PETA Blast Michael Moore

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19079604/


PETA has a message for Michael Moore: You’re the Sicko.

The animal-rights group is blasting the filmmaker as a hypocrite for criticizing the U.S. healthcare system in his new documentary, “Sicko,” because they say he’s in such poor health himself.

“There’s an elephant in the room, and it is you,” PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote in a letter to Moore

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Ingrid, shove it up your ass!

http://blog.peta.org/archives/PETA_letter_to_Michael_Moore.pdf

Figured this should be tossed out there before the usual shitstorm ensues. It's already high drama in GD.

...that Moore said very publicly recently (before PETA's idiotic letter) that he was dedicating himself to losing weight and getting healthier.

They've butted heads with Moore a number of times. PETA's job is to draw attention to animal issues, albeit sometimes in not the cleanest ways.

I like them both, and I hope they both get attention from this.

See: pointless grandstanding (AND nasty).

PETA needs to shove this one up its collective ass (and issue an apology to Moore).

"...although sometimes in not the cleanest ways." And THAT is why PETA does itself more harm than good on so many issues.

They do themselves an injustice by behaving like self-righteous little zealots not all that far removed in behavior from the anti-choice crowd. My animal donations go to the ASPCA, they do some good rather then spending money trying to ram their own eating habits down other peoples throats.

places her right up there with Ms. Bullshit and Hatefest Monger of The Year, Ann Coulter.

Like Coulter, Newkirk has one gag - being outrageous. It was old 10 years ago.

I'm all for reducing meat consumption, but ignoring the many healthy omnivores makes them sound a bit silly here. This ploy of theirs is tacky, though commendably gentle in tone.

More glory grubbing and spotlight grabbing by PETA. :eyes:

The thread in GD is already a 5 alarmer.


on edit: using the "elephant in the room" is a crude double entendre (unless Newkirk made the remark innocently, which seems unlikely in context.) The letter appears to be a PR stunt to use the glow from someone else's spotlight to give light to a different issue. The film is about health care, not diet and health.

and this was my reaction when I saw it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHjFxJVeCQs

I :loveya: ronnyk.

:loveya:

Perfect. I need to keep that video saved forever for similar purposes.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm thinking about making one of my own.

:rofl:

I saw him on a talkshow discussing how he decided he should become more healthy.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2007/06/michael-moores-.html

THIS IS HUGHHHHHH!!!!!1!!

and a waste of PETA's time. It amazes me that they expect people to take them seriously when they pull stunts like this.

Hopefully not a nanosecond of distraction from Sicko.

edit: And I'll add incredibly hurtful to Michael Moore. He's not a "pretty" boy. But he's all heart and passion and intelligence, and that's what makes him mucho attractive. The fact that he's now on a diet from his experiences with this movie only adds to his charm, it doesn't bestow it or replace it.

Anybody who thinks PETA is doing anything other than screwing up here can kiss my ass.

I try really hard to respect PETA since I share many of their concerns. They make it difficult for me to support them with things like this.

He says he now walks 30 minutes daily and has "introduced substances" to his diet "known as fruits and vegetables."

:headbang:
rocknation

Being a vegetarian does not make one healthy. Learning healthy eating habits and healthy ways of exercising are the important tasks. Guess what - vegetarians can be unhealthy and omnivores can be healthy (and vice versa, of course)! Isn't it crazy?!

Calling an overweight person "an elephant" is sickening. Personally, that offends the hell out of me.

Of course my blood pressure, cholesterol and blood tests are normal as of 3 weeks ago, and my trainer gives me a helluva workout, but it's possible not to eat any animal products and still be fat. I know at least 2 vegans who are, too.

I'm a fat vegetarian. I'm working on it, but it will be a long time before I regain my girlish figure no matter regardless of whether I'm vegan or omnivore. It shouldn't, but it hurts me personally when I hear another overweight person being called names.

On the other hand, Michael Moore and PETA both fall into the same category as my family. I don't always agree with everything they say or do, but I love them anyway.

They can believe what they want to believe, they act within their own personal moral code, eat what they want to eat, and I don't give a damn. The minute they try to convert someone (or me), or say "their way is "better", then they cross the line and are open for criticism.

They COULD have released a memo praising Sicko, then launching into a litany of health reasons to become vegetarian, without calling Michael Moore an elephant. But at least they aren't mocking a kid whose arm was bitten off by a shark this time.

I'm vegetarian and an animal rights proponent, and I feel that PETA has caused much more harm than good for the movement, exactly because of this. There are ways to get attention without mocking people or their suffering. That way, people either like you or tune you out, leaving themselves open for further suggestion down the road. PETA's way is to preach to their choir and insult everyone not in their choir, so they get their devotees all fired up and they make goddamned sure that the majority who doesn't already agree with them hates them for all eternity and vows never to do anything PETA suggests. PETA acts like it invented vegetarianism and popularized the animal rights movement, but I believe we'd be a lot further along without them, or maybe with them if they'd have focused on a positive message.

This Moore memo (and this isn't the first time they've mocked Moore's weight) is benign compared to their normal crap, but it's typical PETA. It gets attention, it gets supporters all happy, and it turns off everyone else.

Although I eat meat and wear leather, I do try to consider that our treatment of animals could be greatly improved and try to make decisions based on things that are more humane. (Like organic products, using products not tested on animals, etc.).

The Holocaust was an amazingly tragic occurance in history and to compare their cause to the Holocaust was just totally not cool.

I think there are other pro-animal groups who present the issue in a more rational matter

The Holocaust/slavery ad campaign was total bullshit and didn't help the cause at all.

I realize that perhaps I'm a bit selfish treating humans better than animals. However, I think that PETA can find better approaches of getting folks on board to support their issues with something other than offensive shock value.

BTW - I remember when Michael Steele, former Lt. Gov of Maryland and losing repuke candidate for senate in 2006, tried the holocaust comparison with stem-cell research. The made the Top-10 Conservative Idiots for that one - since he did it in front of a group fo Jewish Business Leaders.

From your link...

"Meanwhile, Fran Drescher continues to mull a run for congress. “I’ve been approached…I have until the end of the summer to decide if I want to do it,” the “Nanny” star tells Ladies Home Journal."

Awesome!

What the fuck is PETA's point?

If PETA wants to put out their message, then perhaps they should fund their own documentary, and not piggy back on "Sicko" which will have a hard enough time as it is...

On PRI's "Here and Now" their "Health Correspondent" decided to boost himself with a "Let's debunk 'Sicko'" report. Unfortunately for him, he was slightly reminiscent of "Global Warming Deniers."

Moore: 1
Here and now: 0

I read the PETA letter - I don't see anywhere where PETA called Moore a hypocrite, nor where they "blasted" him.

But the PETA bashers need only the thinnest excuse to get a bashing orgy going.

an organization who is so notoriously judgmental of others should not be particularly thin skinned when criticized.

Bashing is something else entirely. And you should know the difference.

Harassment is what vegetarians get from many, many meat-eaters. It's very rare to see it go in the other direction.

you should know this personally.

how often when we eat out do we go to vegan spots vs. restaurants in which meat is offered??


just because i dont like peta please dont say i am against vegetarians. so long as you dont impose your dietary choice on me, what do i care what you eat. peta is a political organization and i have a right to criticize their tactics.

In general meat-eaters are far less considerate. For example, I've never worked with coworkers who were willing to consider a vegetarian restaurant, even though they could eat everything on the menu. They've insisted on having company paid lunches and dinners at steak-houses even though they knew there was nothing on the menu I could eat.

I've had total strangers overhear me asking waitresses about the ingredients in a restaurant and insist on coming over to give me their opinion on eating meat, and on vegetarians.

This idea that vegitarians are the ones that are rude to meat-eaters is a total myth.

Yes, you have a right to criticise PETA, and I have a right to defend them.

you can defend them to kingdom come, i still think their tactics are more than off putting. i find a lot of what they do, to be borderline immoral and sexist.

I haven't had that experience, but I'm not a vegetarian. Many of my friends are vegetarians and I always let them choose the restaurants when we eat out together. When I go to "pot luck" events, I always bring a vegetarian-friendly dish so that everyone can enjoy it. My former co-workers were extremely sensitive to vegetarian food needs when we ate lunch as a group or had company sponsored events (I worked in academia). I'm guessing your co-workers were looking to eat at places where they could get the most bang for the buck (since they weren't paying) while assuming you'd be able to eat a salad. That sucks.

My vegetarian friends have never experienced the kind of rudeness you have, but they often deal with people who just don't think about someone not eating meat (out of ignorance, not hostility). But, I have to say that one of my very good vegetarian friends spends a great deal of time trying to get me to stop eating meat. She sends emails, has a sort of snarky sig line (in her email account) about "eating animals" and often brings it up in conversation. She doesn't eat animals and I respect that. Unfortunately, I wish she'd give me a break and realize that her choice isn't mine.

In addition, just for the record, she is very overweight (as am I) because she doesn't eat a healthy diet. She dislikes many vegetables and doesn't like to cook, so she eats a diet of mostly cheese, potatoes, bread, veggie burgers, and pizza. Oh yeah, and ice cream. I wish she'd expand her menu to include better choices but I can't choose for her.

Edit: spelling

When a fundamentalist christian group went around creating scenes advocating their belief against pre-martial sex, what is the reaction you give them? Probably pretty negative, right? Why do YOU personally respond negatively to having someone enforce their moral code on you? I'm really interested. Then tell me how that is different than PETA and peoples reaction to them and why they are wrong with their reactions?

I'm really curious how you juggle that in your mind.

So far they've sent a letter. And this is to someone who has bashed Vegeterians publicly in the past. So of the two, PETA comes across better on this one.

Peta advocates. They use publicity to do that. Almost any vegetarian you talk to can tell you all about getting harassed my meat eaters. So, if you're really all that concerned about mental juggling, look at the meat-eaters who complain about militant vegetarians.

Are you sure we are talking about the same group? Do you really want to go down THAT path?

Here is the point, no one, not even you, likes to have someone else's view of morality shoved upon them. It riles people up. If you could step back a bit from your defense of PETA, you would see that. If you don't like it, if you are against meat eaters doing it, then you are hypocritical to support a group that behaves that way.

I'm not defending anyone harassing vegetarians, that is wrong too. I wouldn't defend a group that had the opposite aims of PETA, doing similar tactics, because you can't enforce moral codes on others that don't believe in them.

It's really that simple and unemotional. If you do, then there is the juggling act I was refering to.

responsibility was immoral.


implying that some people would just magically be better if they were vegetarians.

vegetarians get cancer too, if they dont have health care they suffer just like those of us who are meat eaters.

I'm no fan of PETA, but health in this country - the bad health - IS partly (I disagree with PETA's "big") an issue of personal responsibility and how people choose to eat and the lifestyle they choose.

PETA clearly go overboard, though. They come across like vegetarianism is the new One True Holy Grail that will cure not only all human ills, but the world's ills.

I'm actually kind of surprised at how mildly worded this letter was. I expect more vitriol and pretend science/logic and overwhelming hyper emotionalistic claptrap from PETA.

This letter is actually pretty reasonable, barring the few faults it has, for a PETA product.

I support PETA. I think they are a very necessary organization and they do a lot of good work.

with 'personal responsibility' and being vegetarian is morally bankrupt.

I don't like it when people bash PETA no matter what they do (I support them on some issues, don't on others), but I also don't like seeing people engage in a kneejerk defense of everything they do.

Have we reached a point of such extremes around here where they can't be criticized at all? And yes, I'll also help you go after (rhetorically) those who gratuitously attack PETA.

I have plenty of disagreements with PETA, but if I posted any of them the threads would turn into more nit-picking in which PETA is always wrong. When one side attacks with absolutes, you can't defend with nuance. The rabid hatred runs deep and doesn't seem to allow for any compromise. So the arguments get polarized. Either you support PETA or you don't.

"Either you're with us, or you're against us."

Rubbish. Complete rubbish (on BOTH sides).

Sad.

There is always room for middle ground, and that, ThomCat, is the ONLY way you're going to get those on the kneejerk anti-PETA side to come around. Either you engage in debate--which is ultimately productive, no matter how frustrating it can be in the short term--or you just stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at each other.

When people jump on a thread comparing PETA to terrorists, insisting that PETA is a just attention whoring (when they're simply advocating for thier issues) and posting nothing but totally over the top attacks, you go in there and wisely show us how to turn it into a reasoned debate. :eyes:

Simply going in there and saying "You're wrong. I support them because they do good work" is an absolutist statement, and there is nothing unreasonable about that.

And that's what I find unfortunate (and to re-emphasize: I find it sad that people on both sides do so).

I also agree with Thomcat that this is so polarized that it's hard to hold that middle ground when you're surrounded by people who so attached to those positions. A middle ground post on this topic is usually ignored.

country, how can you be surprised if someone calls this attention whoring?

peta is riding on michael mores documentary to get attention.


not to mention the letter implies that a large number of us would be just fine if we stopped eating meat. yeah, cant afford those anti-virals, have a veggie burger instead. :eyes:

PETA has never suggested that being a vegetarian is a subsitute for health care. And even suggesting that they do is a deliberate smear attempt. Dislike any group you want, but be honest about it.

I've seen a number of people say that they don't support everything PETA does, and those posts get ignored and used as proof that even PETA supporters don't support PETA.

That's why I've stopped posting about what I like/don't like about PETA and now simply say that I support them. But I know other people still give it a try repeatedly. It's rare to see any of the anti-PETA people be that reasonable.

And extremists are always dangerous, whatever their cause.

Note as tactfully as I put it, but possibly more accurate.

As I said above, it PETA wants to make a public point, let them make their own documentary.

Not all the ones I know. Two in particular are obese. So, just because you're a vegetarian does not mean you don't have issues with overeating and eating the wrong things.

In other words.. their letter is complete bullshit - as usual.

somehow negates all the evidence that meat-based diets are unhealthy? :eyes:

I said eating the wrong foods that are not meat can still lead to obesity and health issues. Someone who is a diabetic or at risk of being so should not eat sugar based foods - if they do knowing it can be harmful to them then they are the same as someone who eats other things that are not good for them such as too much meat, fats etc...


In other words - just because you are a vegetarian does NOT mean you have superior self control and eat ONLY things that are good for you.

Also, I do not believe eating meat in moderation is any worse than eating too much of a non meat food that may also hurt the system - that will be something we'll have to agree to disagree on.

but who said it does? You're throwing out a red herring.

Promoting a vegetarian diet would reduce a great number of health problems, and that is exactly what PITA claims.

They called Moore on his weight and associated issues. Why is what I'm saying a red herring? :shrug:

I have NOT said eating less or no meat is not a wise move. I brought up the fact that even if one does NOT eat meat does not mean they make the right food choices - that is all.

As it pertains to obesity, it says that vegetarians are "not as likely to be obese" as meat eaters. I know heavy vegetarians. Hell, I know a couple overweight vegans.

One fault I will find with the letter is that it suggests that vegetarians weigh 20% less than meat eaters. I think that's a comparison that can't be properly put forth, as weight isn't always an indicator of health, and can very widely based on a bodyshape, genetics, activity, etc.

They will never get any support from me. :puke:

Honestly, someone should tape her mouth shut until she stops spewing shit.