PETA asks Phish to change it's name to.... "Sea Kittens"

Give it up for... SEA KITTEN?
PETA asks Phish to change name in solidarity with seafood
By Sally Pollak, Free Press Staff Writer • June 20, 2009


What could be more cuddly than Phish?

Four hippie rockers, made in Vermont, who inspire hugs, happiness and good times in their hordes of devoted fans.


Apparently, they’re not cuddly enough for PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The organization wants Phish to change its name — for this weekend’s shows in Wisconsin — to Sea Kitten.

In this way, people might come to view fish the way they see cats and dogs, as smart and sensitive animals worthy of care and protection, said Ashley Byrne, a PETA senior campaigner based in Washington, D.C.

“We felt that fish needed an image overall,” she said of the animals, not the band. “They don’t receive the sympathy of the more cuddly animals. We thought that by rebranding fish as sea kittens, they might receive the compassion they deserve.”

<snip>

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090620/NEWS/90619024

OK, I'm convinced.

They did the Pro Choice/Pro Life bullshit ad campaign after Tiller was murdered. Aren't they fucking clever? Assholes.

They are all about themselves.

they are terrible.

because i'm not aware of it. thanks.

Wait--I take that back...and apologize for insulting the noble pig.

http://www.kansas.com/946/story/836204.html

WICHITA - A national animal rights group plans to erect billboards in Wichita urging people on both sides of the abortion debate to go vegetarian.

One version of the billboard says, "Pro-Life? Go Vegetarian." The other says, "Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian." Both feature a photo of three baby chicks.

Lindsay Rajt, campaign manager for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said the billboards were prompted by the recent shooting death of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was killed Sunday at his church.

"The discussion of the value of life is front and center right now in the public conversation," Rajt said.

"We think we would be irresponsible if we don't talk about how we're all guilty of extreme cruelty to animals every time we sit down to a meal that includes meat."

They just need a little lemon :9

But yuh know, I guess lemon would work.

They are kind of embarrassing.

and as though a band that's been around for umpteen years is going to suddenly change its name, which is essentially a "brand," to something else that has no relationship with its image, history, fans, style of music, or anything else.

duh. these people are really useful. NOT

cut it out.

Who can possibly take these people seriously? Who keeps giving them money?

Is PETA trying to get attention by being so outrageous so that every time they do something they think is has to be more outrageous than the last time.










Either that or they'rereally that stupid.

And it has nothing to do with sea creatures?

cruelty out there......

Sometimes, I think they have a sense of humor though, as in this case.

cruelty to animals.

and combat animal cruelity, it isn't their fault that people don't see that their outrageousness on some things is exactly what it is humor. People take them far too seriously when they do stuff like this.

Honestly it is embarrassing to see people take things so seriously when PETA is obviously using humor.

They aren't part of the fight against animal cruelty, they're part of the problem.

PETA does not "murder animals rather than finding unwanted pets new homes."

PETA offers humane euthanization services for communities that cannot afford humane euthanization. The animals are already unadoptable; PETA gives them a decent death. Regardless of what assholes like the CCF say, PETA is not a shelter or an adoption service. They are the last resort.

The way that we treat animals sucks, but that's not PETA's fault.

If you don't understand that unwanted animals deserve better than a .22 to the face, then you're part of the problem.

Every time they pull this shit makes me less likely to support anything they fucking support.

peta does good works but the stupid ass statements makes them look ridiculous

Similar to that televised epic battle between Obama and that fly.

Every time PETA does anything they get a ton of free press from the outrage junkies. It's awesome to watch, and even though I don't always agree with them, it's fun watching them play people the way they do.

using outrageous humor to get attention but most people don't get it...like you. They do a lot of advocate for animals I fully support them and think they are funny, lighten up.

personally if PETA say something i automatically tune it out like the majority of people so they need a new way of doing stuff.

Just sayin'...

It was actually fun to watch the Governor's office pitch a fit about it.

I had a blast catching fish just the other day. They were very aggressive and hard fighters. They are now filleted and in the refrigerator. I am about to put some in some hot canola oil. And I could give a shit what some weirdos like PETA think.

There are several victories for each year. You just need to click on the appropriate link.

http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp

Most Annoying People on Earth

;)

because every time you think they set the lunatic bar they seem to be able to outdo themselves.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

is not cool, its downright creepy.

It's not like "Phish" is even an anti-fish, or pro-cruelty name.

always wondered why they would call themselves after urine, now i understand .

What we don't love are attention whores who fuck up their own cause with outrageous bullshit, like PETA does.

SEA KITTENS? You must be shitting me. Equating juvenile cats with hagfish?

I love good parody.

:rofl:

I hope you have something pretty solid and specific to back up such a claim.

Yeah, lots of different takes on it, here's one: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Don't like that site (There's good reason not to)? Here's 144,000 others:
http://www.google.com/search?q=PETA+kills+animals

And your post said that they were killed so that they couldn't be pets. That's pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation.

You should research a bit further rather than embarrassing yourself further.

..and yes, as I had noted, there's reasons to suspect the site.

The "reality of the situation", however, is that PETA is not a no-kill organization, and has a philospohical stance where killing animals is justified, because they equate keeping pets (or co-habiting with animals) with slavery, and they think death is better (and cheaper) than slavery.

I would suspect that the adoptions that *do* happen are in line with their ethical stance, where animals would lack leashes, closed travelling areas, etc.

No, PETA is not a no-kill organization. Do you have anything suggesting they ever said they were? PETA, as a shelter, is a last resort shelter where euthanasia by a humane method is performed instead of allowing neanderthals to execute unwanted pets in a gas chamber or via a drunken .22 to the head.

So, I ask you, if an unwanted pet is to be put down, what's better? Humane euthanasia by caring folks, or an ugly painful death in a gas chamber or a slow death because a bullet missed by "just that much" huh?

I LOVE that you state "there's reason to suspect the site" yet you posted it anyway. How incredible to "suspect" right wing douchebags yet post it here on DU.

PETA doesn't have to kill the animals, and spend the money on their self-promotion and publicity stunts instead.

That's what they chose to do, though.

...and it's not just "right wing douchebags" who find this practice vile and morally reprehensible. That's why I tossed in the google search.

Support no-kill shelters. They need the help.

As far as your ignorance on PETA and pets, I really don't know what to say.

You didn't answer the question about your preference in re humane euthanasia v a horrid death in a gas chamber. How...unshocking.

Your understanding of limited intake shelters (no-kill, to you) is probably pretty limited in and of itself, so I'll spare you to leave you in your delightful little world.

Yes, I'm completely ignorant of PETA and ignorant of pets. :rofl: That's a good one.

I love it when they don't know when to quit.

It keeps good threads going, and exposes others to a variety of views though. That's a good thing, in my book, for all views in a thread.

That being said, though, I'll respond to a few implied questions.

Yes, I think if an organization kills animals, they deserve scorn for pretending to be about "animal rights". Murder is the ultimate denial of rights.

As far as equating the different ways animals are murdered, I don't buy the argument that any murder is humane, so injection deaths are just as reprehensible to me as a gas chamber, or a bullet.

Here's what peta says about pets:
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

'we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed'

They're against it on general principle, but accept it as a "less evil" thing to do, considering that so many exist now.

So an organization that has animals pushed upon them because another "beautiful" organization is limited intake and therefore has to euthanize animals, they deserve scorn?

You ever pushed a needle? You ever put an animal down because of space because the "beautiful people" at the limited intake dumped that animal on you? Bet you haven't. Bet you didn't know that limited intake shelters simply shift the killing on others, as beautiful as you may think they are.

As a former Board of Director of an open intake, high volume shelter and the founder of a rescue that's had to face this, I accept your scorn. But only because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Also, since any "murder" of an animal is inhumane to you, congrats on being a vegan like me.

No, you're right. You don't know when to quit.

If an organization has animals "pushed" on them, because of limited intake (your term), and they then kill those animals, I think they deserve as much scorn as anybody else who was taking the animals out back and killing them.

Even more so if the organization claims to be helping animals.

No, I have never "pushed a needle", or justified it, by blaming others.

I thank you for accepting my scorn. I am saddened that there's a gulf of understanding between us.

I am not a vegan, and have killed many an animal in my life. Never drugged one to death because keeping it was inconvenient, or would affect my budget. While I have personally raised, killed and butchered goats, chickens, turkeys, and rabbits, I did not do so for bureaucratic reasons, and their bodies were not turned into useless ash.

Just don't get it. Let me know when you grow up and understand the dynamics. Until then, enjoy your beautiful, happy, shiny little world.

I recommend actually volunteering somewhere and getting involved. It's pretty enlightening. Until then...

Yeah, I have no desire to understand the dynamics of killing Jews and Gypsies and Homosexuals and Slavs and Intellectuals, when there's a constant influx of "new ones", and limited resources.

I have no desire to be "enlightened" to such rationalizing.

edit:typo

I have no words.

The best ways to murder a man for being Black.
The best ways to torture a Mulsim or Jew.
The best ways to make a child sexually compliant to the whims of an adult.

Some things are so reprehensible as to need no more thought.

That is just a simply brilliant post.

I'm a computer science major, and your logic is flawed. Well, actually, it sucks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Pucker up, shithead." I will have to remember that.

...my tickets for the August show at Merriweather Post are still good - they can call themselves ShamalamaDingDong.

Cannot wait to see the boys back in action after sooo long. Of course, have to take an extra day off of work since I cannot recover from that kind of fun very quickly anymore.

Getting old ain't for sissies (Plaque in the kitchen of my grandparents - 95 and 91 years of age).

..... or do they realize it but keep doing it because it keeps them in the news?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Honestly, it makes me suspect that some of their members have a cocaine problem.

PETA uses humor to get publicity, they could care less about Phish's name but they love to use humor in their publicity stunts. Let's face it, their tactics are very effective at bringing attention to their organization. Do you think we would be talking about PETA if they did not engage in these outrageous publicity stunts? They do this kind of thing because they know it will inspire people to talk about them, and Cali I am sure they love you for posting this thread.

They attention they are generating is negative attention. This does nothing to advance the cause of animal rights--just the opposite, in fact. It plays into the notion that animal rights advocates are bonkers and not to be taken seriously.

If I were a big animal rights person, I would be pissed a PETA, and looking to give my money to an organization that takes its cause seriously.

I don't know how you can possibly think it is a proper analogy to compare making a joke about Phish to brainwashing people into committing murder, but that is an extremely bad analogy.

This is a joke, people are making themselves look ridiculous by taking it so seriously. If you don't agree with PETA's message fine, but I really don't understand why people would look so negatively on an organization just for making a joke about Phish and sea kittens. People need to get a sense of humor and not take an obviously sarcastic press release at face value.

I was making the point that "any publicity is good publicity" just isn't always true. It's obviously not morally comparable.

What I'm saying is that PETA has gotten to the point that they seem to be damaging their own cause. They need to regroup and rethink their strategy, because all they're doing is making asses of themselves. Yes, we're talking about PETA, but what we're talking about is how silly PETA is, and certainly not the ethics of killing fish.

Their strategy is to bring attention to their group because once people start talking about PETA the topic of animal rights is close at hand and the discussion could very easily spill over from PETA's joke to the ethics of fishing. The question is why do you think this is bad publicity for them? Would you shun one of your friends if they made a joke about sea kittens? What about a comedian? Would you turn off the Daily Show and start looking down on them if they made a joke about sea kittens? If it is OK for comedians or your friends to make jokes then why is it wrong for PETA to do the same thing?

I am not saying you have to agree with everything PETA does, I agree that some of their campaigns have been bad but I really do not understand why anyone would get upset about this one. You are taking this joke way too seriously.

I'm not at all "upset" about this campaign, or about the recent one "Pro-life? Don't eat meat / Pro-choice? Don't eat meat". (I actually thought the pro-life/pro-choice one was thought provoking).

But, this "Phish" one is so dippy, it gives the impression that Peta people are airheads.

How about making people aware of the misery that scientific research animals have to endure, such as that tragic "Malish" monkey that was secretly videotaped? Or awareness of the cruelty of factory farming? Or is that too uncomfortable?

Not everything that PETA does is humorous, they have some very graphic and disturbing pamphlets on animal cruelty out there that are certainly not meant to be laughed at. They are quite often very serious, but they do use humor in some of their publicity stunts because humor reaches a different set of people that their serious material does not reach.

I guess the real issue is that people, especially on DU, want to point out PETA's dumbest campaigns and discuss them ad nauseum, while ignoring their relevant ones.

I don't really care much what PETA does. I eat meat and although I am sympathetic somewhat to the cause, I wouldn't consider myself a big animal rights proponent. What PETA does is not a big deal to me. I just think their strategy is flawed. I disagree that any of this hooha will lead to anyone questioning their decision to eat fish. The discussion is happening now, and it's all about PETA and how silly they are. PETA is an advocacy group--not a comedy show. They can succeed in amusing people and still completely fail in their purported mission.

:rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roWO_rmi7Hg

It actually sounds like somthing Phish would do.

"So there are still a few people who take us seriously. What can we do to change that?"

No. No, of course it's not real. It can't be. R...right?

Not every statement that PETA makes as an organization is meant to be taken totally seriously.

It's a knee jerk reaction to the word PETA. There's no reasonable discussion about PETA here. PETA could cure the common cold, and DU would still collectively shit all over them.

Case in point. Thread on DU about PETA garnering the first animal protection laws in Bolivia. Pretty big deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5875801

7 replies (one of which was my snarky one).

Thread telling PETA to go fuck itself over Obama's fly swat. Pretty stupid press release by PETA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5873245

77 replies and 3 recs.

I'm not going to point fingers or make any further suggestion. I'm not PETA's biggest fan, but the facts are there to speak for themselves.

The first story is about PETA acting like an animal rights group. It's cool, but not necessarily surprising.

The second is about PETA acting like a bunch of clowns. It's odd, unexpected, and people react accordingly.

"Public Citizen urges stronger regs on radioactive metal" wouldn't garner the attention that "Public Citizen asks Men at Work to change name to Men Controlling the Means of Production." It's just weird, and therefore notable.

a bit slow when PETA humor is concerned.
Do I understand correctly then that this whole Sea Kitten thing is a joke by PETA?

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/news.php?newsid=9001

Animal rights group PETA have asked British 80s electronica duo the Pet Shop Boys to change their name to the 'Rescue Shelter Boys.' The full text of the letter, as relayed by the band, is below:

...will you please consider changing your name from the Pet Shop Boys to the Rescue Shelter Boys?

since they are prime candidates for VH-1's show "Where Are They Now?"

I love them just for that, even when they're wrong.

:evilgrin:

I bet they go great with a vintage Chianti.