just ask the makers of the Bowflex. Where do they find the people for their commercials? These genetic freaks do not exist in nature, I'm convinced they were conceived and exist only in the Bowflex laboratories. Anyway, the idea of sex appeal selling product is not new, but what about beliefs or ethical systems?
The picture above is the latest in PETA's "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign, which seems to be everywhere on the internet recently. The campaign was launched by a fading Pamela Anderson, but I guess that PETA thought that it was hypocritical to keep pimping that piece of leather anymore (or people were consistently horrified by what a freak she is) and have moved on to model Joanna Krupa.
Now, as much as I can get behind swimsuit model nudity this does beg the question of just how effective is this program? I'll be honest, other than making a normal male of the species want to fill Ms. Krupa's closet full of fur and leather, I cannot really fathom what this campaign wants people to know. Yes, the world isn't fair to animals in many ways, most importantly in the fact that many taste damn good with mashed potatoes. How they get to my table, as long as it is sanitary, is not really my concern.
PETA, however, takes things to ridiculous extremes. One of the primary arguments that PETA makes is the moral equivalence of humans and dogs and other animals. Sorry, I guess I am a specist, or whatever they want to label me, but I cannot accept that arguement. I am better than any cat could ever want to be.
I'm not advocating cruelty towards animals, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite about this either, as I am going to eat and wear animals when the mood strikes or feels appropriate. So to PETA, I guess that I thank you for an attractive ad, but ultimately you can take your philosophical position and shove it in some fur-dog's butt.
No comments:
Post a Comment