/images/covers/tethercat.jpg) cartoon. That one still makes me laugh every time I see it, but all these people were writing to papers claiming he was promoting animal abuse. Sound familiar? :)


But that's pretty much it. You folks have already hashed over this, so I'll just mention a related either/or fallacy: the "you're so concerned about animals, what about all the [abused kids | murder victims | drug addicts | terrorism victims | etc.]?" It's true that one person can only do so much, but when I hear this kind of thing I get annoyed. As if, because I care about animals a lot, I don't care about kids? Grrr.

You're absolutely right about this. Its possible to have a position on all these positions, but who has time to become fully informed about and act upon every issue? That's why the rational activist groups are helpful. They can consolidate information and make recommendations.


OK, that wasn't too structured, but I'm surfing under the influence of being tired... :)

Nice job for being tired - including this:


I use a designated humorist. :lol:

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 01:22 PM
I took offence because I always take offence at gross generalisations. It's just my nature. (And that "always" isn't a gross generalisation either :wink: )

Up until this point you had made no mention of PETA, nor had you made any disctinction between extremists or others. Please understand that I'm not trying to be pedantic here. When you use the term "activists" in an apparently general sense how is one meant to interpret your comments other than by how they appear? You have now explained what you meant =D> , but up until that point I had no way of knowing that what you had said and what you had meant weren't in synch. Now I do.

Ok, I think we resolved that. I made the mistake of thinking that because I was responding to an article about extremists, that it would be understood in that context I was referring to extremists. My bad! :oops:

Conspiracy Cam
2005-Feb-26, 01:47 PM
I personally think that most animal rightist are controlled by there emotions [-X

They see the picture that media shows us and takes it to heart.

What does not make any sence, is that most of the 'Animal lovers' have pets. These innocent animals would travel miles every day if kept in the wild, yet people keep them in there home lock up :cry: :cry:

--
Conspiracy Cam
http://conspiracy-theories-hoax.com

Find the truth

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 01:59 PM
Well, to be honest Degruss, you immediately launched into derisive comments about animal/environmental activists when the article was about one New Jersey SPCA group that got oversensitized to Gummi Roadkill. ...


Your first post pretty much paints you as thoughtless and I'm not an extremist. ...


Yes, you did, Degruss. You wrote it. Just step back and read your first post and hear what it sounds like.

Ok Grendl here's my first post:



] No, it seems that's the sort of thing that animal rights activists get upset about these days. Apparently when you sign on to be an activist you are supposed to check your sense of humor at the door.

What's really funny is when one activist group uses strategies that go against the goal of another activist group - for example PETA using women dressed in a variety of scanty outfits (lettuce bikini's ...) to promote their cause seems to fly in the face of organizations that attack exploitation of women.

Or then there are the alternative energy activists that want more wind power vs. the endangered species activists upset that the wind generator blades hack up birds.

Gummy bear roadkill - I'll be sure to get some of those for my kids. Good for keeping a healthy sense of humor.

First looking back I see that my use of "animal rights activists" is in direct response to the OP in which Wally used the words "animal rights people". The rest of the post was pointing to the fact that sometimes one activist group's activities get in the way of other activist group's goals. Sometimes those conflicts of interest can be humorous.

I didn't want to specify the full reason why that is humorous, because that's getting into politics. What I find funny about those sorts of examples is that many of these activist groups tend to support each other because they're on the same side of the political isle. So when their activities conflict with each other its funny in an ironic way.

If that isn't satisfactory to you please feel free to PM me and I'll try to clarify further.


You say PETA is a minority, yet you seem to be fixated with them.


Because PETA is one of the posterchildren for radical extremist activism. Rather than naming a bunch of groups I refer to them as an illustration because pretty much everybody has heard of them and their antics.
And their funding of ecoterrorists makes it very difficult to argue that they are doing some good.


It appears that every group that advocates for any cause always manages to go to an extreme at times, because they are so sensitized to their cause, especially when it's an emotional issue like discrimination, animals, abortion, violence, etc. Like the Christian group who had a conniption over cartoon characters singing "We Are Family," because they are so sensitized to homosexuality. It's like "Puh-leaze...get a life!"

And if they allow themselves to get to that point their checking their humor at the door.


So, here's a non-extremist group and in your first post you light into other environmental activists, as well. Yeah, it's so funny that windmills hack up birds. Your derision toward these groups can't be any more clear.

No I didn't do that. I commented on extremists, but as I already explained on a lot of you did not understand that I was talking about extremists because I didn't specify extremists. I have no ill will toward honest environmental/animal rights activism (and someone made a good point about "rights" I should add). I have severe issues with violent groups, groups that fund violent groups, and groups that undermine their own cause by focusing more and more on ridiculous things to throw a hissy fit about.

And I never said its funny that birds get hacked up by windmills. Your turn to re-read. That comment was about activist vs. activist. This is exactly what I'm talking about. People need to learn to see humor in this some of this stuff. Tethercat was funny. One group of radical extremists getting into a fight with another group of radical extremists is funny.

I'm truly sorry if I phrased some things in a way that you found offensive. That was not the intent.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 02:11 PM
I personally think that most animal rightist are controlled by there emotions [-X

You gotta be careful here - do you mean extremists? or all? :wink:

Emotion is a big part of the motivation. It has to be -and that's ok. The problem is when they allow the emotion to overrule basic logical reasoning.

But this claim to emotion can also be used to claim that moral high ground:

"We care about the animals." That's great for you, but so do most of the rest of us. The fact that you care doesn't make you superior or make your ideas for dealing with the issue the right ideas. This goes back to my point about not apologizing for disagreeing with them.

Heck we can turn this around. Some people are saying "don't lump me with PETA". Well what I'm saying is don't assume you can lump me with those that don't care just because I have issues with the PETA's of the activist world. But that's exactly what many of these extremist groups try to do.

They say any anthropogenic global warming doubters are connected to "big oil". They say if you don't agree with them, then you don't care about the animals. Nonsense. But rather than get mad about this, I try to see the humor in their radicalism.

Krevel
2005-Feb-26, 02:24 PM
This is getting awfully political, guys....

Personally, while I don't always agree with them, I do appreciate the extremists on both ends of the spectrum. They're the ones testing the limits. They're the ones exploring the boundaries. The people in the middle have very little effect on the system.


As a cyclist, I have more of an intimate relationship with roadkill than most people. The wholesale slaughter on our roadways is truly shocking. When I cycled cross-country, I once considered keeping a record of all the roadkill I encountered. But I decided that would be too depressing, and I soon abandoned that idea.

Here in New Hampshire, moose are a big problem on the roadway. Hitting a moose with your car can really ruin your day! Last year, a car hit a moose out in front of my house, killing the moose and wrecking the car. I thought about butchering the moose, but realized that I had nowhere near enough freezer space! Later, I found out that there's actually a waiting list for moose roadkill, and it's illegal to take one without permission. Go figure!


But, oh yeah, the candy! I love gummies. My dentist says that they're horrible for your teeth. My doctor says that the gelatine is probably good for your joints. Metza, metza.

I don't find the notion of roadkill candy appealing, but I suspect I'm not part of the demographic that they're aiming at.

Paul Beardsley
2005-Feb-26, 03:29 PM
When my sister Brandine and I got married, we had run-over skunk at our wedding feast.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 04:06 PM
This is getting awfully political, guys....

Personally, while I don't always agree with them, I do appreciate the extremists on both ends of the spectrum. They're the ones testing the limits. They're the ones exploring the boundaries. The people in the middle have very little effect on the system.

But I think there is a difference between extremists that are trying to make ridiculous changes to a system vs. reformists that are trying to make improvements.

Reformists make suggestions that are reasonable improvements. Extremists come up with absurdity.

For example in the global warming discussions we've found that pretty much everybody here agrees that increased fuel efficiency is a good thing.

The extremist responds to that idea by vandilizing Hummers and setting things on fire. They push for the banning of SUV's. The reformist pushes for legislation that phases in reasonable improvements in fuel efficiency standards.

The difference is that reformists actually look at the evidence and try to come up with viable solutions that benefit everyone. The extremist actions are based on emotion and are a tantrum rather than a solution.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-26, 04:25 PM
This thread has generated a startling number of attacks against enemies that are not on the battlefield and defenses against charges that have not been made. I think this is due to a lack of specificity about who we are talking about, a level of vagueness and reliance on context that is normal in most conversation but seems to cause offense in politically charged topics.

PETA was not even mentioned in the news story that inspired all this, yet they were the first activist group referred to in the thread (by Jpax2003). That was preceded by a few posts referring to "they" and "the animal rights activists". Even when sts60 objected to being lumped, he/she referred only to "the extremists." Not until post #22 were the people in the article specifically referred to as a distinct group (by paulie jay) and then only as "the people in the article". The New Jersey SPCA, the group that got upset about the roadkill candies, was not mentioned by name until the twelfth post on the second page. (Grendl mentioned it.)

I have a couple of questions for you all:

1. Did anyone else make the same mistake I did, and think (even after reading the article) that the article was talking about PETA? I didn't realize it wasn't PETA until the second page of the thread.

2. Does anyone else think, as I do, that this thread would have been a lot less heated if the references to groups and people had been less vague?

dgruss23
2005-Feb-26, 04:49 PM
I think your analysis is exactly right.


I have a couple of questions for you all:

1. Did anyone else make the same mistake I did, and think (even after reading the article) that the article was talking about PETA? I didn't realize it wasn't PETA until the second page of the thread.

I read the article first, but then when I saw Jpax2003's reference to PETA my mind immediately reset to thinking the article was about PETA. Its certainly something they would make an issue about.


2. Does anyone else think, as I do, that this thread would have been a lot less heated if the references to groups and people had been less vague?

Absolutely. I meant extremists - referring to groups that I consider harmful. But because I didn't say "extremists" a lot of people got upset feeling I was talking about any activists. I've tried to clarify since then and apologized for the misunderstanding.

However I stand by all my points as they apply to the extremists.

I also don't think the heat in this thread was that bad. It hasn't degenerated into insults. As you've pointed out the heat was based upon statements that were not written carefully enough or not read carefully enough.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-26, 05:03 PM
I also don't think the heat in this thread was that bad. It hasn't degenerated into insults. As you've pointed out the heat was based upon statements that were not written carefully enough or not read carefully enough.
You're right; it wasn't that bad. I've seen much worse. But as sts60 pointed out, it's interesting that there was any at all, considering that everyone seems to agree that roadkill candies are nothing to get upset about.

Now that we're getting into metametadiscussion :o , I think I'll take a lunch break . . . wish I had some Squashed Snake Sweets or some Ground Gopher Gummies . . .

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 05:08 PM
WF Tomba:
upset about the roadkill candies, was not mentioned by name until the twelfth post on the second page. (Grendl mentioned it.)
Actually I mentioned the group in the article on the first page in my first post. While I said it was an overreaction I tried to understand why it might upset them. I later pointed out the paragraph of the article that said what really upset them was the video.

On the other hand, from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' perspective, if you are constantly bombarded and hear about cruelty to animals you get a bit oversensitive at times, just as scores of other groups make a big deal of something or another.
It was clear to me what and who was being talked about in the article--it's in the first paragraph or two: the New Jersey SPCA. What bothered me was this going off about PETA, which has nothing to do with this. And even after this is made clear several times, at least in my posts, what this one group's complaints were, Jpax writes:

I'm surprised no one considered that the whole thing is a publicity stunt. Ad executives may have expected PETA to go off on them, generating publicity in the process. Now everyone is gonna want to get some roadkill candy before it is removed from the marketplace.
Hello? Why are you STILL talking about PETA. C'mon, guys and gals, I read your posts in the astronomy section, you're all very intelligent, far smarter than me, so why did critical thinking/reading skills fly out the window here? I think that's what annoyed me...that it seemed like a gang-up against environmental activists in general.


BTW, here is the letter from the NJSPCA and Kraft has halted making the candy.


NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J., Feb. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Open letter to Roger Deromedi, Chief Executive Officer, Kraft Foods from Stuart Rhodes, President, New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("NJSPCA") demanding that Kraft Foods to immediately remove Trolli "Road Kill" Gummi Candy from the market.

snip

The purpose of this letter is to demand that Kraft Foods immediately remove the Trolli "Road Kill" Gummi Candy from stores and cease production of this new Kraft Foods brand. Kraft's new Trolli "Road Kill" product line was recently brought to my attention by a member of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("NJSPCA"). I visited the Trolli website - http://www.candystand.com/trolli - and what I found was completely unacceptable and irresponsible.

Frankly, I was shocked, horrified and dismayed to see that Kraft is manufacturing and marketing gummi candy to children shaped like snakes, chickens and squirrels with tire tracks over the bodies to look like "road kill." The website even goes so far as to simulate a vehicle driving down a road and stopping short of a snake, chicken and squirrel with their eyes wide open in fear with tire tracks over their bodies.

As Kraft's CEO I am sure you are well aware of Kraft's "vision" and "values" statement on your corporate website. Kraft's vision is to "help people around the world eat and live better." One of Kraft's six core values is listed as "Integrity - Doing the right thing." I see nothing in the new Trolli "Road Kill" product line that advances your vision of values. In fact, this product is completely inconsistent with Kraft's values and clearly sends the wrong message to your target audience ... children. There is nothing funny, intentional or accidental, about an animal getting run over by a car.

While the NJSPCA's primary focus is the enforcement of animal cruelty laws in the State of New Jersey, the NJSPCA is an organization dedicated to the welfare of animals. As President of the NJSPCA and an individual dedicated to the welfare of animals for over 35 years, I urge you to take immediate actions to correct what I hope was an oversight. Be a company of "integrity" and do the right thing.

Full letter: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050223/phw022_1.html



TRENTON, N.J. -- Production of candy shaped like roadkill has come to a screeching halt. The decision, announced yesterday by Kraft Foods Inc., was the result of an outcry by New Jersey animal rights activists who said the candy encouraged children to be cruel to animals.

"We take comments from our consumers really seriously and, in hindsight, we understand that this product could be misunderstood," said Kraft spokesperson Larry Baumann.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Business/2005/02/26/942975-sun.html



edited for spelling

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 06:09 PM
Sorry, I'm a slow poster and didn't read the last two posts before the above. It seems like I'm belaboring the point, but it does somewhat highlight my previous comment to degruss:

I'll tell you why the defensiveness comes in. Every time I say something that seems to promote animals or wilderness I get these remarks like "Oh, you're a treehugger or you're a PETA person," in so many words...
That's what happened in this thread.

Anyway, degruss, I agree with you on this:

Heck we can turn this around. Some people are saying "don't lump me with PETA". Well what I'm saying is don't assume you can lump me with those that don't care just because I have issues with the PETA's of the activist world. But that's exactly what many of these extremist groups try to do. A perfect example of this "lumping people" regarding this (and I'm not getting political) is when I met the mayor of the one-square mile town of Indialantic, FL last summer on my way back from NASA. He is a Republican and said that at a party of who's-who state politicians, all Republicans, he brought up issues and concerns about the manatees and sea oats, etc. that concerned him about his town. He was chided about not sounding like a Republican and more like a liberal, as if caring about wildlife is a "liberal thing." He was really bothered by that, as if we all have to be so categorized. There are Republicans who care about animals, there are hunters who oppose Bush's environmental policies; he felt like an outsider even though he agreed with the Republicans on many issues. Isn't that silly? He was trying to assure me that he's not some big bad corporate wolf hellbent on overdeveloping Florida. He grew up there, he cares about it.

And the issue of the manatees and a plant that dumps warm water into the river was one of the conflicting/ironic problems you speak of: the warm, toxic water attracted the manatees and they stopped migrating down to the Keys. The environmentalists wanted to shut down the plant, but the manatees lost their migrating habit (they're not that smart) and wouldn't migrate and thus die.


Krevel wrote:
As a cyclist, I have more of an intimate relationship with roadkill than most people. The wholesale slaughter on our roadways is truly shocking. When I cycled cross-country, I once considered keeping a record of all the roadkill I encountered. But I decided that would be too depressing, and I soon abandoned that idea.
There was a British movie--I can't for the life of me recall the name of it now--but it was about this man whose life mission was to pick up all the roadkill and gave them solemn burial. He meets this boy, takes him in, and teaches him a thing or two about respecting these poor animals who fell victim to man's modernization. It was depressing. When I was in CT in September I noticed that there seemed to be so much more roadkill than I've ever noticed before in the 26 years of living there.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-26, 06:33 PM
Of course venison is good.

When I lived in Colorado any freshly killed deer or elk would go to the local food bank.

Never had the chance to try it... gotta round out my education...

As long as it isn't bambi's mother.... :cry:

ducks thrown veggies 8)Just be sure it didn't come from the mad deer range. (http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/cwd/killer/images/history.cfm)

MadDeer.org (http://www.maddeer.org/) (Site looks like a parody but it isn't.)

beskeptical
2005-Feb-26, 06:46 PM
There are people who just don't care if they run over an animal, they don't even slow down.

I care if I run over an animal, but if that animal happens to be a skunk, I certainly don't plan to slow down. ........Ever hit a skunk? Hope you know how to de-stink your car. :P

beskeptical
2005-Feb-26, 06:56 PM
I have a couple of these (http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1621&item=59595014 09&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW&tc=photo#ebayphotohosting ) cuties.

Jpax2003
2005-Feb-26, 08:59 PM
Hold on a minute.

I never in any post claimed PETA was responsible for this, so I should not be held accountable for the misidentification with the NJSPCA.

Firstly, I suggested that there should be gummis shaped like PETA protester Roadkill. It was a tangent for humorous effect. I thought PETA was the funnier target since it is the juxtaposition of opposites that creates humor.

Secondly, when I suggested that it might be a publicity stunt, I never claimed that PETA was responsible for the complaint. I said that the ad executives may have expected such a reaction from PETA. The fact that the result was not from whom they may have hypothetically expected is not my responsibility.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-26, 09:22 PM
Actually I mentioned the group in the article on the first page in my first post. While I said it was an overreaction I tried to understand why it might upset them. I later pointed out the paragraph of the article that said what really upset them was the video.
You're right, you did. Sorry I missed that. However, you didn't quite spell out the reason you were bringing up the SPCA---but after all, why would you? It should have been obvious to everyone that we were talking about the SPCA. When I read your first post, though, I thought that because you were identifying yourself as an animal-rights supporter, your mention of the SPCA indicated that you yourself were somehow involved with the organization, and therefore speaking, as you said, "from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' perspective." I still managed to miss the fact that the article was not about PETA.

My basic point here is not just that I am stupid and overlook the obvious. I am saying that this kind of miscommunication happens more often in politically charged discussions, because one tends to enter the argument with a preset, bulleted list of opponents to attack and charges to defend oneself against. From my own experience, I have found that an almost ridiculous level of clarity is necessary to prevent misunderstandings in politically charged discussion. Now maybe I am just unusually prone to these problems, but you can decide that for yourself.

Grendl
2005-Feb-26, 10:10 PM
W.F. Tomba:
My basic point here is not just that I am stupid and overlook the obvious. I am saying that this kind of miscommunication happens more often in politically charged discussions, because one tends to enter the argument with a preset, bulleted list of opponents to attack and charges to defend oneself against. From my own experience, I have found that an almost ridiculous level of clarity is necessary to prevent misunderstandings in politically charged discussion. Now maybe I am just unusually prone to these problems, but you can decide that for yourself.
I think you're entirely correct and that was evident in the thread...this immediate anti-vegan talk, immediate defensiveness and so on. I hear it all the time in my daily life. The article Wally posted could have immediately gone into just, "Will roadkill candy and the flash animation that advertised it turn kids into roadkilling cretins?" Someone in NJ thought the animation was sick. It does go along the lines of, "Do toy guns turn children into murderous adults?" and so on...in general, hypersensitivity. People did comment on that and then others went off on PETA and extreme activists, which is all fine in my view, but like you said when focus or clarity gets lost it's arrgggh!

Too, it seems that people just want to talk about a subject in different ways; where some may see it as an opportunity for humor, others want to talk about the matter seriously or get more into it, yet we also have to hold back on getting too political or heated about it. I think there are several issues about roadkill and the public's responsibility and/or respect for wildlife that I could get into as an aside, but it doesn't look like that would be a well-received idea.


Jpax said:
Secondly, when I suggested that it might be a publicity stunt, I never claimed that PETA was responsible for the complaint. I said that the ad executives may have expected such a reaction from PETA. The fact that the result was not from whom they may have hypothetically expected is not my responsibility.
Sorry, I thought you were still in the "PETA-people-complained" mode. Hmm, when they came out with the candy in the summer, the idea that it might tick off PETA and create a "New Coke" sort of reaction is pretty risky and not Kraft's style. I'm inclined to think that someone thought kids like gross things. Remember those Garbage Pal Kids? Slime? Fake dog doo? Fake vomit? As I said, we had Wacky Stickers that were sick satires of well-known products. In video stores I always see little kids go for the gory, horror movie DVD covers.

dvb
2005-Feb-26, 11:28 PM
There are people who just don't care if they run over an animal, they don't even slow down.

I care if I run over an animal, but if that animal happens to be a skunk, I certainly don't plan to slow down. If that animal happens to be a moose, then you can bet that I most certainly will slow down. :o
Why would you not slow down to avoid hitting any animal? If you can avoid hitting an animal, why wouldn't you try to do so? Fine, let the skunk stink up your tires! I hope you get sprayed by a skunk tomorrow and you have to bathe in tomato paste. :D

My mistake. I thought you meant after said animal had already been hit. Naturally I'd avoid hitting a skunk at all costs, and I hope most others would too. :)

Grendl
2005-Feb-27, 12:48 AM
The British film I mentioned earlier that I couldn't remember the name of:
"All The Little Animals" (1998) with John Hurt and Christian Bale. One of those odd finds.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0120584/maindetails

dgruss23
2005-Feb-27, 03:00 PM
You know I just have to add that ironically enough yesterday afternoon my kids were watching the animal rescue show on animal planet based upon the activities of the Houston SPCA.

Its great stuff and they do wonderful work. They rely on public donations so there are many generous people out there donating. The shows are great for raising awareness about the kind of neglect and abuse that people do commit - and the efforts of SPCA to deal with it.

A show like that is quite a contrast with making a big deal about things like road kill gummy bears. I hope the SPCA reps will be careful about going public with those sorts of complaints - because it threatens to undermine the good reputation they've built. We can see how quickly on this thread that sort of stuff makes people think about PETA.

Lurker
2005-Feb-27, 11:32 PM
Why would you not slow down to avoid hitting any animal? If you can avoid hitting an animal, why wouldn't you try to do so? Fine, let the skunk stink up your tires! I hope you get sprayed by a skunk tomorrow and you have to bathe in tomato paste. :D

Here's the bottom line for me Grendl... I believe that we should do what we can for animals. However, I was in a situation a while back in New Mexico where a bunny froze in the middle of the road, I had traffic behind me and on my left, there was no shoulder on my right and not enough time to safely stop. So it came down to taking out a car with humans or taking out the bunny because I could not slow down in time without getting it from the car behind. I said, "bye bye bunny" took him out.

Like I said, this is the bottom line for me. If its people or an animal, the animal, even a cute, fluffy little bunny, is goin down. I don't like it, but I'm not going to endanger the lives of humans to save the bunny. Sorry man... but laid side by side, the bunny's life and rights come in second with me. Thus it was and so it shall always be in such situations.


Edited To Add:

My nephew likes gumballs that have a design that makes them look like eyeballs. I mean they look like they just got popped outa some human's head. These are freely available and there is no big campaign saying that this is going to turn my cute, little nephew in to a homicidal maniac who has no respect for human beings. He's a kid, he likes gross things, let him be a kid. I really think that road kill candy falls into the same category.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-28, 12:07 AM
Ok, I think we resolved that. I made the mistake of thinking that because I was responding to an article about extremists, that it would be understood in that context I was referring to extremists. My bad!
Consider the peace pipe smoked! :)

Maksutov
2005-Feb-28, 12:36 AM
Ok, I think we resolved that. I made the mistake of thinking that because I was responding to an article about extremists, that it would be understood in that context I was referring to extremists. My bad!
Consider the peace pipe smoked! :)
What kind of remains of innocent weeds that were killed so you could smoke them, do you have in that pipe? Did those poor plants have any choice about their ultimate fate? How would you like to be dried out, cut up, and then burned, with your particulates winding up in some uncaring animal's lungs? Not a very flowery picture, eh?

El Seed, charter member of HEMP (Humans for the Ethical Management of Plants).

Lurker
2005-Feb-28, 01:00 AM
El Seed, charter member of HEMP (Humans for the Ethical Management of Plants).
Ya know... it's been shown that plants react very negatively to anger!! There have been studies. The days when you can just fry their screaming little buds in a pipe have come to an end!!

Its about time we protected them with legislation!! [-(

Jpax2003
2005-Feb-28, 01:25 AM
El Seed, charter member of HEMP (Humans for the Ethical Management of Plants).
Ya know... it's been shown that plants react very negatively to anger!! There have been studies. The days when you can just fry their screaming little buds in a pipe have come to an end!!

Its about time we protected them with legislation!! [-(Good luck on legislation, half the time the plants get pretection, the other half of the time they become the targets of legal genocide.

One Day More
2005-Feb-28, 03:58 AM
I'm a strong supporter of animal rights. Please don't lump me (or the majority of animal rights supporters) in with the extremists. No more than being an environmentalist makes me an ELF arsonist, or being a supporter of nuclear power makes me a Larouchite, etc.


May I point out that it IS possible to support animal rights without having to to be as extreme as the people in this article. Don't paint us all with the same brush please. To pick out one paricular group and say "all animal rights activists are like this" is just the kind of sweeping statement that I wouldn't expect to see on this board.

Please don't take this as an insult because its not intended as such. But I think you both have fallen victim to one of the tactics used by extremist groups: the "you're with us or you're against the environment/animals" mentality.

One of the most annoying things about the PETA's of the activist world is that they try to paint it such that if you don't agree with them and their actions, then you're against the creatures/environmental health they claim to be trying to "save". Its a bunch of hogwash.

How many people actually think its ok to be abusive to animals? How many people actual think there is no problem with adding pollutants to soil, water, and air to the point that it is a health hazard? The answer is a very small minority of people.

My point is you don't have to raise you're hand and announce that you care about the animals and a clean environment. Most everybody does - and most people can intuitively tell you what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.

What these extremist groups do is take things that the average person understands is reasonable - and tries to make some ridiculous claim that harm is being caused - such as our gummy bear story. They want everyone to think that they hold some superior high ground on caring - and they don't.

I'll criticize their actions and their arguments and that criticism is a laser beam pointed at their specific extremism. The rest of us rational thinking people that understand a gummy bear is a harmless piece of candy can go about our business without feeling we have to defend ourselves with the "I care too - don't lump me with them protest."

If you succumb to their phony claim to the high ground, you let them win.

You hit the nail right on the head. I'm still in high school, and I love animals and all, but I'm waiting until I finish my studies to join say SPCA or DoC or Project Jonah (help stranded whales). Of course, that doesn't mean I care enough, it means I'm just concentrating on not flunking my last year at school (yr 13) and feel it's just as important to suceed, especially in the last year of school.
I also looked at reviews for the film two brothers and got totally turned off by the apparently gratuitious abuse of the tigers in the film. Uh-uh, I'm not seeing it, as I get easily upset by poaching, animal abuse, and whaling, even if it's just part of a fiction book. In fact, I had nightmares after seeing the horrific images in Michael Bright's Saving the whale.
*shudders*. I hate seeing images of elephant poaching, just for their ivory tusks, or of the beautiful big cats being hunted for their fur.
As for the road kill candy? I think humans will find them a bit more palatable than hawks would...

Inferno
2005-Feb-28, 04:07 AM
I bet the people that dreamed up this candy sent a few advertisements to the PETA people just to make sure to stir up some complaints and get free publicity.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-28, 10:39 PM
There has been another thread ("Candy stopped!") about this topic, which is now locked (because of the existence of this thread). The thread started with the news that the production of this candy now is stopped. JFYI.

Lurker
2005-Feb-28, 11:44 PM
I'm posting this over here because I think it's insane that a lump of gelatin and sugar can't be sold because it looks like an animal with snake marks...

I'm going to the expensive little Italian bistro right across the street from my apartment tonite and have veal medallions for dinner. If stories like that one didn't exist, I might be persuaded not to eat veal anymore, but this is foolishness so I am making my message heard too. :P

Maybe some boiled lobsters this weekend... 8)


Edited to add:

Why can my nephew chew gumballs that are very realistic recreations of human eyeballs, but we can't sell a lump of gelatin and sugar that looks sorta like a snake with tiremarks on it... madness!! :o

Jpax2003
2005-Mar-01, 03:56 AM
Maybe someone can post the recipe here so we can all make our own candy with road-kill motifs.

gethen
2005-Mar-01, 01:33 PM
Can I add a word of caution here? I'd just like to say that all those protests about animal "rights" are obviously annoying people so much that the concept of animal "welfare" gets lost. My husband is a veterinarian who works almost exclusively with dairy cattle. Believe it or not, one facet of his work deals with "cow comfort." That means that a cow who must lie on bare concrete, or has overgrown hooves, or has no place to get out of the weather is not going to produce as much milk as a cow who is "comfortable," so it's not just the PETA people who ought to be concerned with how animals are treated. Of course, they go so far overboard that no sane person would follow.
And I really hate to spoil anyone's dinner, but my husband also absolutely refuses to eat veal because he has seen firsthand the way veal calves are handled and will not act as consultant or anything to anyone raising veal calves. And he will tell them why he refuses to deal with them.

Lurker
2005-Mar-01, 05:37 PM
And I really hate to spoil anyone's dinner, but my husband also absolutely refuses to eat veal because he has seen firsthand the way veal calves are handled and will not act as consultant or anything to anyone raising veal calves. And he will tell them why he refuses to deal with them.

I agree completely with you gethen but I wish to make my own point to the extremists in this issue. That point is that when such issues are taken to such an extreme, the result is a backlash. I intend to force the point that when such extreme positions are taken on these issues that the opposition loses ground. I agree its an ugly way to deal with the issue, but the extremists are setting the agenda.

space cadet
2005-Mar-01, 10:55 PM
I have a lot of respect for the SPCA. I've seen their show on Animal Planet, and some of the animals they rescue come from truly awful situations. I'd be willing to donate to their cause.

PETA on the other hand--wow. Talk about tactless.

For example, a couple of years ago when PETA decided to do a big advertising campaign in Utah, they errected a billboard on the interstate with a picture of God holding a bunch of carrots, quoting Mormon scripture at everyone who drove by.

I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the implication that I must be a bad Mormon for enjoying a hamburger now and then. :P (For the record, the Word of Wisdom only tells people to eat meat sparingly--and the Doctrine and Covenents certainly doesn't say 'Go Veg!' anywhere. )

I thought the ad was being kind of manipulative, but it wasn't anything worth blowing my non-caffenated beverage all over the windsheild over. But not long after that, PETA put up a second billboard which I found to be in INCREDIBLY poor taste. It featured a photo of a bunch of chickens in a cage next to photo of a group of starving Jewish children in a NAZI concentration camp. The caption said: "To animals, all people are NAZIs."

The fact that they're comparing the Jews to a bunch of chickens is a new low for PETA. It seems to me that animals' feelings are the ONLY thing they're sensitive towards--forget people.

Leave it to that pack of morons to think of the most tactless way imaginable to get their point across.

Normandy6644
2005-Mar-01, 10:59 PM
I've seen that ad campaign before (I think it even made an appearance at my school last semester). It's just horrible. I totally agree with you that it is in poor taste to compare animals to people in that respect. It's just sickening what they do sometimes.

kucharek
2005-Mar-02, 07:23 AM
I thought the ad was being kind of manipulative, but it wasn't anything worth blowing my non-caffenated beverage all over the windsheild over. But not long after that, PETA put up a second billboard which I found to be in INCREDIBLY poor taste. It featured a photo of a bunch of chickens in a cage next to photo of a group of starving Jewish children in a NAZI concentration camp. The caption said: "To animals, all people are NAZIs."

The fact that they're comparing the Jews to a bunch of chickens is a new low for PETA. It seems to me that animals' feelings are the ONLY thing they're sensitive towards--forget people.

Didn't they get so much heat over that ad so that they withdrew it?

Normandy6644
2005-Mar-02, 01:23 PM
I thought the ad was being kind of manipulative, but it wasn't anything worth blowing my non-caffenated beverage all over the windsheild over. But not long after that, PETA put up a second billboard which I found to be in INCREDIBLY poor taste. It featured a photo of a bunch of chickens in a cage next to photo of a group of starving Jewish children in a NAZI concentration camp. The caption said: "To animals, all people are NAZIs."

The fact that they're comparing the Jews to a bunch of chickens is a new low for PETA. It seems to me that animals' feelings are the ONLY thing they're sensitive towards--forget people.

Didn't they get so much heat over that ad so that they withdrew it?

I think they did, but not without a lot of return rhetoric.

Gillianren
2005-Mar-02, 11:48 PM
at Evergreen, my alma mater, all the clubs get/share cubicles in the same room. when I was still a student there, EARN (the Evergreen Animal Rights Network) and the Evergreen branch of Amnesty International (a group which I actually do respect, but that's a different topic) had cubicles next to one another. I think they were both large enough groups so that they had their own, too, and didn't have to share.

well, of course the Amnesty International people had a sign that said, "Everyone who believes in the death penalty [also another thread, and one for a different board], raise your hand." this, of course, included pictures of various dictators and things waving, including Hitler giving the Nazi salute.

what I found amusing about this was that Hitler was a vegetarian, which made him morally superior as far as the EARN people were concerned. come to that, Charles Manson's a vegetarian, too. (as are a lot of good people I know; I just found it amusing.)

I have no problem w/vegetarianism for moral purposes; what I object to is forcing your morals on other people. personally, I both eat meat and think the candy was funny, in a gross, four-year-old kind of way.

Lurker
2005-Mar-03, 12:44 AM
what I found amusing about this was that Hitler was a vegetarian, which made him morally superior as far as the EARN people were concerned. come to that, Charles Manson's a vegetarian, too. (as are a lot of good people I know; I just found it amusing.)

I have no problem w/vegetarianism for moral purposes; what I object to is forcing your morals on other people. personally, I both eat meat and think the candy was funny, in a gross, four-year-old kind of way.
Exactly!! At least Hitler and Manson didn't kill outside their species!! [-(

I agree, 4-8 or 10 year-olds are allowed to have a gross out phase. I got to have one. :wink: I sometimes think that some people in our generation are so self-involved that they want to take away kids' childhoods.

I say, let him wiggle the frog in the girl's face and make her scream!! I say, let her tease him about whatever. Chances are that who they grow up to be will be unrelated to the silliness of childhood.

:wink: