I've been remiss — I neglected to point to a really fine post by Meryl Yourish, who announced the third annual People Eating Tasty Animals (PETA) day, to be held March 15. (This PETA was established specifically to oppose People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and has done a fine job of exposing them for what they are, debunking AR claims, and revealing AR connections. I'll be adding it to my sidebar, something I should have done long ago.)
Meryl's motto is: "March 15--If It Didn't Have A Mother, Don't Eat It."
For me, of course, I celebrate most days by consuming something that had a mother, including eggs, lots of chicken (roasted — it's easy to prepare and very delicious, leftovers can be combined with stuffing into the ever popular chicken grunges), salmon (well, I do live in the Pacific Northwest), beef (mostly ground), and, when I'm so moved, lamb (I make a wicked Rogan Josh from a receipe similar to this one, which is the equal of just about anything I've had in a restaurant).
On a more serious note, Meryl takes particular exception to PeTA's offensive adds, especially the "Holocaust on a plate" campaign, which she finds totally offensive.
I do too, probably more so than most people because I myself was privileged to have known a holocaust survivor, a man (Mike — recently deceased, requiescat in pace) who, with his wife, had survived Auschwitz, and whose commitment to community betterment played an important role in my son's childhood.
I think what PeTA's moral equivalence shows us is how easy it would be to justify another Holocaust — after all, if humans aren't any more worthy of special ethical consideration than other animals, what is the moral argument against once again creating concentration camps and ovens to dispense with those undesirables who won't toe the ideological line for the greater moral good? If it's worth killing 5, 10 or 15 scientists to stop the use of a relatively small number of animals in research, as advocated by Dr. Jerry Vlasak (link and link), a former spokesman for PCRM, which is closely tied to PeTA, what's wrong with killing 500, 10,000, 150,000 or whatever number is required to stop people from eating vastly greater numbers of animals?
Of course, I do not have a right not to be offended, and PeTA has a right to be as offensive in their speech as they wish.
And Mike would agree.
And we have every right to use what PeTA says to reveal them for what they are, and as motivation to oppose them.
And Mike would agree with this, too.
Thanks to David G. for calling my (delinquent) attention to this.
Brian