PETA Condemns Pokemon For Promoting Animal Abuse

SchrodingerZ writes "PETA, the same group that last November protested Mario for 'wearing fur,' has condemned the Pokémon media franchise and video game series. In light of the recent release of Pokemon Black and White Versions 2, the activist group is protesting that the Pokemon game series 'paints a rosy picture of what amounts to thinly veiled animal abuse.' As many of us know Pokemon is about young children who capture wild animals for the sole purpose of having them battle in non-fatal sparing matches. 'Much like animals in the real world, Pokémon are treated as unfeeling objects and used for such things as human entertainment and as subjects in experiments. The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods,' says a statement from the group. Ironically within Pokemon B/W 2 there an organization known as Team Plasma , which deals with taking Pokemon and retuning them to the wild. PETA is so up in arms that they have even created an anti-pokemon parody game in which you play as an escaped Pokemon battling your trainer. I recommend trying it, just for the laughs."

Re:I think PETA exists solely . . .

[guises]

Yes, this does seem to be PETA's primary function these days. Anytime a story comes up about PETA people work themselves into a lather. Even when it's about something as obvious as the fact that cramming animals into tiny balls and then making them fight in gladiatorial style combat may be ethically questionable.

But being a target for hate is a valid role, albeit a rather painful one. People expend their vitriol on PETA and other animals rights groups wind up looking better by comparison. "Hey," they say, "we're not PETA. You can talk to us and consider our suggestions rather than just dismissing them out of hand." Ultimately, partly thanks to PETA acting as lightning rod, the goal is furthered.

Re:Funny

[thej1nx]

I wouldn't write off their chances if they are doing this in USA. I mean some would have considered protecting the rights of "imaginary children"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996) pretty stupid as well, but this IS America after all.

Re:Funny

[Vintermann]

No one tell them about CLOP [foddy.net].

Re:There is no ALF

[gninnor]

When a group is attempting to do things that are illegal, it cannot have what would be a normal group structure, but one that is loosely structured with isolated pockets. As far as the violent/nonviolent thing it is just semantics. Legally Arson is considered nonviolent but legal definitions and what common use of those words sometimes do not like up. ALF and ELF use arson when other, safer means are at their disposal. Technically it is not a threat, but torching a green house is a bit more reckless than just spraying the area down with a persistent herbicide. Arson doesn't discriminate and is nonspecific. One of the U of MN research labs in this area was also destroyed along with years worth of data for some kind of disease. It was not a lab that used animals anymore than the physics lab, but was hit by someone claiming the ALF banner.

By the letter of the law no one was harmed and it was non violent, but it certainly it does not have the spirit of nonviolence in how it destroys and the harm it does.

Re:No, not funny, boring.

[1u3hr]

I see. So the plan is to make 99% of people exposed to their campaign think they're absolutely nuts

If you only go by what Forbes says, yes. If you actually read what they say, no.

No one writes articles saying, say, that McDonalds encourages children to steal with the Hamburglar mascot. Yet they want to say a cartoon campaign by Peta is absolutely serious and literal. Anyway, Peta can handle it either way.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq/Why-does-PETA-use-controversial-tactics.aspx [peta.org] PETAâ(TM)s mission is to get the animal rights message out to as many people as possible. Unlike our oppositionâ"which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporationsâ"PETA must rely largely on free "advertising" through media coverage. We will do extraordinary things to get the word out about animal cruelty because we have learned from experience that the media, sadly, do not consider the terrible facts about animal suffering alone interesting enough to cover. It is sometimes necessary to shake people up in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action. Thus, we try to make our actions colorful and controversial, thereby grabbing headlines around the world and spreading the message of kindness to animals to thousandsâ"sometimes millionsâ"of people. This approach has proved amazingly successful: In the two decades since PETA was founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the country, with more than 3 million members and supporters worldwide. We have also had major groundbreaking successes, such as bringing about the first-ever cruelty conviction against an animal experimenter in the case of the now-famous Silver Spring Monkeys; orchestrating the first-ever raid on an agricultural facility (a factory farm in upstate New York that raised ducks for foie gras under horribly cruel conditions); and convincing more than 200 cosmetics companies to permanently abandon animal tests.

I personally don't agree with their ultimate aims (don't use any animals for anything), but they're right in pointing out a lot of unnecessary cruelty in agriculture.