Comments | veganpeople: Sorry if this is offensive...

tanukisuit in veganpeople

Sorry if this is offensive...

Jul 10, 2003 02:36

In my opinoon, PETA needs to come up with better campaigns or stop doing a few of them... Having billboards and whatnot of supermodels selling veganism and vegetarianism is just ignoring/promoting a whole other social problem. What do you think?

( see what I mean? pictures lie ahead )

opinion-peta, arguments(general)

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

an honest contention concerning ne_buddy July 10 2003, 06:23:30 UTC

Of course, I concede that promoting a particular body type as an ideal is problematic for many people -- mostly people without the courage to believe in their own beauty regardless of their non-normative appearance. However, unlike marketers of make-up, clothes, cars, etc., Peta isn't selling or profiting from using supermodels and not so super models by depicting them in the above ads -- they are promoting behavior changes that might very well improve the lives or stimulate the thoughts of their potentional audience members. The problems I have with most advertisements are the false notions that (1) beauty is singular, (2) beauty can be bought, (3) that the models depicted in ads are to be valued solely for their beauty & their possession of the advertised product (a notion which can be embraced only by those folks whose negative valuation of others on the basis of unattractive appearance and limited possessions necessarily preceeds their experience of the ad). As for dehumanizing portrayals, or making people seem like animals, I'm ( ... )

Re: an honest contention concerning tanukisuit July 10 2003, 13:38:18 UTC

I agree with you for the most part...
However.. when a human is dehumanized and brought down to the level of an animal, it sends out a subliminal messasge that the person is NOT human and therefore it is okay to treat them as such. It is easier to kill and beat that which is not human.
(yes, I know it is also wrong to kill and beat animals as well, but why encourage the dehumanizing of people?)

Re: an honest contention concerning kakaka July 10 2003, 14:36:50 UTC

...when a human is dehumanized and brought down to the level of an animal...

You do realize what is HORRIBLY HORRIBLY WRONG with that statement, right?

Re: an honest contention concerning tanukisuit July 10 2003, 15:07:29 UTC

Yes I do, did you not see the disclaimer?

Re: an honest contention concerning kakaka July 10 2003, 16:40:44 UTC

Your disclaimer does not address what wrong here. You seem to imply that to associate humans with non-human animals is somehow 'degrading' or that humans have some sort of 'sacred status' among animals (i.e. "brought down to the level of an animal").

Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but speciesism is at the root of all animal exploitation/abuse.

Re: an honest contention concerning tanukisuit July 10 2003, 16:49:35 UTC

Yes, it is, but people don't need to get abused right along with it.

Re: an honest contention concerning kakaka July 10 2003, 17:13:49 UTC

Forget it, you're completely missing my point.

Re: an honest contention concerning tanukisuit July 10 2003, 20:24:02 UTC

Jebus... what the hell is your point then?

Re: an honest contention concerning ne_buddy July 10 2003, 18:58:52 UTC

Well put. I agree.
(And you're not being nitpicky.)

Re: an honest contention concerning ne_buddy July 10 2003, 19:06:26 UTC

Oh, and by the way, for the sake of clarity, I meant to write "potential audience" instead of "potentional audience" (whatever that might mean) in my initial post. Thanks for understanding.

Re: an honest contention concerning kakaka July 10 2003, 19:47:48 UTC

Thank you!:)

Re: an honest contention concerning chomps July 10 2003, 20:43:34 UTC

I'm sorry... "speciesism"? I love animals, and respect them, but I don't see how it's immoral to respect human life over animal life. I agree that it is important to understand that all animal life is sacred, but I don't think I'm being Hitler when I believe that, if it comes down to a choice, human life is more valuable. I still think veganism is the right way, but I think when a human suffers, it's a more important issue. (of course there's grey area, since animals are generally harmed much more gruesomely than humans, but hypothetically, if it's the same amount of suffering...)

Re: an honest contention concerning kakaka July 10 2003, 21:42:24 UTC

I'm not accusing anyone one of being 'immoral', by 'wrong' I mean 'not logical'. If we are to reject all other 'isms', the right to freedom from pain, fear, etc. and life can't be based on biological differences or something arbitrary as membership to a species. Treatment of other sentient beings must be based on more than that.

I'm not going to get into the principals of equal consideration in depth here. If you are really interested, a good place to start is Singer's Animal Liberation.

Re: an honest contention concerning chomps July 11 2003, 14:37:22 UTC

I'm not saying that other animals don't have the right to freedom from pain, fear, and life. I'm mostly just saying that it's not an arbitrary distinction.

Re: an honest contention concerning ne_buddy July 11 2003, 19:41:34 UTC

Ok. If it's not arbitrary, then explain why it's preferable that animals be considered a lesser or more expendable species than those beings who refer to themselves as human. Speciesism is a reality, after all -- the decisions most people and their governments make on a daily basis involve the destruction of countless other species -- often to the detriment of the well being of otherwise unaware "human" beings.

Re: an honest contention concerning chomps July 12 2003, 10:09:32 UTC

Ok. If it is arbitrary, then tell me, when's the last time you sat down to dinner with someone from another species (as opposed to making them eat out of a dish on the floor)? When's the last time you went to a movie with someone from another species? Ever dated someone from another species?

If you haven't ever done any of these, I might as well just say you're being "speciesist".

Back to all threads