PETA: Bloody Mario Was 'Tongue-In-Cheek"

[Guardian of Nekops]

Anyway, I don't have all the actual numbers, but I did get some from this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism, as well as http://www.consumercide.com/js/index.php/food-supply/39-necessarily-vegetarian/379-how-to-win-an-argument-with-a-meat-eater.html, which has a sensationalistic title, but the info is real.

No idea why you think that second source's information is valid, seeing as it doesn't cite any sources other than the quote at the top and has a sensational title.

Also, "sufficient to float a destroyer" is a pretty vague unit of measure for water. I'm not sure it's as much as you might think, given the smallest possible ship termed a destroyer and the perfectly shaped container to hold the water against the hull. Also, considering that the same water can be used over and over again, you wouldn't even need that much... just a bathtub full and a water filtration system. Fortunately, America has those, so we recycle our water pretty easily, actually.

And yeah, the T-Rex, the world's largest carnivore, is gone. So are all the plant eating dinos he fed on, so it seems to lack relevance.

There's lots of rhetoric, misinformation and downright lies on this topic, so you always have to take everything with a grain of salt (as it were).

Admittedly, this is part of the problem. The only people with actual statistics are the people trying to sell us meat and the people trying to stop us from eating it, both of whom share the statistics that best support their point in the most sympathetic light. That's when they aren't actively fudging the numbers or making them up, or unknowingly copying those who have done, on both sides.

However, this site seems to advocate ceasing to feed our domesticated animals and use the grain to feed ourselves... which means they will die. Of starvation, which is far in a way more painful than a quick blow to the back of the neck and, I'll point out, still kills animals without netting me any steak.

The idea that this whole meat phase is something we could have just skipped seems... overly simplistic to me, it really does. I mean, somebody spent a LOT of effort breeding cattle back in the day, when he didn't have much free time of resources, if you follow me. Back when his life was on the line, he went for the big moving thing that could easily trample him to death and made a house for it rather than sticking with a nice, tame salad. The idea that he could have just eaten what he fed the animal and had food to spare, but didn't because he was fat and lazy and liked meat just doesn't hold up for me.

Again, with you on the meat in moderation, with you on making sure that we do what's right for our bodies and for the planet. I'm definitely with you on making the domestication of the animals we keep cleaner, more efficient and more humane. I figure the Native Americans had it about right... use every bit of the animal you can, and make it as painless as you can. Eat the cow, make yourself a leather jacket, grind up the hooves and stuff for glue... finish it before you go killing another. I mean, if you killed it ANYWAY, why not use the hide?

But when you have people pouring red paint on furs, wasting what something already died to give us, that seems the exact opposite of that philosophy. It sounds like someone who decided what they wanted to do based on ideology and then scrounged for facts to support that conclusion... and probably didn't look too closely at what they found.

For me, they took a further step away from the role of "reasonable adult position holder" with the following suggestion: http://www.wptz.com/r/17539127/detail.html

Now, I'm not trying to defend American consumerism to its fullest extent, or to say that there aren't problems with the meat/dairy/animal product industries. But I can say, without much fear of contradiction, that PETA is nuts.

 

[lockgar]

Remember cooking mama and the amount of clicks it buzzed? Good job escapist, you played right into their plan.

 

[Zom-B]

No idea why you think that second source's information is valid, seeing as it doesn't cite any sources other than the quote at the top and has a sensational title./quote]

Hey, sorry about that second source. I sort of added at the end, and only for the corn and oats stats, comparable numbers to that which I've read before. I admit that probably lots of the figures on that site are probably exaggerated or outright lies.

I mention in another comment that PETA is trying to get us collectively to end what's been part of human culture for thousands of years. I don't think that will happen anytime soon, nor do I think we need to end animal husbandry altogether.

Anyway, sounds like we're pretty much in agreement, I just felt maybe you were a little off base in your initial comments about how much meat/veg can be produced etc. There's lots of sound, factual numbers out there (if you can find it. Admittedly I couldn't come up with the right terms myself, but you can check docs like Food, Inc. and the like for real, non-sensational facts) on how much land you need to feed meat animals vs. how much you need to feed humans, etc. Some of them are pretty stunning.

And yeah, PETA is nucking futs.

 

[gillnavisingh]

I played that paraody game.

You know what, it's not bad for a quick 2 minute waste of time.
It looks like something competently put together in GameMaker or something, and it controls quite well.

The jumps are done by hitting spacebar and are tight and responsive.
The music is a little eerie, but I guess it works.
The only thing that ticked me off was how long it took to catch up to Mario, and how easy it was to get pushed back by a pipe.

All in all, I saw the propaganda message, but as a game - this wasn't as bad as Super Tofu Boy.

Try it. then laugh at PETA till the cows come home... and get turned into hamburgers.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

~Poe's Law.

Perhaps PeTA should realize that the fact that their assault on Mario was taken seriously says something about how people view their other positions?

 

[BrotherRool]

snip

snip

Okay, you've made very reasonable points there and whilst we're going to have to agree to disagree on some I hope you'll be satisified with me agreeing that your point of view is valid, even if I can't quite cross over.

Unfortunately one of agree to disagrees is going to have to be whether this was funny or not. Because you suggested that the other videos were funny because they were clearly presented as such but you also said "As I said, when you have to explain your joke, it's not funny." So if it's okay to you, I will iron that out by saying that whilst something can be funny or not funny, the way the viewer takes it will depend entirely on context. I think this is a decent compromise since it's well known that a stand-up-comedian needs to 'warm up' their audience before they can come out with the best jokes.

So in this way I would say that the idea was funny but the PETA horribly misjudged (and I cam imagine willfully ignored) the way people think of them and so what would normally be presented as a 'hey check out this cool weird reimagining of mario' post became this huge mess. The PETA are to blame both for assisting in creating that image and not realising it's consequences but equally this is a self-feedback loop that we have been propogating for a while now and we are as to blame for not trying to free ourselves of our biases. You clearly have more interaction with the PETA than I do (I'm British btw) and as such have better reasons for that opinion, but I have received a negative opinion of the PETA solely from three reasonably funny publicity stunts that got reported negatively on the Escapist. The sole reason I would take this Mario thing in a negative context is because of the biased way which the three things have been presented. And I take the next video badly because I assumed the previous one was meant badly and so on...

It's right to call out the PETA on their crud, but only on their crud and we're doing ourselves a disservice but reacting like this to things which aren't bad. The Nazi thing? That would have been fine, good even.

And whilst for you there's a huge difference between the systematic abuse of animals and ethical raising for slaughter, I was merely presenting those points as two seperate good things and I hope that you recognise that actually the difference is just in the degree that we believe animals have rights. It was a bit of a strawman on your part I feel because the majority of animals aren't raised ethically and the line between, say, battery hens and systematic abuse is non-existent. The PETA do hold an extreme view though and so it's going to be dividing to almost everyone because most people do so the distinction.

I also won't accept your distinction between a pet and an animal raised to slaughter, and here is the one place where I _won't_ agree to disagree, unless you can persuade me otherwise, because in terms of the animal, the only difference is that we get attached to one and stay at arms distance from the other. As animals they have similar mental capacities (pigs are very very smart) similar emotional experiences and so on. The difference is, in human terms the same as the difference that makes us report '100 people died in a plane crash and two were british' and it's the most horrible part of human nature and needs to be fought whole heartedly. Not valuing things we don't have a personal connection with the same as the way we value the things that do is the fundamental reason for all wars and most crimes. I'm not saying animals are on anything like the same level at that, just that it shares the same trait in our brains and my argument is more that we are damaging ourselves than we are damaging animals. We need to learn to treat all things as they are and we aren't going to be able to apply that to higher things until we learn to apply that to lower things.

After that, the rest I can agree with. The PETA demonise too much, the controversialness doesn't help their issue and I suspect rises from that nasty loop where people tend to deal with like people and the people who watch and talk to the PETA are people sympathetic to their cause, so you the feedback the PETA receives is 'oh yes this is awesome' basically because hunters and farmers don't subscribe to the PETA youtube channel and send them emails and take part in planning.

They are also too scatter-gunned in their approach. Browsing through their channel they had four of five different lines of campaigning, three of those were very good. 1. Cute videos of animals. 2. Celebrities talking about why they support animal rights and are vegetarians etc 3. Investigative reports into animal conditions and abuse.

However even though all three of these are good, I can't say there is any consistent attitude between them and it gives people a confused view of their organisation, message and cause. The other two ways involving controversy and demonising and I think what those do is make the moderates radical. Some will come down the PETA side but the rest will go the other way and it just harms the first three channels of communication.

I also don't give a flip about thousands of years of human culture, but I think you conceded as much at one point. Human culture is just a way of dodging debating the issue as it stands. It's essentially the argument 'we've always done it this way' which is no argument at all. For thousands of years the idea of looking after the sick didn't really occur to us and for the thousands years at the height of pre-'now' culture barely consensual sex with tiny little boys was considered their thousands of years of culture. Again I'm not saying animal use is like this (or even bad) just that that particular argument is completely invalid.

Thank you for this though, you've shown me a lot about the PETA and been kind enough to show me a convincing viewpoint different from the one I hold and have been very polite about it to boot

 

[TimeLord]

OHOHOHO THAT SLAPS ME ON THE KNEE!!

That made me think of this;

OT: Yeah, because right after you go after BF3 for having rat killing you suddenly are joking about gamers? Or was the BF3 rat thing a complex epic of a joke to?

Well it was, to us, not you.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

"Mario fans: Relax! PETA's game was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, a fun way to call attention to a serious issue, that raccoon dogs are skinned alive for their fur," said Shakira Croce, PETA's media coordinator.

Er, what?

I know this is a stupid question, but is she on drugs?

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't know where to start.

 

[Fleaman]

Well, I can sorta see this being the truth, as opposed to a wanton attempt at damage control, because you can't be in PETA and also have a sense of humor.

 

[badmunky64]

now we can add "have no sense of humor" to their long list of failures.

if it was a normal company I would think they were bullshiting us trying to save face, but we're talking about peta here. Their have no idea how to market themselves.

 

[snfonseka]

These people who in PETA really have the ability to create tasteless jokes.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

How is that "funny"? Yeah, I know, "Don't bait the trolls", but really,... some people are hard to ignore... or hard to not want to punch them in the face.

 

[Zom-B]

I also won't accept your distinction between a pet and an animal raised to slaughter, and here is the one place where I _won't_ agree to disagree, unless you can persuade me otherwise, because in terms of the animal, the only difference is that we get attached to one and stay at arms distance from the other. As animals they have similar mental capacities (pigs are very very smart) similar emotional experiences and so on. The difference is, in human terms the same as the difference that makes us report '100 people died in a plane crash and two were british' and it's the most horrible part of human nature and needs to be fought whole heartedly. Not valuing things we don't have a personal connection with the same as the way we value the things that do is the fundamental reason for all wars and most crimes. I'm not saying animals are on anything like the same level at that, just that it shares the same trait in our brains and my argument is more that we are damaging ourselves than we are damaging animals. We need to learn to treat all things as they are and we aren't going to be able to apply that to higher things until we learn to apply that to lower things.

I won't try and persuade you to anything, but as you note, the main difference between the pet and the animal raised for slaughter is emotional attachment. With perhaps a touch of habituation. As westerners (Canada or UK, I'd say we both fit in the sphere of western culture) we are used to dogs and cats and parakeets as pets and cows and pigs and chickens as food. That goes a long way to informing our food choices. I'm sure you're well aware that their are countries in the world that use dogs for meat, there are countries where insects, spiders, larvae are part of the diet, etc. Personally, I don't and wouldn't eat dog. I might try an insect dish, but it's not high on my list, haha.

I wouldn't say I'm trying to put one type of animal above the other because it's cuter or more personable, but it's quite a bit easier for me to step back and say, "yes, this was a cow once and I'm going to eat it" as opposed to being confronted with dog meat and declining. There's a personal and cultural bias at work there, and it's different for everyone.

However, I do think that valuing a cat as a pet and a pig as bacon are not inherently inequal, or one morally more correct. A person can raise and love a cat from kitten til death, of course, and while a farmer may not love his pigs in the same fashion, if he provides everything they need to live a pain, hunger and fear free life, right up to the moment of slaughter, I think that is a well treated animal. While we don't need meat, it is a part of our diet and I see no need for us to deny that. Yes, we can get on without it, but many of us simply like it. And if we can eat it in an sustainable, humane way, I'm, personally, okay with that.

 

[BrotherRool]

I won't try and persuade you to anything, but as you note, the main difference between the pet and the animal raised for slaughter is emotional attachment. With perhaps a touch of habituation. As westerners (Canada or UK, I'd say we both fit in the sphere of western culture) we are used to dogs and cats and parakeets as pets and cows and pigs and chickens as food. That goes a long way to informing our food choices. I'm sure you're well aware that their are countries in the world that use dogs for meat, there are countries where insects, spiders, larvae are part of the diet, etc. Personally, I don't and wouldn't eat dog. I might try an insect dish, but it's not high on my list, haha.

I wouldn't say I'm trying to put one type of animal above the other because it's cuter or more personable, but it's quite a bit easier for me to step back and say, "yes, this was a cow once and I'm going to eat it" as opposed to being confronted with dog meat and declining. There's a personal and cultural bias at work there, and it's different for everyone.

However, I do think that valuing a cat as a pet and a pig as bacon are not inherently inequal, or one morally more correct. A person can raise and love a cat from kitten til death, of course, and while a farmer may not love his pigs in the same fashion, if he provides everything they need to live a pain, hunger and fear free life, right up to the moment of slaughter, I think that is a well treated animal. While we don't need meat, it is a part of our diet and I see no need for us to deny that. Yes, we can get on without it, but many of us simply like it. And if we can eat it in an sustainable, humane way, I'm, personally, okay with that.

We've actually got quite an interesting difference of opinion there, you see the value of an animal in terms of the value we give it, and I see the value and rights of an animal in more objective terms, animals are such and such never mind how we treat them and how we treat is a reflection of ourselves and not the animal.

Just to see this if this is a wider thing, how do you view morality? Is it absolute or what society as a whole decides? I see morality as absolute, things are right or wrong and what society thinks of them doesn't change that. The exception being things which are neutral like speeding and parking on yellow lines, which are wrong because it's wrong to break societies laws but without society they wouldn't have much meaning

 

[Zom-B]

Just to see this if this is a wider thing, how do you view morality? Is it absolute or what society as a whole decides? I see morality as absolute, things are right or wrong and what society thinks of them doesn't change that. The exception being things which are neutral like speeding and parking on yellow lines, which are wrong because it's wrong to break societies laws but without society they wouldn't have much meaning

I think morality is entirely personal. Definitely shaped by culture and society, but ultimately a personal choice based upon our own emotions, experiences and education.

For example, I am pro-choice when it comes to pregnancy, yet there are large segments of people here in Canada, and even more in my southern neighbours that believe that is morally wrong.

I also believe that you can love and marry anyone and gender is not an issue. I think most drugs should be legal, or at least decriminalized. I'm against the death penalty in most cases, but do believe it can be warranted, especially when considering the cost of incarcerating people.

There are so many issues, so many ways to look at things it's really hard to come up with an all encompassing morality, but I guess that I too see morality as an absolute, but it's a personal absolute and it's open to change or modification.

 

[BrotherRool]

I think morality is entirely personal. Definitely shaped by culture and society, but ultimately a personal choice based upon our own emotions, experiences and education.

For example, I am pro-choice when it comes to pregnancy, yet there are large segments of people here in Canada, and even more in my southern neighbours that believe that is morally wrong.

I also believe that you can love and marry anyone and gender is not an issue. I think most drugs should be legal, or at least decriminalized. I'm against the death penalty in most cases, but do believe it can be warranted, especially when considering the cost of incarcerating people.

There are so many issues, so many ways to look at things it's really hard to come up with an all encompassing morality, but I guess that I too see morality as an absolute, but it's a personal absolute and it's open to change or modification.

That's really interesting, I was pro-choice too until a friend pointed out I was just being perverse and I was surprised that I've changed now to the point where the idea really upsets me. My sisters were early and nearly aborted so I guess both those things have switched me over to the idea that I'm pro children have the choice to live or not but I reckon I'm okay with people working out a cut-off point where the decide if a child is alive or not.

Other than that we're more similar than I thought, I agree with you on most drugs to a degree, on marriage except that I have to two definitions of marriage in my head and one is religious and the idea of any pairing marrying that way seems ridiculous because they're tying themselves to a ceremony which they don't believe in or even know the purpose of, but I think culturally and legally it's a great wrong to not have some sort of institution where anyone can tie the not.

Other than that I believe in God so I guess I believe morality comes from him and less from each person. I can see why you view the PETA as you do now because you seem to be a big proponent of allowing people to stumble through life their own way which is a very noble thing but I'm still surprised at how differently we look at animals. I guess because you believe in a personal absolute morality it's kinda centred around humans so how the human looks at the animal is very important whereas I kinda get my morality from outside so there is a right or wrong to treating animals and it just depends if we know what that is yet.

This has been a fun conversation, thanks

 

[Zom-B]

I think morality is entirely personal. Definitely shaped by culture and society, but ultimately a personal choice based upon our own emotions, experiences and education.

For example, I am pro-choice when it comes to pregnancy, yet there are large segments of people here in Canada, and even more in my southern neighbours that believe that is morally wrong.

I also believe that you can love and marry anyone and gender is not an issue. I think most drugs should be legal, or at least decriminalized. I'm against the death penalty in most cases, but do believe it can be warranted, especially when considering the cost of incarcerating people.

There are so many issues, so many ways to look at things it's really hard to come up with an all encompassing morality, but I guess that I too see morality as an absolute, but it's a personal absolute and it's open to change or modification.

That's really interesting, I was pro-choice too until a friend pointed out I was just being perverse and I was surprised that I've changed now to the point where the idea really upsets me. My sisters were early and nearly aborted so I guess both those things have switched me over to the idea that I'm pro children have the choice to live or not but I reckon I'm okay with people working out a cut-off point where the decide if a child is alive or not.

Other than that we're more similar than I thought, I agree with you on most drugs to a degree, on marriage except that I have to two definitions of marriage in my head and one is religious and the idea of any pairing marrying that way seems ridiculous because they're tying themselves to a ceremony which they don't believe in or even know the purpose of, but I think culturally and legally it's a great wrong to not have some sort of institution where anyone can tie the not.

Other than that I believe in God so I guess I believe morality comes from him and less from each person. I can see why you view the PETA as you do now because you seem to be a big proponent of allowing people to stumble through life their own way which is a very noble thing but I'm still surprised at how differently we look at animals. I guess because you believe in a personal absolute morality it's kinda centred around humans so how the human looks at the animal is very important whereas I kinda get my morality from outside so there is a right or wrong to treating animals and it just depends if we know what that is yet.

This has been a fun conversation, thanks

Indeed.

Just on the marriage thing: call it civil union, call it whatever you want, reserve "marriage" for a churches, but give any two people that make a commitment to each other the same benefits and rights under the law.

 

[OMGIllithan]

*shrug* I thought it was pretty funny. I've stopped taking PETA seriously years ago so I don't expect anything that comes out of them to hold any real weight. I never saw any reason to get butthurt about it.

 

[BrotherRool]

Indeed.

Just on the marriage thing: call it civil union, call it whatever you want, reserve "marriage" for a churches, but give any two people that make a commitment to each other the same benefits and rights under the law.

That's exactly where I stand to deny people equality in the eyes of the law is ridiculous and there shouldn't even be a discussion about it.

Even from a religious standpoint it makes no sense, we can't force people to be good and if we did we'd fail, we can't even achieve good when we absolutely try our best, because we're always going to miss perfection. The whole point is that we recognise that we aren't as good as we should be and God takes us forgives us and chooses to look at us as though we were perfect, because he gave himself up so we could be with him and have a place in a perfect world.

And frankly that is not going to be badly affected by extending love to your fellow human being, what are people saying? That God came lived and died for prostitutes and extortioners and murderers but he's not strong enough to cope with a couple of guys living together? So we better help him out by making it illegal?

It's just nonsense. I don't even think the issue is clear cut enough that gay marriage should be stopped in _churches_ the only place I'd make my stand is if a church were to be forced to hold the ceremonies if it were something they'd decided was wrong