On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:16:01 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 8/11/2016 7:54 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:46:56 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/11/2016 6:26 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of self-defeating whackos...
>>>>
>>>> We have a place called 'Eggs and Bacon Bay'. PETA don't like the name,
>>>> and want it changed to 'Apple and Cherry Bay'
>>>>
>>>> "THE Huon Valley’s popular fishing spot Eggs and Bacon Bay has had its
>>>> name for 140 years, but an international animal rights group now
>>>> reckons the moniker is unsavoury.
>>>>
>>>> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has called on the Huon
>>>> Valley Council to change the name of Eggs and Bacon Bay to a vegan
>>>> alternative.
>>>>
>>>> The group has proposed Apple and Cherry Bay – to promote the region’s
>>>> local agriculture industry – as a suitable replacement.
>>>>
>>>> PETA Australia campaign director Ashley Fruno said the group hoped the
>>>> change would highlight the need to keep animal-derived foods off the
>>>> plates of Huon Valley residents.
>>>>
>>>> “Considering the high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat in both
>>>> eggs and bacon, the area may as well be called ‘Heart Attack Bay’,”
>>>> she said."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.themercury.com.au/news/ta...822d9bd61fd923
>>>>
>>> Did PETA even notice this is a popular fishing spot? They must be
>>> pescetarians.
>>
>> No fish, surely!
>>
>>> Waging a campaign against the name of a place is
>>> ridiculous. Just another example of how organizations like this waste
>>> money.
>>
>> Not to mention it is counter-productive to their goals, because it
>> only creates antipathy towards them in the wider community. It's also
>> partly just to get PETA in the spotlight again.
>>
>> As I said before, they are blinded by their own zealotry. It's a
>> shame, really, because they are one of the largest animal welfare orgs
>> out there, but most of their resources are wasted on things like this.
>>
>It's one of the largest, most bloated animal welfare organizations.
>They're legends in their own minds.
>
>I'd like to see them spend those resources prosecuting individuals who
>harm innocent domestic pets. PETA doesn't seem to raise hue and cry
>when some sicko teenager sets a cat on fire while his friends video and
>post it online. How about spending money on toughening up laws ensuring
>tougher penalties for flagrant animal abuse?

It would be good to see more of that, of course. But overall they
would be more effective directing their energy towards large scale
commercial agricultural practices, which is something I wholeheartedly
support in principle.

The problem with PETA is that they are disingenuous, since their real
agenda is no agriculture involving animals at all. For that reason
they will never be trusted, respected or make any genuine progress
with animal welfare like they could achieve.

One could also argue they are setting animal welfare backwards because
they alienate so many people who will then tar any welfare group with
the same brush.