tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2685698485860402737.post3597064347927237245..comments2023-07-03T10:34:14.805-05:00Comments on Zombie Jesus: The PETA situationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2685698485860402737.post-82772394310351519072008-07-19T11:03:00.000-05:002008-07-19T11:03:00.000-05:00And for my money vegetarian is the same as vegan, ...<b><i>And for my money vegetarian is the same as vegan, i always have to explain these differences anyway as most people don't know, don't care, don't understand or have media inspired misconceptions that they believe to be true, they let the media do their thinking for them. So it really makes no difference.</i></b><br><br>It may or may not make a difference for the general public, but the difference for those who are supposed to know better (like PETA) is huge. PETA doesn't claim to be an animal welfare organization, they claim to be <i>the</i> animal rights organization, and as such they ought to promote choices that respect animal rights. The problem is that if they get 100 people to "go vegetarian," that's still 100 people who are exploiting animals through eggs and dairy that now think they've "done their part" because they're copacetic with the crazy radical PETA people. If they just asked people to go vegan from the start, they might find progress slower, but those that did it would be actually respecting the rights the organization claims to stand for. If activists should feel free to ignore our values in the name of expediency, PETA may as well declare it OK to eat meat—after all, they'd get a lot more support that way!Ryan McReynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11333879625502795277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2685698485860402737.post-39501042071146042202008-07-19T00:19:00.000-05:002008-07-19T00:19:00.000-05:00Hi Ryan. To me there are two ways to look at this....Hi Ryan. To me there are two ways to look at this. One is that as long as animals are horribly abused, tortured, treated like commodities and raised only to be brutally slaughtered, then there will always be a need for PETA and other high profile animal rights organizations. There are the de facto leader of the movement -and the most visible AR organization, they do alot of good and i am glad they are there. Two is i often wonder if they are fast becoming the Greenpeace of the animal rights movement. As you have pointed out some of their campaigns silly and go beyond a typical AR focus. And i find this bit of glorifying vegetarians and meateaters to no end in their campaigns to be disiingenuous, dishonest and downright harmful and a slap in the face to everyone who knows the difference and knows better. But the bottom line is they are there when you need them and they are good at what they do. They have to try to reach people however possible and spread the message of animal rights and compassion to anyone that will listen. And for my money vegetarian is the same as vegan, i always have to explain these differences anyway as most people don't know, don't care, don't understand or have media inspired misconceptions that they believe to be true, they let the media do their thinking for them. So it really makes no difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2685698485860402737.post-21995751743744058712008-07-17T14:58:00.000-05:002008-07-17T14:58:00.000-05:00I posted this comment in response to a post on the...I posted this comment in response to a post on the PETA Files blog, it ties into the above, and I'm rather proud of it:<br><br>While modesty prevents me from thinking the second paragraph was entirely influenced by my recent prolific spate of comments, I have certainly been critical as of late. Please indulge me one somewhat more lengthy comment here and I will try to keep them brief and pithy in the future.<br><br>My critique of PETA's "victories" on this blog (and elsewhere) has always been predicated on one simple notion: it is morally and strategically incoherent to advocate animal rights while celebrating, awarding, and congratulating people who violate those rights. I oppose the perpetual conflation of "vegetarianism" and "veganism" not etymologically, but because it congratulates people for adopting an animal exploiting lifestyle. I oppose giving awards to e.g. Wolfgang Puck for his choice of veal not because I would rather he torture animals more, but because it celebrates an animal exploiter for continuing to exploit animals. I oppose ending boycotts in response to welfare improvements not out of opposition to improving animal lives, but because it gives the impression of a fresh PETA "seal of approval" to carry on consuming the products so boycotted.<br><br>If the Myanmar junta started giving its political prisoners beds rather than concrete floors, I wouldn't expect Amnesty International to issue a press release congratulating them and giving them a "most improved dictatorship" award. I merely expect the same sort of consistency from PETA and any other group that claims to be in favor of actual rights for animals.<br><br>This is not to imply that welfare improvements don't mean something to animals. It is not to imply that vegetarians aren't doing better than omnivores at avoiding the infliction of harm. It is rather a matter of overarching policy and vision. I expect PETA to get endorsements from vegan celebrities, for what they're worth. I expect PETA to celebrate when an exploitative practice is actually ended, such as a circus ending animal use, or a clothing company halting the use of fur. These are consistent with advocacy for animal rights. They are real, solid, meaningful victories--not PR victories for companies who can now sell "humane" death to people whose consciences have been cleared by PETA's congratulations.<br><br>The world will not stop seeing animals as property to be used and abused overnight, or likely even in our lifetimes, we agree on that much. That's why it is all the more important for caring people with a platform--PETA and its bloggers, for example--to encourage people to genuinely opt out of that use and abuse, and to do so transparently, calling a spade a spade; calling a vegan a vegan. It means that when our side wins a welfare improvement, we ALWAYS follow it up with the statement that it is nowhere near enough, and that we NEVER give awards to those who continue to do the things we oppose. It's simple, honest consistency I ask for, nothing more.<br><br>I enjoy the PETA Files. I'll keep reading, and I'll keep commenting. Always on topic, always constructive. We're on the same team here, and we can stand side by side and fight the good fight while continuing to challenge each other when we have differences. Thanks.Ryan McReynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11333879625502795277noreply@blogger.com