I just lost a whole lot of respect for Ingrid Newkirk.

Disillusioning, isn't it?

Wow, now I'm sad and disgusted instead of just plain disgusted. Bravo to ERF and her fellow protesters, and shame on Newkirk.

Hi, Vicki. Although I definitely agree with you that changing diet won't always magically make everyone thin--no matter what the diet is (some people's body types just are what they are, as you note)--and that's part of the problem with the original billboard, I disagree with your inclusion of "going vegan" in the list of things that would make you potentially not as healthy as you are now. Depending on how much dairy and eggs you include in your diet, a vegan diet could potentially be much healthier than your vegetarian diet, while still providing with all the necessary nutrients.

Agreed- I gained weight when I went vegetarian, and then lost it and more when I went vegan.

Not in any way to defend PETA or that campaign. Just agreeing with Stephanie that veganism is healthy, whereas the other depriving methods clearly aren't.

Diana - PETA *is* using "whale" as in insult here, making this campaign speciesist as well as fat phobic (sexist, classist, racist, etc.). If there was any doubt before, PETA says as much in its latest statements, when it admits that the purpose of the billboard is to shame fat women into vegetarianism. Being likened to a blubbery whale is only shaming if "whale" and whale "blubber" are meant as negatives.

I get it, but I see it more as turning speciesists' speciesism against them.

Right, but to the average speciesist, this will simply reinforce stereotypes about fat people and the animals with which they're associated. I don't see how this is good for fat people or non-human animals.

Plus, I doubt that this was PETA's intent - the group just isn't that nuanced.

It is not saying that whales are beautiful. It's saying don't be a whale, lose the blubber.

Extreme does not have to equal prejudiced. Attack a person's beliefs and actions, not her appearance (or race, sex, gender, class, sexuality, etc.).

Nell, PETA's campaigns only have the potential to save lives if they aren't written off as the rantings of a lunatic fringe group. PETA's problem is that they are constantly extreme for the sake of it. I believe they have good intentions, but their shock-value tactics have lost them far more credibility than they've gained.

Hi Shanon,

I appreciate your comments.  Have not kept up-to-date w/all of PETA's campaigns, but I do have a dear friend who is one of PETA's spokespeople, and the last thing he would want to do is hurt someone.  I suppose they could have said, I love you and want you to be around for my lifetime, or something similiar, but would people have noticed that as much?  I don't know.  Knowing my friend, who has devoted much of his life to PETA, I know that he would not endorse the extreme for the sake of it.  He deeply cares about people and animals.  It is difficult.  I am an advocate for Darfur and Congo, and it is so hard to get people to listen.  I have consulted my friend re how we can wake people up to the nightmares people in Darfur and Congo are experiencing.  Speaking the facts isn't working, as millions are still suffering.  The answer is hard to find.

Extremes do get people talking but offending people doesn't work toward persuasion the same way that appealing to people's better reason does.  I don't believe PETA 'had' to go to an extreme like this one in order to further the conversations toward vegetarian and vegan diets.   They chose to, and whatever consequences of doing so will be.   But I've learned the hard way too in pushing for children's basic human rights to freedom from assault at all hands, that causing offense just puts people on defense, it doesn't open them up to hearing your point of view. 

They could have done a better job on the billboard I'm sure.

Um, I don't believe Congress passed a law barring PETA from running ads in public spaces.

Nor did PETA completely take down its billboards - they simply replaced the "Save the Whales" design with a new one.

And how is consistency in one's beliefs - i.e., that the rights and dignity of all sentient beings should be respected, irregardless of group membership - "zealotry," exactly?

Zealotry = AR supporters attacking a sign that supports animal rights.  NOT LOGICAL.

Furthermore, would you be ok with the ad if it were a man? Plus, dude! it's a cartoon character...'lighten up' (fat joke (i apologize)).

Tom--your insistence on posting your condescending, sexist comments verbatim in multiple locations borders on obnoxious.

Again, there is no "animal rights" aspect to this billboard. The focus is not nearly on animals--it is on shaming women who are already shamed everywhere else in society, who don't need it from a supposedly "progressive" organization on top of that. And it alienates and hurts its target audience. Those it did possibly get to start thinking about vegetarian eating? It preyed on their insecurities. And when they don't lose the weight they want to lose--because there is no guarantee that they will--they'll have no reason to stick with vegetarian (let alone vegan) eating.

PETA could do what other organizations do and promote vegan eating for better health rather than to "lose the blubber," and it could do that without shaming and mocking. It chooses not to.

my bad...see lower post for response:

Furthermore, were in my text lies the sexist comments?

"Zealotry = AR supporters attacking a sign that supports animal rights.  NOT LOGICAL."

An animal rights sign that shames fat women (and men) simply for being fat. I'm no more okay with isms directed at humans than those directed at animals. If you want to define that as zealous, wev. I call it consistent.

(Also, the sign asks people to go VEGETARIAN, not VEGAN. That doesn't strike me as animal RIGHTS so much as WELFARE. But, again, wev.)

"Furthermore, would you be ok with the ad if it were a man?"

No, I wouldn't. Have I said anything to suggest otherwise?

"Plus, dude! it's a cartoon character...'lighten up' (fat joke (i apologize))."

So? Whether the ad features a sketch or an actual photo, the message is the same: fat = bad & shameful.

Well, bad and shameful is your interpretation.  I see that pic as an overweight person = unhealthy.  

I don't care what image or text is present as long as the message is ‘stop eating meat.' 

Really, there are no other organizations that aggressively advertise AR material and therefore, I view the boycott of PETA as a great disservice to the AR movement.

"Well, bad and shameful is your interpretation."

No, it's in the terms - insults - "whale," "blubber," "thunder thighs," etc. which PETA employs in the billboard and their press releases.

And the fact that you'd be okay with a sign calling women cunts is about all I need to know about you.

Exactly what I am saying.

What I mean is, is that I agree with Tom.  100%

"Would the ad be ok if it were a fat man?"

No.

Would the ad be ok if it read "Go vegetarian, cunt"?

And also, see my comments above.

This will be the last time I respond to your spam-style comments in multiple places, Tom. Indeed, it may not be long before I stop responding to you at all on this blog and just start deleting your comments. I'm sure there are mysoginistic men's sites where your remarks dismissing women's feelings and experiences and laughing over fat jokes would be welcome. They're not welcome here. Finally, again, in response:

1. Try telling spent hens, male chicks, and slaughtered cows and calves that "go vegetarian" promotes animal rights.

2. It's not "brilliant"--it's crude and cruel. It takes up cruel sexist jerks' "whale" name-calling and uses it to make women feel bad about themselves.

3. No, it wouldn't be OK with me if it were an overweight man, but...

4. Men aren't shamed about their bodies in the same way as women. This society isn't as obsessed with--and cruel about--men's bodies. And if you don't realize that, you're even more sexist and oblivious than you seem.

I would be ok with a fat dude.  I didn't think it was mean...but, you are correct that I am naive.  I am anything, but sexist.  I saw an organization I deeply respect appealing to overweight people, not only women, to choose a vegetarian lifestyle; thus, promoting AR.

"I say the bb does promote AR"

"It's true because I say it's true" is not a valid argument. Nice try, though.

Dude, you just advocated calling women "cunts" - and not in an empowering, reclamation kinda way. If you don't want women to call you a sexist, don't act like a sexist.

Oh bloody hell, this thread has me all turned around.

I thought you said

"I don't care what image or text is present as long as the message is ‘stop eating meat.'"

in response to my question

"Would the ad be ok if it read "Go vegetarian, cunt"?"

But now I see that you didn't reply. So please correct me if I'm wrong. (In which case I'll ask how "whale" is any different.)

By your logic then, your argument is not valid as well.  You say otherwise, but use the same rational 'true b/c I say it's true'.  

"We can disagree all day long about your opinion of whether using "vegetarian" in the ad was or wasn't a valid, justifiable move. But that's not what you keep insisting on--you keep insisting that the ad promotes animal rights. And it doesn't." 

Your argument then is that Vegetarianism is not part of the AR movement.  I disagree.

Tom, did you miss the following?

 "Try telling spent hens, male chicks, and slaughtered cows and calves that 'go vegetarian' promotes animal rights."

Animal rights is about stopping the exploitation and unnecessary killing of all animals; there's no exception for the ones who lay eggs and produce milk just because humans like to eat eggs and milk (the chicks, hens, calves, and cows who are all killed for the dairy and egg industries fall into "animal rights" too). Furthermore, the ad simply doesn't say anything about animal rights. It's an ad about weight. Not about not eating animals because there's any moral problem with eating animals.

No way could you put the word 'cunt' on anything legit.  The 'whale' comes from an old PETA campaign 'Save the Whales' - bumper stickers galore.  Again, admittedly, I'm naive:  I wasn't thinking whale = fat lady...I was like, "that's cool how they brought back an old slogan to promote a more humane lifestyle today (vegetarianism)."

Regardless of opinion, there is a great divide within the animal rights movement (abolition vs. welfare) that must be united.  Boycotting PETA, one of the only organizations that puts its money where its mouth is to promote AR, is not productive to the movement - my point from the beginning.

I apologize for the mistake, then. But "whale," when used as a slur, isn't much different from "cunt" - both marginalize a group of people based on self identity and irrelevant personal characteristics, rather than their actions and beliefs. Only difference is, "cunt" is an obscenity in the US.

I need no apology.  Please trust, that I am anything but sexist; for I view women as extraordinary delicacies - angels.  I fear my only fault is ignorance.

And unless you also believe all men are extraordinary delicacy angels, that's just sexism of the pedestal-of-impossible-expectations variety.

Bull.  Life expectancies are still climbing.  Overweight people have lower mortality than "healthy BMI" people.

PETA is not my fav., and I do have criticism (but not over this trivial matter). But I take that up with PETA and others in private.

Just keep at it Will-- my parents are still omnivores and I have been at it alot longer than you (but I am wearing them down!). I have had success with others close to me though. I agree with your feelings. And PETA better hurry up with that photo-- your ass ain't gonna be too big for too long with your new vegan lifestyle ; )

Jamie, I'd like to know your secret in turning some friends vegan! Although in saying that I've had an encouraging email from a mate this evening. I sent him and another friend a sprawling email about farming abuse, thought it might have been too much for them actually, but one replied "...I read the sobering animal info in your note. I'm not sure how much I can do, but am going to consider my options. Unlikely to go vegan in a short timeframe, but there are potential steps I can look at."

I tend to get frustrated with family and others who don't make the commitment. But that's really encouraged me, I'm going to send him Veg Starter Kit.

3 pronged approach:

Animal cruelty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v3GMv9FAPY

Enviro:

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4264

Health:

http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm

And some patience, cuz it is not always instantaneous. But basically you have to remind people they have no excuses left.

Oh, Chris, no baby, come out of that Veggie closet, I am saying.  I think it brings character to who you are, and you don't have to be afraid of this decision.  You'll do what you want, but I hope you choose to come out and be who you are, regardless.  Get them used to you; you'll develop that "tough skin" that you need, when you need it, and at the right times.  There's nothing wrong with your choice.  It takes some practice and you stumble a little like anything but you can get right back up again and keep sticking up for what you choose.  You know, if you feel put on the spot by people, sometimes it could help to come up with what kind of verbal self-defense, or just what kind of diplomacy for what you are going to use for each possible instance.  It helps.  I have had old childhood friends write the most insane retorts and comments to my veg postings on FB, and I have got down a science how to just 'nip it in the bud' with all of them.  And it's VERY effective.  Some people are almost interested in recipes now.

Thanks for the encouragement Kathryn!, but I'm really not in the veggie closet! Good pointers from you about prepared responses to people. Cheers

Actually if the AR community  could get rid of PETA they might actually be respected by the general population.  PETA is abrasive and makes non-ARs go in the opposite direction of what they are preaching!  I know a lot of people who hate PETA more than they hate cruelty!  I have no respect for them, and find their campaigns insulting.  BTW How many shelter animals do they kill a year?!  How many successful adoptions have they done?!  The numbers are astonishing -- PETA is the opposite of an animal advocacy organization.  They do more harm to AR than they do good.

Dawn, you are naive and delusional. People do not believe in AR-- they believe animals are things to use any way they find convenient. People attack PETA as a way to attack AR because it sounds better than saying, "I think animals should be enslaved and tortured and killed for economic reasons." Much better to say, "Those freakin PETA wing-nuts are forcing that vegan BS down our throats!" If COK or MfA or IDA were known by the general corpse eating public, they would be attacked the exact same way. But why don't you spend the rest of your life trying to "get rid of PETA" Dawn? You will do SOOO much good for animals by fighting against the biggest (and in some ways the best) AR org. Perhaps you could even pick up a salary from Smithfield or Armani. 

I'm tiring quickly of the condescension and name-calling that's taking over this thread, so I'll soon close it if I need to.

But first, I'm sorry, but there's something ironic about someone calling Dawn "naive" while at the same time insisting that people "attack" PETA only because it's an easy target and way to dismiss AR. It is naive and closed-minded to so adamantly insist that the many, *many* people who object to some of PETA's tactics--dedicated, educated, passionate vegan animal rights advocates included--couldn't possibly have valid concerns that maybe, just maybe, PETA and its most adamant supporters should consider with an open mind.

I have no problem noting when PETA does something terribly wrong. And I have no problem noting when PETA does something right. But the practice of angrily defending them no matter what, by default, while shouting from the rooftops that they are the best and the biggest and deserving of nothing but our praise, comes across as cultish.

Even the PETA supporters who really, truly do believe PETA can do no wrong should stop and consider that it's still not a good tactical idea to, in all cases, religiously announce that and defend them so vehemently while attacking their critics.

--In cases such as this one, when people have been offended and *hurt* by the campaign (people who otherwise might have been open to respectful conversation about health on a plant-based diet and actual animal rights issues), the faction of PETA-supporting animal advocates then telling them basically to shut up & suck it up because their feelings don't matter accomplishes absolutely nothing for the animals. Being yelled at or mocked is not going to change people's personal feelings about the ad. It's not going to change their feelings about PETA. All it does is alienate those people even more. If our goal is to reach people, this isn't the way to do it.

Hurting feelings can be a great tactic. The reason it hurts feelings is because they know it is true but they have been living in denial. It snaps them out of it for the time being. Maybe hard enough to spark a change. No one is going to die from being offended. But the animals are dying. I think it is exactly the route our society needs to go. Honesty. What else seems to be working, and at what pace?

There is having valid concern, and then there is believing all our troubles in AR would be solved if not for PETA. If I was harsh in my reply, it is only because of Dawn's first sentence. And I stand behind the adjective. You have also put words in my mouth Stephanie; the only thing I have been yelling from the rooftops is to move ahead with a strategy that agrees with each of us individually and not spend our days going after each other. This only works to our opponents advantage; in fact, I am sure they are enjoying this. I don't care if you or others do not want to participate in PETA campaigns-- there are countless other ways to be effective. We are not all going to agree on everything. I like the ad not because I like insulting people: I believe it works. Simple. I am a PETA supporter, but I already told you I too have problems with them; that is between PETA and I. I don't expect anything in this world to be perfect. Most of the events I participate in are not PETA's, but even then we are using their materials ¾ of the time. I have seen more cult activity on the other side of the fence (Jesus Francione) then among PETA supporters. Reaching people is our goal. Picking PETA apart is not a means to that end.

"I think it is exactly the route our society needs to go. Honesty. What else seems to be working, and at what pace?"

I agree, I also think honesty and directness when challenging people on their ethics and showing them the cruelty. My experience is that many of these people actually respect a tough message more, even if they disagree with it. Does that mean they're going to consider not eating animals straight away?, maybe not. But as the movement grows, they'll see it's not going to go away. If people are going to become vegan for animals, they will have to at some stage come to accept that the ethics they previously held with regard to animals were wrong.

There are just some tactless ways of presenting what might be at its core a well intentioned idea, that actually serve to harm the movement.   That's the problem with the billboard.   It's not 'effective' because it is so offensive that the core concept is lost on its viewers, on account of the offense caused.

I advocate for children's rights to be safe from assault in all environments and by any hand, whether at school or at home.   But as passionate as I am about keeping kids safe, I would never dare (for example) post a billboard that says something like, "Every time you spank you fail as a role model for how to behave," because I'd offend even my prospective support base.  Lots of people have done it once or twice, realized its wrong and chosen not to do it again in favor of nonviolent discipline -- and its not okay to put something up that makes them feel badly.

Effective messages in favor of extending human (or animal) rights are ones that appeal to better judgment, perhaps with humor if desired, to make a person feel GOOD about supporting the cause.   The same message mentioned before could be reworded with an appropriate photograph to say, "Thanks for taking a time out with me to talk, Mom!  Now I understand!"  And the vibe is much happier, healthier and less likely to cause offense.  That's much more effective than negativity is.

PETA may get conversations going but its still important to do so without hurting the supportive base and without hurting the movement.   I'm glad they are taking the billboard down -- I hope they can find a better way to word the message.

Nah, I disagree with you, Christine. 

It's a sign to growth to reveal to yourself that you have faults and unfortunately, not many people are humble enough to independently reflect upon themselves and change.  Some people think they are entitled to not look at themselves in the mirror, and see what they are doing until they are forced to. 

That's why, for instance, Meet Your Meat is so incredibly affective.

The "Me Generation" and all of its selfishness!

Most people don't quit undesirable habits until they are given ultimatums, and shown the mirror.

Hate to say it, but it's the truth.

I have been around for a while and I don't see the world working the way you are mentioning, unfortunately.  Perhaps for child welfare, maybe a message like that does, maybe it doesn't.

Maybe a billboard of a mother in handcuffs standing near a prision guard with a quote about it that said, "I beat my kids" might prove affective.

Frankly, I know of a great majority of people who really don't care if they "offend" an abuser.  What a luxury to not be offended your whole life by people who don't have the guts to speak up and advocate for a child, and then the child winds up dying?

We have been much to polite about pressing issues.

"You're cigarette smoke is killing me".  Best tactic.  To a rude person who has no consideration toward others whenever they light up.

Have you ever said "please don't smoke around me" to a person doing this?  Ha!  I have, let me share:  THEY act "offended"!  What a luxury, and what an entitlement!

When a child is pleading, "Please don't beat me, mommy", don't you think that parent has allready passed a threshold of decency and is past listening to cries for mercy?  You really think that she's going to listen?

In miracle cases, perhaps, but not in the ones where they are finding that kid in school with long sleeves during the beginning of September.

All-in-all, Christine, politeness doesn't work.  We're also dealing with adults, here: people who know darned well what they're doing, and they know it's wrong, but choose to do it anyway.

Your suggestion: "Thanks for taking a time out with me to talk, Mom!  Now I understand!" 

Right, I hear you, but that's expecting a LOT more from the kid than the parent.  Yes, that's humanity speaking on belhalf on the child, there but many abusers don't really care about a child finally 'getting' something: most abusers beat their kids erracticly, and also don't think these ads "apply" to them.

Abuse stays alive with narcissim, and narcissists are hard to get them to the proper vision of what they actually are doing to others, they usually have a warped sense of self that seems benign to change, and barricades themselves with exceptions, justifications, and then ulimately playing the victim if they are put on the spot.  They will find any excuse out of stopping their behavior, and they will say they have "special" reasons to.  They think they have it all "down pat", and the rules don't apply to them.

None of them are wise enough to even heed a sign like you are mentioning.   

Yes, are ads like your line of thinking up?  Yes, I have seen them.  Sure, they've got to work for a certain demographic.  Seems like a nice reminder to those who are all ready doing the right thing.    

And I get what you're saying; I "hear" you loud and clear, but the world sometimes can't be nice.  It would be nice if people got things the way you are mentioning, but PETA, albeit offensive, has it right: they get the times that they're working with.

They get that when you want to convey a message, sex sells, vanity sells, youth sells, rock n' roll, whatever.

And so does abruptness.  It's supposed to wake you up, and PETA sends us jolts of lightning to get us shocked.

Unfortunately, shocking and offending someone with any tactic, hate to say it, seems to work. 

It's a sad world.

PETA isn't appealing to thoughtful, considerate people and their intelligence levels, moreover, PETA kind of works like a corporation in order to keep up with their corporate-level adversaries.  They fight on that corporate level, and not in a grass-roots way.  I have the openness that ALL tactics are effective and ALL are needed.  We can reach all kinds of people all kinds of interests from differenct methods and approaches.  I think PETA is well-aware of its fight.  And I think it knows the arsenal of the enemy.  It's got to fight that same fight, and I see them as fighting hard.  Maybe not in the way that many of us see fit, but instead of complaining about it, we need to not put it down.  We got to stop using PETA as our umbrella thinking PETA "represents" us.  No, they are just fighting a portion of a fight that is part of an all-encompassing Animal Rights campaign.  If we want to do something, we must empower ourselves to not be distracted by the actions of PETAs role in the fight, but get together our "mission"s, too.  That means, we should all be helping this cause along, in our homes, our neighborhoods, in our towns.   

What Peta has to do in advertising is unfortunately what corporate advertising has to do:  they have to find out about their demographic, and what causes them to change.

Most of the world, with the exception of very few, unfortunately is callous, shallow, and heartless.

So, they have to appeal to the "dummy standard".  Unfortunately their "shock and awe" works.  Unfortunately offending people and playing the "bad guy" (as someone in an above posting coined) works.  It shows us what we're really looking like to others when we do what we do. 

If I had a bad habit that hurt others, it means that I have all ready passed the threshold for having very little concern of how it affects others.

Sometimes the world needs a lot of tough love.

Plus, I'd rather be an offended person than remain a murderer.  Just my personal choice.

All-in-all, Christine:  I think you should try your way of conveying a message, not in competition with anyone who tries a different tactic, but rather, you might be appealing to a certain dempgraphic of people who get a message better in that way.  Unfortunately, for the lowest of the low, it doesn't work: you gotta be a little bit tougher.

The only thing I see about this billboard is that I am living proof of the fact that kinda doesn't make sense in the way that sometimes there are hereditary factors to metabolism levels, and the fact that often based on age and genetics it's harder to lose weight than others.  I am a really good example, because in real life (not just online life) I am an overweight woman who is a vegan and has a fully-committed lifestyle to it.  Am I complaining about it?  Heck no, because I am seeing it in an entirely different way.  I see what PETA is trying to do, and I trust their expertise.  

How do I feel about the billboard in regard to eating disorders?  That's a tough one.  Yes, I agree that this may send the wrong message to people considering vegetarian diets who are in it for only dieting reasons.  But I also see a much deeper strategy in here (the ad) that is saying something completely different than all of this.

I trust PETA in knowing what they are doing.   

Thanks for the thoughtful post.  I appreciate the range of ideas with regards to approach.   I agree with some of what you've said too.

I don't mean to come across as though I would hand-pat anyone abusing a child or abusing an animal!  On the contrary.  Despite my overall 'play nice,' 'don't bully' messages I'd love to indulge in choking the you know what out of them too.  I agree, they do know better.  We all do.  But that's just it.

What people do behind closed doors is different than what they will discuss openly with other people -- regardless of IQ level.  In order to even get through the defensiveness (perhaps the 'me generation' can claim this too - the 'I'm right, you're wrong, leave me alone' stuff) ... personally, my experiences with successfully persuading people to stop doing what they're doing have always involved an openness to hear them out about their reasons, and an offering of the respect to consider their reasons as valid when I'm presenting my counter argument -- even when I'm gritting my teeth because I know the other side of the debate is a bunch of weak excuses that I've heard countless times before.

I agree with you that some people don't change until they have to.  The justice system has use with those.   I agree with you that for some people the shock messages might be more impactual than appealing to their sense of reason.

I agree with you that sometimes a shocking message can have value in sparking a conversation or debate too.   There's use in intentionally caused offense sometimes toward social progress, so long as whatever offense is caused doesn't harm anyone and doesn't cloud the actual message meant behind the comment or advertisement (which I think the 'whales' billboard does a bit, honestly).

But in contrast -- I also believe that most people try to do what they feel is right based on what they know, believe, or think they can justify at any given time.  With any issue, not just with issues of cruelty.

I also believe that most feel badly when they do something they know is wrong, and that they would prefer not to feel that way and/or not to do things that way -- perhaps they need an alternative or some help.   Hence my favortism toward kindness/education.

With the child safety matters, I find it more useful to persuade people to do things differently and/or show them their alternatives than to just demand "Don't hit or we'll come after you!" or "Hit your child and you'll mess up his future!"  I mean like you're saying, that's already known.  Persuasion makes a lasting difference -- bullying tactics just make temporary changes.   (Kind of like our argument against hitting, in part, actually -- hitting a kid teaches them to be afraid of being hit, not why the parent was displeased by their choices.  The conversation after teaches that -- which makes the strike totally unnecessary.)

I respect PETA for their advocacy for animal rights too -- highly.  I just think that sometimes, even the smartest of passionate groups does something that isn't necessarily a smart idea, and I'm sure they will come up with many applaudable messages, demonstrations and displays as time goes on too just as they historically have.   I wouldn't have approved 'Save the whales,' but just because my experiences with fighting against child abuse have taught me that pointing fingers at abusers doesn't save kids -- convincing them to stop abusing does.   I would imagine that with animal rights it often works similarly, although to be honest I haven't had those experiences (yet?).

Best wishes to you in all that you do too.  :)

Great comments Kathryn, have also read your reply Christine and agree with some of your points. My issue is this with regard to people who always complain a message is too confrontational...

Is 'Meat Is Murder' a helpful message to use to promote the cause? Is it important to be accurate or is it more important to soften the message so as not to offend? If the raising and slaughter of animals for their flesh and skin is to stop, surely the majority of people will have to undergo a fundamental reversal in their ethics with regard to animals. This will involve them changing from a mindset of it's "ok to harm and kill animals because we're human and they're not" to "eating Meat = Murder". From what I've observed in some reactions, I don't accept that a harsh accusing message is necessarily counter-productive at all. I think people respond differently to different messages and that a message that challenges their ethics and essentially says 'you are doing wrong' and perhaps backs it up with a disturbing realistic image, can make them think and jolt them out of their 'acceptance of animals as food' comfort zone.

I also think the most important thing at this stage is that the animal rights message is out there, no matter what style it takes ...and many different approaches can work on different people.

Yeah I bet the meat  industry hated the ad too, the only thing they would like is that some AR people are squabbling over it. What many are forgetting is that in today's culture your message has to be short and direct. I've only recently gone vegan after 5 years off animal meat and I find the PETA sites are enormously helpful with information on how to make a huge variety of vegan meals. The billboard does have the website on it - are people incapable of looking up the internet?!

Meat is murder and milk is misery. And animal products kill people too-- heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer... Meat and dairy industries are hurtful and irresponsible to profit off animal abuse and human suffering. PETA challenges people to rethink their diet for health and moral reasons. Other groups like PCRM (who I support) promote veg for health, but you have never heard of them cuz they didn't put up this billboard ; )

PETA is saving lives by sparing people from "death, by way of bacon double cheeseburger." Chris is absolutey right-- they are not hanging anyone out to dry; they are with you 100% Just visit the website, and get a free veg starter guide.  

Yes, the unsupervised veg diets can be murder, a real epidemic for American youth...

not the fact that around 30% of them in the US are obese, and that it obviously puts them at a increased risk for heart disease, the #1 killer of men AND women in the US.

Good try though, center f

Come on now Chris, now they are going to harp on us by telling of how some Veggie Sub Sandwich (loaded with non-veg cheese and oil) has 75 grams of fat and lacking in some vitamin!!!  :P

Forget the "unsupervised" children living sedentary lives in front of the TV and video games, snacking  and dining on chicken-fingers and microwavable (which zaps almost all nutritional value) meals targeted to kids with their fav cartoon character on the carton...in todays news, it's "Death by cucumber!"

Really though, if the ONLY thing our youth did that was unsupervised, was a hap-hazard attempt at a veg diet, I' say were lucky...no, no, I'd say wake-up, your dreaming! 

Shechita (Kosher) and Halal are about the worst way to be slaughtered, and are banned in several countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Norway...).

Beware of anyone who is suspect of animal liberation, for such a person is a speciesist, and "speciesism is the most violent form of racism, since animals are least able to defend themselves."

Isaac Singer

And since you chose to play the holocaust card,

"In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka"

"When a human kills an animal for food, he is neglecting his own hunger for justice. Man prays for mercy, but is unwilling to extend it to others. Why should man then expect mercy from God? It's unfair to expect something that you are not willing to give. It is inconsistent. I can never accept inconsistency or injustice. Even if it comes from God. If there would come a voice from God saying, "I'm against vegetarianism!" I would say, "Well, I am for it!" This is how strongly I feel in this regard."

Isaac Bashevis Singer, holocaust survivor, Nobel laureate

I really disagree, here.  PETA is making an attempt.  It's a sign of bravry, because it's all ready weathering a LOT of criticism, but it's doing something profound: it's getting us all to dicuss upon it.  Even the gentleman here, who is trying (at least from what I am gathering) to state that in the very essence of being Vegetarian, we are less humanitarian. 

Ok, well, this person named Lon Ball shared.  It's unfortunate that he's going to extremes, and I don't know if I am alone, but I think you can be a vegan or a vegetarian, and be humanitarian at the same time.  I don't think one cancels out the other; that seems incongruent to me.

It truly does.

The thing that all animals, humans included share is that we can can know trauma, terror, fear, suffering, torment, misery, and despair.  All of us have in common that we have precious life.

As humans, I think it is our absolute responsibility to become aware that it's not all "just us", and that we share a world with other animals that have a right to to live in safety just like we do.  

There's a saying that many Jews (my beloved friend as one of them who first shared this with me) knows:

"Even Hitler loved small dogs and children".

Well, hey, I guess that I have something in common with, I guess you could say, Hitler.

Perhaps Hitler was a vegetarian.  Maybe that's all hype.

Maybe Hitler also has this in common with, say, genius Albert Einstein.  Or maybe compassionate peacemaker Mahatma Gandhi.  Maybe Confucius.  How about Leonardo Da Vinci.

Perhaps another thing that maybe, ok, Hitler and I have in common is we both needed to bathe sometimes.  Regardless I am amused by what you are trying to use as foundation for your argument, Lon.

How many other people here, lets just get a show of hands, also like small dogs and children out of this crowd?

Lon, because does that mean we're all "bad"?

Sorry to have to break it to you, buddy, but it's so incredibly incongrent. Can you see what you are trying to establish?  Like I mentioned: hate to break it to you, but it seems like a little propaganda used to instill fear that you are using yourself, here.  I'd hate to be a child in life, and go to YOU for answers!  Yikes!  (Sigh), seems a little off, my friend.  

Maybe that's what YOU might have in common with Hitler.

You never know.

I also might have something in common with Mao Tse-Tung:  we both might like wearing galoshes when we go outside after it rains.  Does this mean I am a Marxist?

LOL, thanks for sharing.

By the way, whoever said that animal rights is more deserving than this other issue?  That's not the point.  To see it as "competition" to the other is another complete incongruence. 

Lon, if you work on your cause of ending corporatist policies in the governement (by the way, 'you go', guy!  I am right with you), perhaps in some strange way, that might help our cause.  Sometimes that's how the universe, in all its mysteries, works out. 

And you know, you don't know us unless you tried us.

Have you ever gone Vegetarian?  Vegan?

Whatever the reason, I hope you can go "veggie" for at least a month or so, and make just a modicum of dedication in the way that many of us do for YEARS, and be as kind and as loving to animals as you possibly can in the way that most  of us do on this board here, and then come back and share.  You might have much more insight!

It's an invitation!

See how it enriches your life, and fills your heart with an incredible amount of love and compassion. 

"I summon you", Lon!

Blessings!

Would eating a human being also be just a matter of personal choice? Or how about violence towards animals of a kind that is commonly frowned upon such as torturing a cat. A 'personal choice' to eat animals must also always involve violence and curtailing their right to live.

Also, leaving animals off your plate does not take any effort away from solely humanitarian causes if that is a person's preference.