Thread: PETA has gone too far this time...

They really seem to fail at coherence, though. It's like these adverts are made by a bunch of moronic children, seriously. I can't for the life of me understand what the idea behind those posters is. Okay, I see a sexy woman in chains... but she is not an elephant, nor does she embody elephants. So... how is this poster supposed to make me feel emotional about elephants..?

They are equating the woman as an elephant. Using this same logic, you could replace a cockroach with a pornstar and it would be the same.

Once again, never liked PETA's tactics. Never will.

PETA went too far when they made this stupid organisation in 1980. I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals, but god these campaigns are just awful. Am I supposed to feel bad for animals because of stupid playboy or shock adverts? This is not an animal rights organisation. This is an organisation that makes other legitimate NGO's look stupid.

This organisation is garbage. Pure garbage.

I was under the impression that it was common knowledge that everything PETA does is stupid an should be ignored.

Originally Posted by XeL

Well, I don't blame them. Using women's bodies is a part of successful marketing nowadays. I fail to see how this is any more upsetting than typical everyday marketing (which people make it sound like it is).

Did you look at the link underneath? They're making a hardcore pornsite that's mixing images of animal torture with porn. Yes, I see your point as far as the models - models in sexy outfits are used to sell everything these days, and there's no real problem with them using the same strategy to gain attention, but now they're turning the volume up to eleven - hardcore porn mixed with animal torture. I wonder if that one turned out to be a joke too, come to think of it? It could be they're just spreading all these bizarre rumors to draw attention.

To understand PETA all you have to do is go through your life and think about all the women you've talked to who loved animals so much they like... loved more than like people.

Every time I see the name PETA, I want to kill and eat an animal.

Professional
Entertaining
Trolls <with>
Animals

Bad PETA, don't ruin the innocence of the raccoon suit. Pixels don't hurt animals.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Did you look at the link underneath? They're making a hardcore pornsite that's mixing images of animal torture with porn. Yes, I see your point as far as the models - models in sexy outfits are used to sell everything these days, and there's no real problem with them using the same strategy to gain attention, but now they're turning the volume up to eleven - hardcore porn mixed with animal torture. I wonder if that one turned out to be a joke too, come to think of it? It could be they're just spreading all these bizarre rumors to draw attention.

Exactly! It's all about publicity! These kinds of things are obviously created for the sole purpose of evoking strong emotions. It's nothing but extremely efficient marketing, and the people who contribute to it the most are the ones who express their negative opinion about it. It's funny how that works.

I feel so used!

PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.

I like that one.

Originally Posted by Xei

They really seem to fail at coherence, though. It's like these adverts are made by a bunch of moronic children, seriously. I can't for the life of me understand what the idea behind those posters is. Okay, I see a sexy woman in chains... but she is not an elephant, nor does she embody elephants. So... how is this poster supposed to make me feel emotional about elephants..?

I agree. I think a much more effective and genuine ad would feature a real elephant, maybe show an elephant eye through the planks of a wooden crate/cage. I know that seems really cliche, but that's one effective tactic that actually makes you feel sorry for the animal, and makes you think about the issue.

Also, does seeing ads featuring half naked sexy women make anybody actually buy the products advertised? As opposed to just paying attention to the woman, then moving on with your life? I'm not talking about whatever statistics you can throw out, I'm talking about anybody's experiences with an ad. People will still buy products regardless, and people will attribute the sales to anything whether or not it's true.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Also, does seeing ads featuring half naked sexy women make anybody actually buy the products advertised? As opposed to just paying attention to the woman, then moving on with your life? I'm not talking about whatever statistics you can throw out, I'm talking about anybody's experiences with an ad. People will still buy products regardless, and people will attribute the sales to anything whether or not it's true.

So you're saying let's ignore statistics and go on single, personal anecdotes? :/

Psychology has shown time and again that people are extremely poor at being able to tell you what they want and why they want it.

Originally Posted by anderj101

Every time I see the name PETA, I want to kill and eat an animal.

Absolutely fantastic. This is yet another incredible contribution to the art of trolling. Well done, PETA.

I feel that animals should have rights... but PETA is the WORST group to promote animal rights. They focus on stupid shit to get attention instead of taking legitimate actions.

I don't support animal testing, but I don't think that they should terrorize and threaten to kill people who participate in such things. Eye for an eye for an eye for an eye, everyone will go blind.

I'm sure they see themselves as a guerilla organization using terrorist tactics to fight what they perceive as terrorism against animals. They think they're Greenpeace.

Except Greenpeace as an organization doesn't endorse terrorism. They get in your face, but will not physically harm people. If members of the group DO, they are usually shunned to a degree. It's "non-violent, direct confrontation." in their words.

Humans are animals and I got some shampoo in my eyes this morning. PETA wasn't there to defend my rights... lol

PETA does not really think of people as animals, though. That is not their focus.

Also, guys like Sea Shepard do this same aggressive action without physical harm. They know when to stop. PETA apparently doesn't. This whole mario fiasco seemed to work out by sheer luck; I doubt that they were joking in the first place. I would catch it if they did this on april 1st, but this is the opposite part of the year.

(I would like to get a faux fur coat and walk right by protesters just to screw with them. Watch them get aggressive and all that jazz over plastic)

Originally Posted by anderj101

Humans are animals and I got some shampoo in my eyes this morning. PETA wasn't there to defend my rights... lol

Ha ha! Yeah, if PETA had been there they would have caught the bastard who put the shampoo in your eye, held him down, and - poured shampoo in your other eye!!

Originally Posted by Xei

So you're saying let's ignore statistics and go on single, personal anecdotes? :/

Psychology has shown time and again that people are extremely poor at being able to tell you what they want and why they want it.

So you're saying that these ads work, and that we should keep showing sexist ads like these because they work?

Unfortunately yes. They do work. They sure got us all stirred up didn't they?

Moralism is pitifully weak and ineffectual compared to the primal power of unethical advertising. Advertisers know better than anyone how the mind works, at least insofar as what they want it to do. Many commercials deliberately annoy you so you'll stop whatever you're doing and pay attention, then you've got the damn commercial in your head all day. So what if you think it's stupid, their only goal is to impress their name into your head, where it'll stay for years. Just making you remember their name is the goal. If they can inspire seething hatred, then they KNOW they've got you! You'll never forget that ad campaign.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

So you're saying that these ads work, and that we should keep showing sexist ads like these because they work?

No, I'm just calling you out on the rather risible act of championing personal anecdotes over statistics, a field entirely created to try to give objective measures of such effects, in order to reach a conclusion that you clearly wanted to reach before you asked the question, and then trying to paint this as rationalism.

Oh, and the ridiculous ad hominem where you painted my message as 'I endorse sexism' when my post didn't even comment on the issue is an absolute classic. Please tell me which it was; did you seriously read a post and interpret it as endorsing something it didn't remotely talk about, or were you wilfully lying?