I think PETA's move here was pretty futile. They want to replace real animal heads with cardboard heads? Why even bother with a restaurant owner who makes the decision to put up dead animal heads in their business in the first place? Doesn't that kind of decor in itself make it obvious that the owner has little regard for what PETA stands for? Drawing from that point, anyone who puts animal heads in their restaurant must obviously not give a damn about what PETA, or the dead animals being used as coat hangers have to say, and the patrons of that business probably don't care much either.

PETA's campaigns for animal rights aren't very convincing to me. I actually try to avoid meat, I hate the idea of hunting, and I would never buy fur. In fact, I'm repulsed by people who wear real fur because of I hate the propertied and elite class. But the way PETA campaigns, while it may not be aggressive, is certainly uninspiring. I'm turned off moreover by their nude campaigns because its the same stupid "sex-sells" mentality and objectification of women (albeit voluntarily) which one can only assume is supposed to draw men to their cause. The whole idea of "sex-sells" was created by a patriarchal society for a patriarchal society, and I guarantee PETA that these campaigns DON'T WORK. They certainly don't work on me, and any man who does buy into them may not necessarily be as concerned about sparing an animal's life as he is about impressing the body painted model he's chatting up for information about PETA.

They make a very bad argument with those campaigns, and even a good argument is overshadowed by the sensationalism and supposedly broken "taboo" of nudity. If they want to make an argument, or a statement, make the damn statement, make an appealing argument, and let people decide. If you make a good argument for your cause, you don't sex (or at LEAST the blatant and gratuitous amount of sex) that PETA uses. If anything they should perhaps point out the health risks of excessive meat consumption (obesity, heart disease, gout), the environmental risks of overhunting a population and destabilizing the ecosystem of a once thriving population to near extinction. THESE are convincing arguments and arguments worth campaigning for.

I'd also argue that people should join campaigns against processed food and hormone treated meat if they want to promote ethical treatment of animals more successfully. Also, discouraging consumption of meat in order to promote more effective use of farmland (farming more vegetables to feed people rather than livestock, and actually fighting starvation)is a great cause. However, truth be told I think we don't even have equality and ethical treatment for three-quarters of humanity, so as a socialist animals are honestly not my biggest concern. That's just me. I'll grant that others may be easier to convince.

I think I'd agree with that.

I agree with PETA's basic "Be kind to animals" message of course. But sometimes their methods are a bit bizarre.

The nudity thing is just stupid. Yes, sex sells, but the message here is such a powerful one that it should sell on its own.

PETA also makes a lot of commercials that are banned from tv. And they say that like they're proud. But then that means that only people who look at PETA's website see the commercials. That means PETA isn't getting the message out to the people who need it.

I think they do a lot of their goofy stuff just to get people talking. But it backfires in a lot of ways. It makes some people look down at animal rights activists, vegetarians, or vegans simply because they don't like PETA.

But PETA also did a lot to get the animal rights movement popular in the first place. So in a sense I think we have to respect them in the way we respect Freud for really getting psychology started, even if we don't really agree with his theories.

It's interesting that you mention human rights in this too. I just finished watching a show called Blood, Sweat, and Takeaways. We often hear about how badly the animals are treated by the food industry. And we sometimes hear about how bad certain things are for the environment (like methane from cattle, clearing rainforest for grazing, etc.). But this show was about how humans are negatively impacted by the food that we eat. The show basically plopped a few spoiled European kids in Asia, had them work in the rice fields, and live on a rice worker's salary. Then they promoted them to working in a chicken factory, where it wasn't much better. Then they went and talked to some women who had been driven to prostitution because the food industry barely pays people to live, all so that Americans and Europeans can have inexpensive food.

Then they went and talked to some women who had been driven to prostitution because the food industry barely pays people to live, all so that Americans and Europeans can have inexpensive food.

As soon as I clicked on the tab to submit my post, I remembered Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". The novel actually describes how a woman from the main character's family is driven to prostitution because the meat factory either paid her too little or fired her when she had to attend to obligations at home, I don't remember which. But after reading that book, I wasn't as nauseated as I was appalled by the kind of callous and heartless disregard for both workers and animals.