PETA at the Circus

[Diesel]

This weekend, my gf and I took her 7 and 9 year old cousins to the Ringling Bros. Circus. What happened outside the venue bothered me and disgusted me to the point that it's taken me 2 days of anger to be able to compose myself enough to post about it.

Outside the venue, PETA members were handing out flyers documenting cruelty to the circus animals. The problem was, they were handing them to everyone, including the children. These weren't harmless flyers in children's language... these had graphic pictures of injured and beaten animals on them, and adult language of the brutality that PETA was protesting.

Now, I completely understand PETA's beef with the circus, and I commend them for their goals, but this was completely and totally inappropriate. It's one thing if you want to hand a flyer documenting animal cruelty to adults. It's something entirely different to hand what initially looks like a coupon to a 7 and 9 year old child. And they were handing them out to even younger children. I find this to be an unforgiveable offense, and it's something that will prevent me from supporting a PETA cause ever again.

I've never really agreed with PETA's methods, but this definitely crossed a line with me that they can never go back on.

[mthrlangl]

God, that's effed up.

[Chris]

I have a two sided opinion on this, don't hurt me ;).

The one sided opinion...
I agree with you entirely that handing out these flyers to young children; 7-9 in your case and most likely they handed them out to children younger than that. I believe they shouldn't have done this, and in reality they too probably know that they shouldn't have done this, they probably just wanted to get the message out to as many people as possible, young or old.
However, clearly they didn't think about what possible effect it cold/would have on children of these ages, there's all sorts of detrimental effects that could occur.

Diesel/Dan (Dan being your real name I assume :p)
Question: Did your girlfriends cousins look at these flyers before you put them in the bin? If so, did they have any reactions or ask any questions?

The two sided opinion...
With the above in mind, that I do feel it's wrong to distrubute the flyers to minors, I don't think it's right for them to be shielded from the truth, no matter what age. Maybe not in such a brutalistic format as these flyers were most likely in, but possibly in terms young children can understand. You might think that children at this age don't and shouldn't have to know, but that's not the point, if they're eating meat from animals that have been slaughtered they have the right to know.

That's my two sided opinion on this particular matter anyway, bash me all you will. :)

My overall view of PETA is that I am for the cause and animals shouldn't be put to such cruelty. Right now as I post I'm reminded by a quote, Benicio Del Toro said in the movie The Hunted (available at local video stores near you, good movie).

What if there was a species above us in the food chain? How do you think you'd feel if that species lost total respect for us... and started slaughtering us wholesale?

That's a thought provoking quote at least for me anyway. Although, I do know that I'm a hypocrite in many ways over PETA. Whilst I agree with many, if not all of their views on animal slaughter I do still eat meat. And, sometimes, not too often, but sometimes I will think about how the animal died to provide food for me, which a) saddens me and b) makes me think about quitting eat meat products. So in that respect, I'm almost torn between. :)

[Diesel]

Diesel/Dan (Dan being your real name I assume :p)
Question: Did your girlfriends cousins look at these flyers before you put them in the bin? If so, did they have any reactions or ask any questions?


No, I was fortunate enough to snatch them out of their hands before they really looked at them. I don't necessarily disagree with you about shielding kids from material suited for them, but
a) this wasn't written for kids, and it was wrong, plain and simple, for the PETA folks to be giving these particular flyers to kids
and
b) it's the choice of the parents to determine if the material is appropriate for their kids. Since I was not their parent, merely their babysitter, as it were, I felt the prudent thing to do was to not allow them access to the flyers, and let their parents know of the situation. If they wanted to deal with it at that point, it's their perogative.

FWIW, quoting a cheesy movie line isn't really an effective way to backup an argument, IMHO. They're written for effect in a particular moment, and shouldn't really be looked at as philosophical insight.

I could just as easily quote "If we weren't meant to eat cows, then why did God make them so delicious?" It gets the same effect as the cheesy Hollywood line, and should in no way be viewed as any kind of deep philosophical insight. ;)

[Chris]

It wasn't intended for any philosophical meaning or to contribute to this "argument" I was just reminded of it when writing my post. :)

[monsieurjohn]

PETA... bleh

PETA strikes me as an extremist group of alarmists willing to look as hard as they can for something as maximally shocking as possible to scare someone into changing their opinion, and maybe giving money. I don't believe that the information they disseminate is valid for a majority of circumstances, and when i've seen their literature i've been able to see past their sensationalist writing and to the economic and humanistic realities, especially with regard to the meat and food industry. (i.e., the problematic aspects of supplying a nation with beef, and the as-quick-and-efficient-as-possible slaughter methods.)

to top that off, i watched their whole don't-eat-meat-look-how-bad-it-is video and it honestly didn't bother me. sometimes things have to be a certain way and there's no sense in whining about it. also my personal belief is that animals don't have the emotion and self-awareness people have.. i know lots of people disagree with me, but that's just one of my interpretations of the world around me that i don't see changing.

anyway, i think their methods in this instance were way out of line, but what else is new for PETA, if you ask me

[Prox]

I really don't care for PETA, or any other extreemest group for that matter. They tend to **** me off, a lot. While I can see some validity in their arguments, their methods are so disgusting, that I don't want anything to do with their cause at all.

[the_scarier_one]

Unfortunately (don't kill me) i have to take the completely other side on this argument. In this particular case, I do not feel PETA was wrong (i'm not saying everything PETA does is right, just taking this case). Dan, you call their actions an "unforgivable offense". Yet somehow, i look at what circuses do to their animals, and handing out flyers to children seems trivial.
First of all, children will see worse things on TV, on the internet, in newspapers etc. And yes, some parents choose to shelter their kids from any of these things. But the likelihood of a child not seeing worse images seems unlikely. Further, these horrible images are meant to bring awareness and spark emotion at the subject--almost like some sort of catalyst for change. How does one justify senseless graphic images? Do we consider all disgusting images equally? If so, we would have to look at movies such as "The Passions of the Christ" and "Silence of the Lambs" on the same level, wouldn't we? In my opinion, the flyers are meant to show truth and to enlighten (whatever that may mean to you).
Secondly, calling these flyers some kind of disgrace seems absolutely wrong to me when you're bringing innocent little children to a circus and paying for them to see some of the cruelest meaningless senseless torture to animals. The tiny cages, the poor feeding, the unimaginably destructive training techniques--come on... repeatedly hitting elephents to try and "break their spirits". If you're going to allow children to see tigers jumping through hoops of flames, then i believe you should be prepared to let them see the burned animals, the pained animals, the tortured animals. If you're prepared to sit and watch, purely for the sake of amusement, the product of the suffering of another creature, i think you should be prepared to see the byproducts of such a show.
I'm sorry if i sound mean or rude ( i really don't mean to)... this is a subject i am *extremely* passionate about. I don't always agree with PETA, but in this case i do. Things just aren't adding up: on the one hand, calling these flyers disgusting, on the other, accepting the absolutely cruel and unjustified treatment of living, breathing, feeling (i believe emotionally, most people just believe physically feeling) creature. flyers vs. torture..... what seems really messed up about the situation is that people accept this cruelty and pay for a show to watch it (no, i have never been to, and never will attend a circus). i guess i just take a different stance on it.

[Diesel]

If you've never been to a circus, then you're simply taking PETA's word (read: propoganda) on the subject, and really have no right to criticize. You're only rehasing their argument without actually forming an opinion of your own, based on any firsthand experiences or facts.
If you've never seen the condition the animals are actually in, then you're trying to lecture on something of which you have no firsthand knowledge whatsoever.

Again, I have no problem with PETA handing these flyers to adults. The pictures and language was appropriate for adults to read, and I personally have no issues with what was contained in the flyers. However, it should have NEVER been given to small children, under any circumstances.

[the_scarier_one]

If you've never been to a circus, then you're simply taking PETA's word (read: propoganda) .

I've never attended a circus show, i've never bought a ticket and sat in the crowd.. i have gone to visit the conditions of the animals on several occasions with a veterinary friend of my pets' veterinarian. No, i have not witnessed the training of the animals, but i've seen enough footage and images, and read enough about it that i think i can take some people's words for it. if you honestly think that in life you have to witness anything yourself to believe it, i would have to disagree with you wholeheartedly (ex: i believe a country called Russia exists, though i've never seen it) sometimes, you trust all the evidence around a subject enough to believe it (from the animal trainers themselves, as well)

and if you don't think this kind of stuff should have been given to kids, i hope i see you on the front line of any pro-censorship gathering... in my opinion, kids see things, i believe adults have the responsibility to explain these things...(it's a case by case thing, but in this one i believe it's not something that should be censored) sometimes try to hide it, but a lot of the times explain what it is (especially to a 9 year old) if you're gonna take a kid to the circus, you'd better let that kid know that his favorite animal is being horribly mistreated. but anything for the love of the show, some would say....

[nootch]

I've never been to a circus myself, nor am I a huge fan of PETA. But I'm going to have to agree with Dan on this one: it's not a matter of the cruelty to the animals, it's about a group of people forcing an opinion (and, arguably, disturbing material) onto children. Sure, children might see an action flick on tv with people dying... but that's not REAL, it doesn't have the same emotional effect.

What if you're walking with a child and someone hands you and the child each a pamphlet with graphic photos from Sept. 11th? Context is irrelevant; it could be pro-war or pro-peace. Would you still feel it's okay for the child to see the heinous pictures? I know I wouldn't want to see it myself, whether I agree with the cause already or not... and I'm an adult (arguably).

I understand that you are passionate about this particular cause, and I commend that (two of my best friends are 100% vegan, and I have so much respect for their ability to completely change their lives like that... I know I can't)... but please consider that there is a time and a place for all things, and debating animal cruelty (via graphic imagery and strong language) to children, in front of a circus, is not one of them.

[mthrlangl]

I've never attended a circus show, i've never bought a ticket and sat in the crowd.. i have gone to visit the conditions of the animals on several occasions with a veterinary friend of my pets' veterinarian. No, i have not witnessed the training of the animals, but i've seen enough footage and images, and read enough about it that i think i can take some people's words for it. if you honestly think that in life you have to witness anything yourself to believe it, i would have to disagree with you wholeheartedly (ex: i believe a country called Russia exists, though i've never seen it) sometimes, you trust all the evidence around a subject enough to believe it (from the animal trainers themselves, as well)

That's like watching a expose on restaurnt health code violations and assuming that all restaurants are that nasty. Sure, some viloate health codes out the wazoo, but not all of them. In the same way, I'd wager that some circuses mistreat their animals, but I highly doubt that they all do. In fact, I'd personally wager that the "higher end" circuses (ie. Ringling in most cases) are better to their animals because they realize where their money comes from. Kill your animals, and you get no money, which means no circus, which means no job.

and if you don't think this kind of stuff should have been given to kids, i hope i see you on the front line of any pro-censorship gathering... in my opinion, kids see things, i believe adults have the responsibility to explain these things...(it's a case by case thing, but in this one i believe it's not something that should be censored) sometimes try to hide it, but a lot of the times explain what it is (especially to a 9 year old) if you're gonna take a kid to the circus, you'd better let that kid know that his favorite animal is being horribly mistreated. but anything for the love of the show, some would say....

I don't think anyone was for censorship. I think they were for responsibility. Would you want a rabid pro-lifer to hand your child a pamphlet of aborted babies? I'm pro-life, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see that myself. No one's debating their right to hand out fliers, but it should be up to the parent what to share (or not) with their young child.

[Diesel]

No one's debating their right to hand out fliers, but it should be up to the parent what to share (or not) with their young child.
Which is precisely why I snatched the flyer out of their hands. If their parents want to address it with them, that's fine, but it's disgusting of PETA to try to force the issue by thrusting it into the face of a child who's excited because they're going to the circus for the first time.
These kids had no idea what the circus was like. They were very excited to be seeing it for the first time, and this would have not only ruined the experience for them, but would have shown them imagry that was totally inappropriate for any child to see.
While they were under my care for the day, I would've just as soon shown them pornographic images as I would've allowed them to view the images on the PETA flyer. They were that offensive.

Again, PETA's use of shock to push the issue isn't what bothers me. I understand the tactic, and it's nothing new for them. I understand why they do it, even though I don't necessarily agree with the way they do things all the time. However, it's never appropriate to try to shock children to get your point across. Adults are fair game, but kids are impressionable, and PETA doesn't have to answer their questions, or put them to back to bed when they're having nightmares.

[Nuphoria]

For what it's worth, I'm with Dan here... we do have the right to protect those around us, especially kids, from images and experiences which could be traumatic. There's enough in the world out there already without it being added to by extremeist tactics - it's terrorism in a minor form and should not be tolerated nor pandered to. There are better ways to reach people with factual truths, and ultimately it is up to the individual to choose enlightenment! Y'all would not accept the Talibans' method of spreading the word me thinks.

Altho in essence I am against the unecessary cruelty of animals, I am also in the field of medical science and appreciate the unfortunate need for some use of animals. Ultimately, is everyone who is against such usage sticking by their principles?

Do you all avoid meat, poultry, leather, eggs, diary products, game, vaccinations, prescribed medication, personal grooming products, general toiletries, GM crops? I won't go on, but just wanted to make the point that thousands of products and food stuffs are on the market as a result of animal usage/slaughter.... look at the bigger picture, that's what enlightenment is about, perspective.

:)

[Diesel]

There's enough in the world out there already without it being added to by extremeist tactics - it's terrorism in a minor form and should not be tolerated nor pandered to. :)

I don't know that I would go that far.
One can use shock value to get a point across without being a terrorist. Terror isn't the only form of shock.

In this case, I wouldn't call PETA terrorists. I would just say that they crossed a line they shouldn't have, and their actions were very inappropriate.

Shocking? Yes.
Inappropriate? Yes.
Traumatic to children? Potentially.
Terrorism? Hardly.

[Nuphoria]

Point noted sir, but if I may give the definition of a terrorist according to the Oxford dictionary (which is the one we bow to here):

"Person attempting to further his views or to rule by a system of coercive intimidation"

Given that, it's not that far from your experience... admittedly nothing close to other horrific happenings, but still coercive, and certainly intimidating to your younger friends I think. I'll stop agreeing with you now because the pain in my knee is not making me very coherant today!

Nurse?? :no:

[Alyth]

If I may add in my :twocents:

I actually agree that it was wrong for PETA to hand out these flyers the way they did. I understand their cause and I too don't want animals treated poorly in any way. However, this is a children's event. Handing out these flyers to children that do know how to read or at least look at the pictures can possibly do more harm to them then good. They see these pictures of abused circus animals and it can scare them. This is supposed to be a family fun event not a place to get nightmeres from. It really should be left up to the parents to explain the treatments that some circus animals may get. It's a violation of parental rights to give these pictures to young children. Now, I'm not saying that children will go and abuse animals because they see a picture of it and how much attention it gets, but they may not understand the seriousness of the image they are facing as well. It is important for children to know how animals can be treated or mistreated and how seriously unfortunate these animals are but it is not up to PETA to educate young children like that.

I'd say hand out these flyers but do it with class. Hand them out to adults only and let them do all the educating to their own children.

[fasteddie]

PETA is just sick. If there are pictures of blood and guts on the flyers, it's just like handing out porn to kids. While I am all for free speech, that is fine and dandy, but give it to ADULTS. Not kids, and whoever was arguing you see sick stuff on TV, you generally don't see any blood or guts of animals on TV. PETA is stupid to be doing this, but I'm sure all they care about is publicity anyways.

[the_scarier_one]

That's like watching a expose on restaurnt health code violations and assuming that all restaurants are that nasty. Sure, some viloate health codes out the wazoo, but not all of them. In the same way, I'd wager that some circuses mistreat their animals, but I highly doubt that they all do. In fact, I'd personally wager that the "higher end" circuses (ie. Ringling in most cases) are better to their animals because they realize where their money comes from. Kill your animals, and you get no money, which means no circus, which means no job.


Unfortunately, the current codes for animal care are, in my opinion, the problem. I wouldn't say the higher end cricuses break any of the codes, that' not my point. my point would be that the codes themselves are cruel to animals. the same goes for the allowed training methods--many of the higher end circuses/shows adhere to them, but i do not feel that those laws are fair, i see them as cruel. (and the training methods are pretty common everywhere)

Nootch: I would say that there is no better place than right at the scene of the horrors to combat such a thing... (i mean, going to the source of the problem to fight it...) go to the circus.. try to reach the people that are paying for torture. that's my opinion, anyways. and i believe giving a flyer to a child is not forcing an opinion on him/her... if you don't like the flyer, do as Dan said he did (took away the flyers).

Alyth: This is supposed to be a family fun event not a place to get nightmeres from. It really should be left up to the parents to explain the treatments that some circus animals may get.
? Some cricus animals? hardly... more like most.. the training of animals such as elephants is pretty universal.... the "breaking of the spirit" has been used for centuries (not just in circuses), and hundreds of other training methods that circuses and shows use.... it's just common practice.. and it's not against the law. And i'd like to see someone explain to the animals that this is all "family fun" and not to worry, their torture is for peoples' amusement....

I guess it all comes down to the fact that i do not believe what PETA did in this circumstance was wrong. I believe that showing a child a graphic flyer is nothing.. absolutley nothing compared to the torture of living creatures. And, in my own opinion, it's sick to support a tradition so blatantly cruel. It's unecessary pain to animals for our amusement... there is something absolutely wrong with that. And again, i would hope that people don't assume my naivety in the topic at hand. this is a field of interest to me, and i've read all kinds of literature. does that make my opinion better, no, of course not, that's not what i'm saying, i just mean that i'm not pulling things out of my butt, it's not "PETA propoganda" as Dan seemed to believe earlier. I wish, at some point in my life, to start an organization completely devoted to the pushing of legislation specifically targetting the treatment and training of animals in live shows/circuses, etc. so, yea, that's kind of a tangeant... point being, looking at the situation, i personaly dont' believe PETA was wrong.

[Diesel]

To summarize what I just read (my interpretation of it anyway), better to hurt children with psychological damage than to hurt any of the poor animals.

I'm not even going to pretend that I know how to respond to that kind of logic.

[Alien]

Probably a BAD day for me to respond to something so involved, but what the heck..

While I hate animal cruelty, have donated to many animal causes personally etc. I would not give money to PETA. There anything or bust attitude is what will always hurt them and allow them not to be taken anywhere near as seriously as they could be.

Alot of people in PETA represent "screw people, save the animals' mentalities and are extremists and show that in their daily lives in 100 other ways... There are many ways they can shed light on and promote teaching against animal cruelty while being sensitive to the stomachs of young ones and not destroying property, etc.. If their attitudes changed, they'd be welcome in more scholastic arenas to discuss some of these cruelty issues that they clearly have an understanding for.

I assure you, I understand how in some situations you have to strong-arm a little bit to get points across and work for change. However, there are certain limits and there are times where those from PETA cease to be human. With PETA, it's all or nothing and while they will have some successes to show for their work and do a few good things some of the tactics are just abusive (ie. giving fliers to children to "start them out early" to be for the things PETA stands for)...

[Chris]

To summarize what I just read (my interpretation of it anyway), better to hurt children with psychological damage than to hurt any of the poor animals.

So you'd rather animals die rather than children facing minor psychological "damage"? So you regard an animals life less significant than a humans, why? At the end of the day they're still alive, do they not feel? Do they not bear children? Do they not cry!

I'm not even going to pretend that I know how to respond to that kind of logic.

[mthrlangl]

It is very, very obvious that some of you don't have children. I applaud your stance on the issues, truly, I do. But I WILL NOT be showing my three year old son pictures of tortured animals in order to explain why circuses are bad. Do I value people more than animals? Not necessarily; I hate the people who abuse animals. (I don't count using animals for food abuse, btw.) But if it comes down to an animal dying or giving my kid nightmares/psychological damage/etc.? What the **** do you think?

[the_scarier_one]

To summarize what I just read (my interpretation of it anyway), better to hurt children with psychological damage than to hurt any of the poor animals.

I'm not even going to pretend that I know how to respond to that kind of logic.

Really, that's not what i'm saying. But, whatever. I'm trying to say that i really really really don't think that the flyers would cause psychological damage to a child. i think everyone needs to take a big step back and look at everything else... if every kid got upset over a graphic depiction of truth... i think our world would end tomorrow. no, i don't think all graphic depictions of truth are harmful... in fact, i think it's a billion times more harmful to continue to shelter a kid for too much of his/her childhood (which i'm not saying your cousins were, i'm just saying in general for kids that would be bad, i would not presume to know anything about your cousins, just adding that to make sure that's clear). i really don't agree with you guys, but no, i'm not saying that it's better to hurt children psychologically than to hurt animals.... it's like comparing apples and oranges (no, i don't think i could say which is worse because they're on different levels in my mind). as people who believe in animal rights (Read: animal rights, not animal welfare... there's that little distinction) i often have to step down and say "whatever"...... it's really easy for people to hurt animals for their own amusement and it's sick.

and just to add this in: no i don't have kids, but i still don't think that *seeing* something for a short amount of time is going to eternally scar a kid.... if they see a glimpse of the real world, i'll deal with it then.

and just again... this wouldn't cause psychological *damage* take a step back........ could they be upset? sure... but no, it won't cause psychological damage.. even just slightly inadequate daycare would cause much more psychological damage than an instant with graphic photos

[mthrlangl]

if every kid got upset over a graphic depiction of truth... i think our world would end tomorrow. no, i don't think all graphic depictions of truth are harmful... in fact, i think it's a billion times more harmful to continue to shelter a kid for too much of his/her childhood

Yes, but 1) when do you consider it okay to expose a child to real-life graphic violence? and 2) shouldn't that be up the parent anyway and not some random <insert political cause> member handing out fliers? It's like letting your kids believe in Santa til they're old enough to get that he's fun, but not real. It's not up to you to expose my child to the truth. It never was, and it never will be.

[the_scarier_one]

Yes, but 1) when do you consider it okay to expose a child to real-life graphic violence? and 2) shouldn't that be up the parent anyway and not some random <insert political cause> member handing out fliers? It's like letting your kids believe in Santa til they're old enough to get that he's fun, but not real. It's not up to you to expose my child to the truth. It never was, and it never will be.

this is where i get back to my earlier statement... i hope *all* of you are right up there getting on the backs of every news station, every homeless person on the street, etc.... kids see it... a lot of times it's not a parent's choice.... and we can try to make sure nothing ever gets through to a kid, both the good and the bad... or we can try to deal with the bad when it comes (that doesn't always mean explaining it....).... i don't mean that a parent should have no control... i just mean that there's a point at which there is no control... and people can fight to gain control over all aspects of a kids life, or deal with that lack of control... but that's just my opinion (i guess that was my answer to your second question)

to the first... i don't think there's set age... i would assume there are different times for different things.

[Diesel]

So you'd rather animals die rather than children facing minor psychological "damage"? So you regard an animals life less significant than a humans, why? At the end of the day they're still alive, do they not feel? Do they not bear children? Do they not cry!

I'm not even going to pretend that I know how to respond to that kind of logic.

IOW, do I value a human life and suffering over an animal's life and suffering? Absolutely.
If it comes down to me dying or a cow, I'm eating hamburgers and steak that night.

I'm not, in any way, endorsing animals dying needlessly, or suffering needlessly, but if I have to choose between a human life or an animals, I choose the human every time.

If it comes down to a child being traumatized, minor or major, versus a bunny's feelings, someone's going to be enjoying hasenpfeffer and 4 good keychains.

Take that to mean what you will. I disagree with your stance on this issue, and at this point, I simply agree to disagree. But neither you, nor PETA, will ever be able to convince me to value the life and well-being of an animal over that of a human child.

[Chris]

We'll agree to disagree then. :)

One question: Is it traumatic to a child to tell them Santa doesn't exist? That's traumatic times too.. ;)

[Diesel]

One question: Is it traumatic to a child to tell them Santa doesn't exist? That's traumatic times too.. ;)
For some children, yes. For others, no. It depends on how the parents deliver the information to the children.
Which is, I think, the point that's being lost. It's up to the parents, not PETA, to make their own children aware of these issues.

[fasteddie]

I do not condone needless torture, but animals (dogs in particular) are great in medical research. Many of these pets that research facilities use were going to be euthanized anyways (because of lack of space and no one adopts them). I'd rather use them for medical research than have them die. Many great medical advances have come from using animals in research. Yes, they are sometimes guinea pigs, but better animals being used as guinea pigs than human guinea pigs.

[the_scarier_one]

I disagree with your stance on this issue, and at this point, I simply agree to disagree. But neither you, nor PETA, will ever be able to convince me to value the life and well-being of an animal over that of a human child.

i would agree to disagree as well.. but i'm really not saying that someone should view an animal life as more important than a human's....so yea, i agree to disagree... but i just want to make sure my words aren't twisted or anything (though i know you probably weren't directly refering to me)

[Diesel]

To clarify, when I said "neither you, nor PETA", it was not a direct reference, but a general one to refer to those who are in disagreement with me on this issue, since I was responding to the group.

Sorry if that was misconstrued. ;)

[mthrlangl]

this is where i get back to my earlier statement... i hope *all* of you are right up there getting on the backs of every news station, every homeless person on the street, etc.... kids see it... a lot of times it's not a parent's choice.... and we can try to make sure nothing ever gets through to a kid, both the good and the bad... or we can try to deal with the bad when it comes (that doesn't always mean explaining it....).... i don't mean that a parent should have no control... i just mean that there's a point at which there is no control... and people can fight to gain control over all aspects of a kids life, or deal with that lack of control... but that's just my opinion (i guess that was my answer to your second question)

to the first... i don't think there's set age... i would assume there are different times for different things.

Obviously, you can't censor or control everything, and I wouldn't even if I could. But I should be able to keep some jackass from handing my kid a flyer about dead animals against my will. I realize he's going to see things I would prefer he never have to deal with. That's a fact of life. But it's up to me - not you, not PETA, not my parents - to decide how to deal with unpleasant things that crop up.

Again, obviously, this is a cause that you feel strogly about. So if you want to raise your kids to know about it from the time they can crawl, great. However, it's not one of my causes, and I would prefer not to deal with it until I think Jason can understand it. Every parent has the right to shield their children up to a certain point.

[Alyth]

It's interesting. This argument went full circle. Went from who has the right to expose a child to these types of images to whether the cause of PETA is humane to valuing human life over an animal's life back to who has the right to shield a child from these types of images. Bottom line, no one has the right to force something on someone that does not want to hear/see it.

No one can deny that animal abuse and needless research is going on and that is something we can all feel differently about and maybe even make our voices heard about the situation and the companies that do this type of animal treatment has already chosen to block it out, but they are adults and can do that. A child on the other hand is handed a flier, one that has an awful picture of a dog that looks quite similar to his pet dog, Fifi, and is now faced with seeing something that just doesnt' match the world he grew up in. No Fifi looks like hes got pins sticking out of his back, blood all over the place, or maybe cut up and in a wheelchair for dogs. Or maybe just emaciated. That is a picture of something familiar and will cause the child distress and the parent had no say on when to introduce such awful human behaviors. Familiar pictures put into such a nasty image can and will scare a child and he most likely will not understand why he's just been given this picture. Even after his parents explain this he can not add to the changing of this cause but to realise how his dog Fifi could be used as a research lab dog and be cut up and spit out! These awful images I did see on the tv and reading material and I will have to agree. I wish I never did. It scared me. I would have prefer that it was introduced to me in a civil manner like from my mother or something and not on a tv show. :no:

[trashnmore]

Listed by the FBI.
I live in Norfolk, where the World head quarters building is, i see what they
do in the area.
The average person would be doing time for the so called revenge rescues/
missions they pull off.
They dictate to local restaurants about what they better sell, as well as
what people want to see ( the circus )
Send them your chickin bones, your pork chop bones, and other meaty scraps, mail to: Actual address

1219 Redgate Avenue/ 1223 Redgate Avenue
apts. # 1-4
Norfolk, Va. 23507

[Panache87]

OK... that was just wrong of the PETA to be handing out such graphic flyers to young chidren. Couldn't they have just given them to the adults? Kids don't need to see that!! I think it's up to the parents to decide what their children should be subject to, not the PETA. That way, awful things like that can be explained tactfully to the kids, not just sudenly forced upon them not knowing what to make of it. That scares kids! By having issues like that explained to them by a parent, they probably won't be as scared about it (well, of course they'd be scared, but just not a much as if it were forced upon them)
Diesel, you did the right thing by taking the flyers away from the children, especially not being their parent and not knowing what their parents allow them to be subject to. I would've done the same thing. That was wrong of the PETA to do!

trashnmore- what an idea! That would make a statement! :lol:

[GINA]

just throwing in more wood to the fire...

while sitting on the metro the other day, i noticed an ad on the wall from PETA. there was a picture of a rat and a young boy in the hospital. though this is not word for word, the basic message said that they would rather save the life of the rat then use it to cure cancer for the child. they said that even if taking the life of this one rat would find a cure for cancer, they would not support it. i also do not promote "cruelty" to animals, but if the short life of a rat is sacrificed to save hundreds of thousands of human lives, i'm for that.

this ad just seems a little irrational to me.

[monsieurjohn]

i'd like to see that ad, because the way you describe it it doesn't sound like they could possibly make it make sense, as you said.... fools! heh