Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!


You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!


Maps and Figures

"Hitler or Coulter?" Quiz
Map1 - Teen Pregnancy
Map2 - Incarceration
Map3 - Homicide Rates
Map4 - Drop-out Rates
Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates
Map6 - Driving Distances
Map7 - Energy Use
Map8 - Gonorrhea!
Map9 - Tax Burden
Map10 - State GDP
Map11 - DHS funding
Map12 - Adult Illiteracy.
Map13 - Abortion Bans:
Map14 - ER Quality
Map15 - Hospital Quality
Map16 - Coal Burners
Map 17 - Infant Mortality
Map 18 - Toxic Waste
Map 19 - Obesity
Map 20 - Poverty
Map 21 - Occupational safety
Map 22 - Traffic deaths
Map 23 - Divorce
Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work
Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work
Give Up Shopping guide

Email



link to xml feed Subscribe with Bloglines

Google


www

giveupblog

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

New Peta Ad Campaign
Shelley at Retrospectacle points us to PETA's new ad campaign, including this mostly confusing image.



Now, Amanda Marcotte I think really nailed PETA on the head when she compared them to Operation Rescue. Think about how many of her criteria for how PETA was the same kind of organization fit this stupid ad (which also claims that chickens are as smart as dogs and young humans).

1.They think grossing you out is an argument.
2. They think women are just bodies to be manipulated for their ends instead of full human beings. (see their State of the Union ad)
3.Both exploit tender young women as cheap labor for their cause.
4.Both prefer to advocate for "victims" that are silent and therefore can be projected onto. (I mean chickens? c'mon)
5.Both have a strong, irrational loathing for science.(chickens are as smart as kids e.g., as well as every argument I've ever seen the ARAs make on science blogs in which they explain to scientists how our jobs can be done with computers rather than animals and animal products)
6.Neither seems to care that much about the real life well-being of the objects of their advocacy as they claim to care. (Peta kills about 60% of the animals they capture and have done some hysterically poorly planned rescue operations in which they "free" animals only to have them all die of exposure)

Beyond these things, can anyone explain to me how this campaign even just makes logical sense? What about making you think of your parents having sex is even relevant to the discussion?

Labels: ,


6 Comments:

Jessica Smith said...

since we don't know the age of the stick figures, i don't think we can apply argument (3). otherwise, you're on target (and the initial blog post about PETA was very convincing). however, i like that as long as we're comparing meat-eating to parental sex, the woman's on top.

7:17 PM, February 20, 2007

 
Ted said...

Both have a strong, irrational loathing for science.(chickens are as smart as kids e.g., as well as every argument I've ever seen the ARAs make on science blogs in which they explain to scientists how our jobs can be done with computers rather than animals and animal products)

I'm not understanding the argument. Is degree of stupidity the criteria which allows for classification as food?

If that's the case, many people would fall into the category, which may be the intent, I suppose. They're too stupid to vote, too stupid to think, so might as well eat them?

Why don't we eat dolphins (we do but it's generally frowned upon)?

Why don't we eat 100 year old turtles? Is it because they're old and chewy?

What about this 990lb squid that was just caught? Oh, sure that's good eats for a couple villages, but I'm thinking it should go into that category of 100 year old turtles -- how long does it take for a squid to get to 990 lbs?

Methinks that the strong, irrational loathing for science is more of a strong, rational loathing for scientists. And incidentally, I think it's an error to confuse science with scientists when addressing people's dislike for science when they just don't care for elitist shitheads in particular.

I have no brook with science, but the elitist, self-congratulatory scientists -- that's another matter altogether -- and partly because said scientists think that they are teh science.

10:32 AM, February 22, 2007

 
Rev. Dr. said...

Ted,
It's not a rational hate of scientists, seriously (although I think I'm detecting a bit of hate from you).

Consistently PETA, ALF, the PCRM etc., diminish and dismiss basic scientist as somehow not worthwhile while totally miscontruing how science is actually done. Not only do they fail to understand how science works, with basic science supporting the more clinical and high-end stuff, but they demean and mischaracterize biology as a whole.

There is a general feeling that all of biology is just of no value, an idea reinforced by their mantras of "animals teach us nothing of human biology", and "if it doesn't lead immediately to a cure it isn't worthwhile research." Once you've heard these arguments a few hundred times you realize they have a contempt for biology, they don't understand how it's done, they don't understand where all bioligical reagents come from, and if it were up to them, all scientists would do is spend their days sampling different chemicals on humans to see what they did. Scary but true. Take a look at the pandagon posts comments to see what I'm talking about. Same shit every time, and it's just so ludicrous.

2:14 PM, February 22, 2007

 
Ted said...

(although I think I'm detecting a bit of hate from you).

Don't misread too much. I think there's a difference in degrees between loathing, contempt and hate. And each has a place.

The reason I find this interesting at all is I want to understand the social interaction between scientists, lay people (tradesmen if you will) and implementation of science as public policy. In other words -- do scientists decide public policy, or is it left to the ordinary joes.

It's more of a long term project where I set up a hide up in threes and watch the bonobos come, go and rub genitals through the spyglasses....and it's not that I'm actually taking notes - it's just a vacation/pastime and usually is more original entertainment than TV would be.

Consistently PETA, ALF, the PCRM etc., diminish and dismiss basic scientist...

Is that a freudian slip?

Not only do they fail to understand how science works, ... mischaracterize biology as a whole.

There is a general feeling that all of biology is just of no value, an idea reinforced by their mantras of ... they have a contempt for biology, they don't understand how it's done, ... Scary but true. Take a look at the pandagon posts comments to see what I'm talking about. Same shit every time, and it's just so ludicrous.


I'm not in this category of hating science. They're just people with a public policy agenda that's somewhat askew, and it benefits them to minimize the impact of science or the worth of it.

It's more than a fair fight because like you say, they are deluded and myopic in their world view and understanding, and basically come to the battle of wits unarmed.

I on the other hand believe strongly in a division of labor and interests for a society to work -- since we all can't be scientists -- who'd wash the dishes and unstop clogs? -- the interaction between the educated and the employed is -- shall I say -- entertaining.

You watch the Simpson's right?

Bart: I was so bored, I cut the ponytail off of the guy in front of us. (Holds it to the back his head) Look at me, I'm a grad student. I'm 30 years old and made six hundred dollars last year.

Marge: Bart! Don't make fun of grad students. They just made a terrible life choice.


Don't take it the wrong way man. There's no hate, just misplaced bemusement.

6:05 PM, February 22, 2007

 
Another Anonymous Poster said...

This post has been removed by the author.

4:05 PM, February 23, 2007

 
Another Anonymous Poster said...

Dude. That Simpsons line is awesome. It's definitely going up on the wall of lab.

4:06 PM, February 23, 2007

 

Post a Comment

<< Home