Article

2005-06-25 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Wouldn't it be nice if Animal Control came by and euthanized them?

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-06-25 00:18|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-06-25 00:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh what epicurean ribaldry!

/baste & taste that thar middle one >;Ã

Posted by PETA Gourmando 2005-06-25 01:13|| 2005-06-25 01:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Why do we publicize their publicity stunts?

Could we possibly help them any more? Why doesn't everyone here just write out a check for $100 and mail it in to them.

Posted by gromky">gromky 2005-06-25 01:20|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/] 2005-06-25 01:20|| Front Page Top

#4 I have a better idea. Everyone send then $1000 dollars of Monopoly money and their favorite receipes for meat dishes. The more we get out how truly insane they are, the less money they will get.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2005-06-25 01:36|| 2005-06-25 01:36|| Front Page Top

#5 it doesn't work that way, silent brick. Gotta give PETA a thumbs up for creativity and making the system work for them. It's too bad they went political and wacky. They could do a lot of good if they set realistic goals.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-25 06:18|| 2005-06-25 06:18|| Front Page Top

#6 Soylent Green is made from PETA!

(Somebody had to do it.)

Posted by Mike 2005-06-25 07:17|| 2005-06-25 07:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Hot dogs are packaged fully cooked. PETA are packaged half-baked.

Posted by Tom 2005-06-25 09:28|| 2005-06-25 09:28|| Front Page Top

#8 The one in the middle looks kinda cute. I wonder how she tastes?

Posted by Hannibal L 2005-06-25 09:32|| 2005-06-25 09:32|| Front Page Top

#9 Gromky, I'm not a believer in "ignore it and it'll go away". Why would you asssume that publicizing this ridiculous event would work for PETA rather than against them? The fact is, lack of media exposure for their more ridiculous stunts and claims is what allows this insane cult to get away with pretending that it is a legitimate animal welfare organization. These bizarre actions are designed to intimidate a relatively small audience, not attract a large one. Stunts like this are aimed at a specific and usually rather small audience, in this case, the crowd at the Providence Statehouse. Exposing it to a wider audience is what PETA does not want, and something they have always been able to count on, thanks to the concious complicity of the media.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 09:33|| 2005-06-25 09:33|| Front Page Top

#10 Is it true ?
Can we really eat people now ?
I am so happy ! I have been waiting so long !
PETA:
People
Eating
Tasty
Adults

Posted by Poitiers-Lepanto">Poitiers-Lepanto 2005-06-25 10:09|| 2005-06-25 10:09|| Front Page Top

#11 I dunno 2b...there's something rotten with PETA. News is the Carolinas had been letting PETA run some animal shelters. It turns out PETA was involved in mass euthenasia, as opposed to finding homes for the animals. The numbers I heard (and I should check up on this) was around 6000 animals killed with only a few hundred animals placed in homes. That seems way out of line to me. It was so bad that PETA has been removed from running the shelters. Question - is this a unique case or does it pont to something in their core that's "not right"?

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-06-25 10:21|| 2005-06-25 10:21|| Front Page Top

#12 Don't eat PETA members, they likely have Mad Human Disease. On another note, are they halal?

Posted by Spot">Spot 2005-06-25 10:50|| 2005-06-25 10:50|| Front Page Top

#13 The one in the middle looks kinda cute. I wonder how she tastes?

You find out, I don't even want to think about it

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-06-25 11:07|| 2005-06-25 11:07|| Front Page Top

#14 Rex - sadly, I agree. I started sending my money to the Doris Day Animal Legue a long time ago. They don't get the publicity, but they did accomplish realistic goals that made a difference for animals.

AC - somehow I don't think you've ever been involved in marketing or fund raising. If you want to hurt PETA, publicize what they don't want you to hear, instead of what they do. The message here is don't eat meat, and they are happy that you are publicizing it for them. The message may not reach you - but it's all a numbers game and you are increasing their reach and thus their percentage of success goes up.

If you want to hurt PETA, publicize what YOU want people to know about them - like the story yesterday about their euthanizing animals, their lack of success in obtaining moderate goals and the proportion of money they use for administration v/s for the animals or their political hackery that serves no benefit to animals and their terrorist acts.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-25 11:21|| 2005-06-25 11:21|| Front Page Top

#15 AC - somehow I don't think you've ever been involved in marketing or fund raising.

Excuse me, it quite arrogant to assume that a position different from yours is the simple result of ignorance. You could not be more wrong on that score and I think you are ignoring some of the subtelties of marketing and public relations. I ran for office twice, and won, and I have been involved in any number of publicity campaigns and promotional activities for many years.
In this case, the stunt is so ridiculous and over the top that publicizing it will work against the instigators. That PETA imagines that it will work for them is not relevant, they are not infallible. In particular, at the local level, they still have a habit of assuming that a cooperative media will usually portray their activities in the most favorable light.

Beyond that, as I mentioned earlier, a stunt like this is audience-specific. The objective is not the widest possible audience, but the highest possible impact on the target audience.
In this case, the target audience is probably the internal support network, those who are already committed to the PETA position. It is more in the nature of a fund-raising stunt than an attempt to persuade the larger public of anything.

In fact, in terms of the larger audience, this and the accompanying comments are precisely what they don't want people to see. Taking it outside the target audience defeats its purpose, just as showing pictures of inflammatory anti-war signs defeats those who present them.

PETA is preaching to its own choir with this. Those outside the sanctuary need to know what they are saying.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 12:53|| 2005-06-25 12:53|| Front Page Top

#16 It does happen where people are standed on an island, boat (without resources) and they end up eating each other! I prefer white meat/ turkey.
plenty of TURKEYS out there ~~Bon Apatit.

What about those all you can eat buffet?

Andrea Jackson

Posted by Andrea Jackson">Andrea Jackson 2005-06-25 12:59|| 2005-06-25 12:59|| Front Page Top

#17 I dare them to do this on certain islands in Indonesia.....

Where is Hannibal Lector when you need him?

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-06-25 13:12|| 2005-06-25 13:12|| Front Page Top

#18 At least turn 'em over so you can see what you're gettin'. MMMMM fur burger, I like mine rare, please.

Posted by Tom Dooley 2005-06-25 14:26|| 2005-06-25 14:26|| Front Page Top

#19 clam

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-25 14:45|| 2005-06-25 14:45|| Front Page Top

#20 We need Sage Mucky's take on this whole thing.

So what did PETA do with all the packaging after they finished their little agit-proppery? Recycle or chuck it in the dumbster?

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-06-25 15:14|| 2005-06-25 15:14|| Front Page Top

#21 Muck is up in the Superstition Mts, perhaps with a new heart throb.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-25 15:26|| 2005-06-25 15:26|| Front Page Top

#22 ...and another thing - shouldn't all that meat be refridgerated? mmmmmmmm, long-pig.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-06-25 16:23|| 2005-06-25 16:23|| Front Page Top

#23 ...and another thing - shouldn't all that meat be refridgerated? mmmmmmmm, long-pig.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-06-25 16:23|| 2005-06-25 16:23|| Front Page Top

#24 Whenever I get something in the mail from the Dummycrats, the Brady Bunch ( Hand Gun Control) or PETA, I send them the adresses of my friends who will not respond or will respond negatively. What this does is force them to spend money on forms and postage to people who will not be receptive to their advances. BWAHAHAHAHA.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2005-06-25 18:40|| 2005-06-25 18:40|| Front Page Top

#25 ac - I'm sorry that I offended you. However, I'm sure that running for office is quite different than what PETA is trying to do. In politics, there is such a thing as negative publicity - as your target audience is making a choice between candidates. Tarnishing one steals votes from one and gives to another.

However, PETA is trying to make the case that eating meat is wrong. It may seem over the top to you, but you aren't going to stop eating meat and you aren't going to join PETA anyway. So you are completely irrelevant to them. However, their message will resonate with a certain percentage of people and make them feel bad about eating meat and send them money. They are trying to reach THOSE people - not you.

Go ahead an shove a put down in my face, however, I'm not wrong. PETA understands that by doing outrageous stunts, it gets people talking and you can't get NEW converts if people don't know you exist.

It's like the car advertisements on TV or in the paper - they are obnoxious or invisible - unless you are in the market for a car. If I'm selling a piece of junk - my goal is to reach those somebodies who, for whatever reason, are willing to buy. Just cause you don't want it doesn't mean someone else will. And that's who I'm looking for.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-25 20:20|| 2005-06-25 20:20|| Front Page Top

#26 re. # 19, Frank, Shaved or bearded?

Posted by Bodyguard">Bodyguard 2005-06-25 20:27|| 2005-06-25 20:27|| Front Page Top

#27 Damn, I wish I'd known about this before. I'm close enough to have paid them a visit - while chomping on a big steak and cheese or sausage and peppers sub.

Posted by xbalanke 2005-06-25 20:28|| 2005-06-25 20:28|| Front Page Top

#28 Addendum to #27: Even better would be while eating the Rhode Island gastronomic specialty: hot weiners (made from veal).

Posted by xbalanke 2005-06-25 20:30|| 2005-06-25 20:30|| Front Page Top

#29 PETA's message goes well beyond wanting people to stop eating meat.

Car companies have competitors, not opponents. The crucial difference is that one's competitors, in general, do not directly rebutt or attack one's message. In politics and its close cousin, political activism, opposition does exist. Unopposed, PETA's message will not disappear, it will gain credibility, just as an opposed candidate or party is assured of success.

Is PETA's message so convincing that the only way to counter it is to keep it out of the marketplace of ideas? Does ignoring them really hurt their PR efforts? Everyone who is the slightest bit susceptible to their message is already aware of it. The absence of opposition will not make them less likely to accept the PETA position; quite the opposite in fact.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 20:39|| 2005-06-25 20:39|| Front Page Top

#30 I have to wonder as well how likely it is that anyone who has never heard of animal rights or PETA will first learn of it here.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 20:46|| 2005-06-25 20:46|| Front Page Top

#31 Correction: #29 should read "just as an unopposed candidate or party is assured of success."

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 20:48|| 2005-06-25 20:48|| Front Page Top

#32 The absence of opposition will not make them less likely to accept the PETA position; quite the opposite in fact.

I agree with you on that point. However, this photograph is advertising PETA's position quite well. They are making their point that what you see in the packages at the grocery store are beings that have been killed, not just a piece of steak.

Let me just say that if I had to kill my own food, I'd be a vegetarian tomorrow. I was once a PETA member and didn't eat meat because I felt sorry for the way animals are treated on the way to the slaughter house. I gave it up because it was too hard, but I still feel bad everytime I look at a cute little cow. And I never eat veal and can't imagine why anyone would want a calf to be kept in a box.

If you want to hurt PETA, you have to publicize the other things that they do with their money besides support animals.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-25 20:48|| 2005-06-25 20:48|| Front Page Top

#33 I gotta go to dinner. I'm having steak (blush)

Posted by 2b 2005-06-25 21:01|| 2005-06-25 21:01|| Front Page Top

#34 If you agree with the stunt's message, 2b, why would you argue against publicizing it?

One of the oldest tricks in the activist book is to persuade the opposition that their efforts are just helping you get the message out.

Extending this to its logical conclusion, PETA and other Vegan activists should simply ignore the meat industry and its PR campaigns, lest they help its marketing and become accessories to murder.

This assumes, as we have seen, that you think your message is convincing enough that any kind of attention will work to your advantage.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 21:09|| 2005-06-25 21:09|| Front Page Top

#35 I don't think that the "meat=cannibalism" message is really going to resonate very well with those who are not already pretty far gone down the path of Vegan anti-humanism.

Some of their other efforts, by comparison, can look almost reasonable to those who are not aware of the gang's full agenda.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-06-25 21:13|| 2005-06-25 21:13|| Front Page Top

#36 I'm not sure I understand your point. If you say that I am trying to help PETA, then you are mistaken. I used to be a PETA supporter because I received in the mail their publicity flyers of downer cows and veal calves and horrific pictures of slaughter houses. I was happily eating meat until they made me feel gulity that I supported that type of cruelty. Had I not gotten PETA's flyers and magazines, I would never have felt guilty, would never have sent them money.

That's the basis of my point. These pictures will resonate with those who feel guilty about eating meat. You can publish them if you want to. I really don't care. But they WILL make a certain percentage of people squirm and choose the vegan meal. Their goal is to reach those people. The more people they reach, the happier they are and the more people who will send them money.

I stopped supporting PETA when I realized as I said in a previous post, that they were more about raising money for PETA and publicity, than they were for helping animals. When I really gave them the boot was when I grew up and made the connection that ...as the Beatles say..."you you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the world. ..yadda, yadda..but if you are talking about destruction, you can count me out". Peta supports ALF and ALF are terrorists. Also peta began getting involved in politics that had little to do with stopping cruelty to animals and had more to do with the ideology of their boards. In the end, I chose to send my money to groups who accomplish reasonable goals within the society in which we live.

I'm not against eating meat. I'm against cruelty to animals. I see a distinction there. I'd like animals to be slaughtered as humanely as possibly and I care if animals are mistreated. Yes, I wish I didn't have to kill my dinner. But that has little to do with the underlying argument.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-25 22:20|| 2005-06-25 22:20|| Front Page Top

#37 I have to call it a night. But just for the record, I've been making this same point on rantburg long before the PETA issue came up.

I'm sorry my first post came across much more rude sounding than I ever intended it to - nevertheless it was still rude and I apologize.

My point is this. Millions of children avoid stepping on cracks because it has been repeated often enough that it can break your mothers back. Of course it doesn't break your mother's back but both you and I have avoided stepping on a crack many times in our lives.

The whole purpose of advertising is to repeat and gain recognition. The whole purpose of propaganda is to repeat a lie and have it gain recognition. Everytime you repeat the lie in order to counter it - you are supporting the propaganda. Why, because a new somebody somewhere will buy into it.

Celebrities love publicity negative or positive - because it is publicity - recognition. Nobody cares about a celebrity they don't know about.

I'm not arguing your point that you once the lie is out there that it needs to be counter attacked or it will gain in strength. But it does little good to say "stepping on a crack does not break your mother's back" - because it just reinforces the idea of "crack breaks back.

If you want people to step on a crack then you need to get out the saying that "everytime someone steps on a crack, an angel gets it's wings."

Ok...so I'm tired ...but my point is still valid, nonetheless. I know these posts are way too long.. but I think you can handle it :-) Goodnight.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-25 23:23|| 2005-06-25 23:23|| Front Page Top

23:25 Jackal
23:23 2b
23:04 Phil Fraering
22:36 Grins Sluper5274
22:20 2b
22:13 xbalanke
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:04 xbalanke
22:00 Atomic Conspiracy
21:38 JosephMendiola
21:24 Atomic Conspiracy
21:22 Atomic Conspiracy
21:13 Atomic Conspiracy
21:09 eLarson
21:09 Atomic Conspiracy
21:04 xbalanke
21:03 Frank G
21:01 2b
20:59 Jan
20:57 Ominetle Slugum5431
20:48 2b
20:48 Atomic Conspiracy
20:46 xbalanke
20:46 Atomic Conspiracy