Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (1584.1)
    I've only just read this article, in the New York Times. I know that Warren and Ariana are wary of using the forums for regurgitating the news, but I think there's an honest discussion to be had here.

    I'm kind of surprised that people are upset with the idea that someone would use sex to try and sell veganism. I know that there will always be people upset that anyone is using naked women to sell anything, but I generally expect vegans (and vegetarians) to be a more liberal, progressive group. (And I'm also aware that, as a gay, vegan, liberal atheist, I should be wary of making assumptions about groups as a whole.)

    It would be one issue if anyone were being forced to participate in PETA ads, or to strip in strip clubs, but we're not talking about indentured labor or slavery here. We're talking about women (and in some cases, men) who apparently want to use their bodies to make a statement.

    Aren't feminists who cry "exploitation" at the sight of a naked woman just as guilty of exploitation as any group that can be perceived as being the exploiters? It's like a tug-of-war between groups who want to decide what people can and cannot do with their own bodies (only I don't see PETA or the strip club as actually having exploited anyone.)

    I have a problem with knee-jerk anti-porn feminists who lump all pornography and displays of nudity together under the banner of exploitation. I know that there is exploitation within the porn industry, that there are sleazy people who are looking to take advantaged of others, but it's not a given in the entire industry. Feminists (and other activists) should be taking steps to make sure that everyone has a safe and healthy working environment, rather than taking an entire industry to task for the actions of a few, and actions taken in the past.

    I'm not even particularly a fan of PETA; I think a lot of their actions are counterproductive and aggressive. I do, however, have a lot of love and support for their actions and advertisements aimed at teens and young adults (generally under the banner of PETA2). Making veganism hip is fine by me. And using naked people? Also fine by me.

    So what do you think?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJay Kay
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2008
     (1584.2)
    Meh. I see no problem with it. It wouldn't convince me to go Vegan, though--if they had lifetime coupons for the bloody stores, they might get me to try it out...
    •  
      CommentAuthorliquidcow
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2008
     (1584.3)
    I generally expect vegans (and vegetarians) to be a more liberal, progressive group.

    I'm not surprised that lots of vegans are also feminists, it makes perfect sense. A lot of vegans are making a stand for animal rights, and so it makes sense that some would also try and make a stand for women's rights. However, liberal is a tricky term, and so is feminist. I've seen so many people describe themselves as one or both of those and they seem to mean entirely different things to different people. Some people might say that it's feminist to allow women to perform in strip clubs, some would say that the feminist thing to do would be to ban them. Some 'liberals' are all about letting people choose, some 'liberals' go around trying to get things banned.

    I really don't buy the 'feminist' argument in favour of things like strip clubs or pornography. It always seems like a way for women who participate in them to excuse themselves. That said I don't think there's always a case against it either, sometimes it's just neither one nor the other.
    • CommentAuthorSolario
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2008
     (1584.4)
    I really have no problem with this whatsoever. I eat meat, and I probably will continue to do so until tofu becomes inexpensive, easily purchased, and tastes exactly like meat, but advertisement is advertisement. It sounds like a gimmick to attract customers, but that's what businesses do. Go for it, says I.

    PETA on the other hand, I have far less patience and tolerance for. The organisation is riffed with scare tactics, cheap manipulation, downright illegal activities and general hypocricy. It'd please me greatly if other Animal Rights movements were more prominent.
  2.  (1584.5)
    downright illegal activities


    im not a vegan, although i am a sympathizer. i do eat some meat, but i try to go meatless or using alternatives when i can. when it comes to causing damage to animal and eco unfriendly assholes/corporations, i dont see the problem with illegal activities. companies and police use illegal tactics (or manipualte the wording of the law) all the time- why shouldnt others? im not saying we should all be out in the streets setting fire to things we dont agree with, but a little direct action now and then is healthy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJay Kay
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2008
     (1584.6)
    PETA may have met well back in the day, but they're really just shooting themselves in the foot nowadays. Throwing red paint at people with fur coats doesn't make you an activist--it makes you an asshole.
  3.  (1584.7)
    agreed.
  4.  (1584.8)
    I'd at least respect PETA's beliefs on fur if they would take the same attitude to leather.

    I can't personally see how it is any worse killing one animal and wearing it to another unless it is an endangered species. I wear leather, in my opinion it makes me no better than someone wearing mink.

    Worse maybe, because I like cows far more than minks, they are evil little fuckers.
  5.  (1584.9)
    Just as with any movement there are many and contradictory strains of feminism. Some forms of feminism -- usually those who demand that women be viewed as self-owning individuals, favor sexual freedom; others, usually those focusing on gender-identity in an eternal war of the female against the male, regard male sexual interest as The Root of All Evil and deplore such manifestations of that interest as strip clubs (or sexualized super-heroes).

    Personally, I'm a member of the other PETA -- People for Eating Tasty Animals. I think "animal rights" is a nutty philosophy, especially when it goes to the extent of "a beetle is a frog is a dog is a boy" but I respect the right of people to embrace it, so long as they keep it in their pants, just as I respect the right of people to embrace Christianity, so long as they keep their laws off my body.
  6.  (1584.10)
    a beetle is a frog is a dog is a boy"


    that kind of logic is the path down where i simply cant agree with some animal rights folks. if you are in my aprtment and there is a bug that is bothering you, you will ask me to kill it rather than do it yourself? arguing with me because i like to watch youtube videos of animals doing stupid shit where they fall sometimes? thats just ridiculous.

    and yes, both of these situations have seriously happened to me.
    • CommentAuthorSolario
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2008
     (1584.11)
    I'd say financially support firebombings is a little different from taking direct, appropriate, action against sleazy corporations.
    • CommentAuthorDracko
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2008
     (1584.12)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    This just in: Strippers doing silly stuff!
  7.  (1584.13)
    As a vegan misanthrope, I'd hit that shit like the fist of an angry God...

    More seriously...I think this is tactically poor - that is, it's counter-productive for the movement - and, although I am far from up on feminist literature, I am very sceptical of those who portray strip clubs or pornography as empowering etc.

    AlwaysCrashing: PETA is in many ways a welfarist organisation. In opposing fur, they are not taking a primarily rights-based position, but a welfare based one. It's not simply that a cow or a mink or whatever is being killed; it's that animals being killed for fur are allegedly killed much more painfully. And, of course, most involved with PETA - if not all - oppose the wearing of leather also, but choose to focus on the more sympathetic cause. Because most people are morally schizophrenic when it comes to animals, and because furry fur animals are cuter than cows, fur is an easier target...

    ScottBieser: If you're going to tell me that I have a nutty philosophy, I really would appreciate it if you'd do me the courtesy of articulating why.
  8.  (1584.14)
    Usually when I get into arguing philosophy on one of Warren's forums the thread gets shut down.

    So I'll just put it as simply as I can: a "right," as a moral claim against others, is an aspect of sapience -- the ability (or potential ability) to think in higher abstractions, such as morality and rights. To have rights, one must be capable of respecting rights. A cow can't have rights because it cannot conceive of such a thing. Neither can a dog, or a cat, or a frog. Of all of Terra's evolutures, only humans, the great apes, certain cetaceans, and perhaps elephants, have anything like this quality -- and that's granting most of them the benefit of the doubt. Everything else is either food, slave labor, decoration, or pestilence.
    •  
      CommentAuthorliquidcow
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2008
     (1584.15)
    @ ScottBieser - I sort of agree that 'rights' is the wrong term, but I'm not sure I agree with the definition. A 'right' is basically permission to do or not do something, which can be granted by another person. If I say that a cat has the right to come in to my garden, then I'll let it do so, but if I say the cat doesn't have the right to come into my garden, then I'll chase it away if it does. The cat doesn't understand that it is or isn't allowed to come into my garden, but I've decided whether or not it has the right to. As far as humans go, we often don't fully understand what rights we do or don't have. Hence we often end up missing out on something because we didn't realise we had certain rights, or sometimes people are arrested because they didn't realise something was illegal. So like the cat, we don't necessarily know that we are or aren't allowed to do something, but we're still affected by it. As far as the idea that "To have rights, one must be capable of respecting rights" goes, that gets into very touchy areas when you bring in people with mental illnesses or personality disorders - autism for example.

    I do think however that it is rather silly to talk of rights when it comes to animals that are not going to be able to understand or exercise them. The way I would term it is that animals shouldn't be unduly harmed or hurt since it's cruel and unecessary, simple as that, no need to bang on about 'rights'. But I do think that using animals for certain things is ok as long as certain conditions are met, obviously farming, food, and scientific experiments. I'm not keen on things like seal clubbing because it seems to me unnecessary, although at the same time I have heard both sides of the argument and people like PETA do seem to make some exaggerations.
  9.  (1584.16)
    "So I'll just put it as simply as I can: a "right," as a moral claim against others, is an aspect of sapience -- the ability (or potential ability) to think in higher abstractions, such as morality and rights. To have rights, one must be capable of respecting rights. A cow can't have rights because it cannot conceive of such a thing. Neither can a dog, or a cat, or a frog."

    So people in comas or suffering from mental illness or dementia have no rights?

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.