Topic: Alicia Bares Her Silverstones (PETA Television Ad)

[JaWiB]

How do we know that supporting PETA isn't harming anyone? Among other things, they've supported terrorism and opposed animal research. And a lot of people would probably consider these types of ads to be objectifying women.

[charlie]

Opposing animal research is just an opinion, and differing opinions aren't what I was referring to by "harmful". Objectification of women might be a real issue, but something tells me that isn't really the issue in this thread.

If the basis for the comments was support of terrorism and other harmful means of protest, then ok. I didn't get the impression that those were the reasons for the comments, though. Even if they were, I'm not entirely convinced that there should be guilt by association here. But then again, that's why I was curious for a clarification, because I wasn't sure what the root of the anger was.

[KnuckleBuckett]

ppfffftttt

[stealth]

>>not harming anybody.<<

What about all the people who work in the meat industry? What about the income that the industry generates to support rural communities? I suppose having someone who is high profile saying don't eat meat isn't going to impact them in some way? It's like actors coming out against mulesing sheep.  They haven't got a fucking clue what they're on about and are jumping on a bandwagon.  They're demonising a whole industry when in reality mulesing  is very strictly controlled and very few, if any, cases of animal mistreatment have ever been found.  Pamela Anderson was so stupid she didn't even know that ugg boots were made from sheep - so she'd get up and bang on about mulesing and then go home and put her uggs on.

It's ok to say that you're a vegetarian or vegan, if you choose to be one or have to be one for some health reason I'm not going to get on your back.  You don't have to eat meat with every meal - you need to balance it with other food sources.  However, the thing with PETA and the people that support it they do so with misinformation and don't tell you the otherside of the story.  Let's take health..women who don't eat meat almost always suffer from iron deficiency which can have disasterous effects on their health if they don't take a suppliment or find an alternative source of iron in their food to replace the iron they're no longer getting from meat.  Vegetarian food can also be just as unhealthy for you, it's how the food is cooked and prepared, not where it comes from.  Deep fried vegetables are worse for you than a piece of steak.  Being a vegetarian does not mean you're going to be healthier than somebody who eats meat.  It's naive to think that meat is the reason why there's an epidemic of obesity in the West.  I'll wager that Alicia Silverstone probably ate a whole load of junk before.  Of course eating more fresh fruit and vegetables is going to make you healthier - it's a given.  But it's like ordering a diet coke with a Big Mac meal - you're fooling yourself if you think that one aspect of your diet is causing you to be unhealthy.

I guess the other thing is that I take exception to people who are very rich telling me what's ethical and what's the right thing to do.  It's easy enough for them to be able to afford 100% organic food and to run your own solar farm from the sun shining out of your arse.  Most people can't afford and don't have the time to shop for fair trade goods - you'll struggle to find them in the supermarket and those that you can find are very expensive.  It's not amatter of not wanting to do the right thing, it's just that it's often impractical and you can only do so much.  Also, it's a struggle to find a means to reduce your carbon footprint beyond the basics without some major financial boost.

It's not that the message of doing something to reduce our impact on the climate or to support ethical animal treatment is in itself wrong or anything that I'm against.  I do my bit, I could probably do a bit more.  I don't buy caged eggs.  I recycle as much as I can.  I have 3 minute showers.  I try not to use aerosols.  I buy products packaged in recyeable material if possible.  I give my old clothes away to charity.  But I'm not going to preach to someone worse off than me who can't afford to do all of the above if they can't reasonably afford it.  For most people in the world food on the table and clean water is an absolute must and really the only thing that matters.  And it's not these people who are at fault - they're just trying to live. 

How much waste is made and damage inflicted upon the earth from the latest Hollywood blockbuster and all that it generates from the traffic and planes and food cooked to feed the cast and crew to the fact that someone drives their leaded car to the cinema to buy a ticket which they litter and throw away food that they waste in a cinema that uses tonnes of carbon to power itself.  You won't hear an actor say that will you? But you will hear them say how we're all to do what's ethical. 

[VBprogrammer]

Well said stealth! (although, it is my understanding that aerosols aren't harmful anymore?)

I hate this obsession the british goverment have with 'replacement' taxes to cure all ills. If everyone decided it was worth the effort to reduce our waste for the money benefits they'd have to put the tax up again to maintain the same level of goverment income! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Also, I'm alittle sceptical that some types of recycling do have a net positive effect on the enviroment. With all the collection, processing and reforming they have to do. I like Irn Brew's example, you return the glass bottle and they give you 25p credit to whatever your buying. All they then have to do is pickup the empties from the same shops as they are delivering to, clean the bottles, refill them and stick a new lable on...now thats real recycling. Oh, and they've been doing it for 40+ years!

[charlie]

Thanks for the explanation, stealth. I agree with a lot of what you say. (By the way, here is the actual ad.)

I don't think the affect on the meat industry matters, though. There are advertisements here in the US like "Beef, it's what's for dinner" and "Pork, the other white meat." This ad isn't much different. And like I said earlier, I don't consider a differing opinion to be harmful. "Don't use tobacco" and "don't use drugs" are acceptable advertisements, so I don't see why this one shouldn't be.

Your biggest beef (no pun intended) seems to be with the fact that this actress who is not an expert in the field is "preaching" stuff she knows nothing about. But isn't she just a celebrity spokesperson? They are used everywhere. In fact, this advertisement is really more of an ad for a website. Why should the use of a celebrity spokesperson be considered worse when the subject is about people trying to do the right thing rather than just pimping some random product? I would be more offended by a celebrity advertising a product that they know nothing about that was intended just to make money for that business. At least in this case she (likely) has more than just dollar signs in her eyes.

I know people generally don't like being preached to, but why is it necessary to look at it that way? I don't give a shit what Alicia Silverstone says about going vegetarian. I dismiss it because she is just a spokesperson. I also don't give a shit what Greg Norman says about Boeing, or what Sam Waterston says about TD Ameritrade. Why not just look at Silverstone's endorsement as being like the others?

I think that if you're angry about those who preach ethics and the right thing to do, especially in the case of this particular commercial, then you're putting your own filters on the message. Dismiss her opinion because you don't think it's based on anything substantive. Call her misguided for championing a cause that is only tangential to the real issue. Consider her an idiot for thinking that normal people can easily follow her lead. But why be angry that she's just putting her experience out there?

[KnuckleBuckett]

GJ Stealth. 

Charlie you always amaze me.

Tell me Charlie.  Had you lived in colonial America in and about 1775, do you think you would have been a loyalist or rebel?  You don't have to answer if you find this uncomfortable.  I would totally understand.  Without being then and there it is kinda unfair to ask.  But if you can answer on general principle...

[charlie]

I honestly have no idea. It depends on a lot of stuff that I don't remember from my history class and that I wouldn't know unless I was there.

My instinct says that I would have been a rebel, but who knows?

I'm curious what you think I would have been. I get the feeling based on your question that you might have misconceptions about my beliefs. Feel free to explain what you're thinking, I promise not to be offended.

[KnuckleBuckett]

Dude IMHO no way you would have been a rebel.

I think you would have been pretty cool with the reds.  You would probably singlehandedly avoided the rev war for the Brits.  You would have had the rebels explaining how being an armed rebel was good, right, and not too violent.  Man.  They would have figured NOTHING is worth all this explaining and just plain given up.  I think you would have been a righteous English hero. 

All said in good humor.

[charlie]

Would I get a statue or something in the middle of London? I think I'd need a statue for it to be worth my while.

[KnuckleBuckett]

No way..This was big.  They named the country after ya.