Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (107029)	7/30/2005 1:35:08 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I don't think that saying that someone obviously didn't understand an article is an attack. People say things that are critical at that level to me all the time. When Bill said that it was good that someone was attacking PETA using their own tactics, it made no sense to me. It would be helpful if he would explain that. What tactics does the Center for Free Enterprise use that PETA uses? If they are using the same tactics, what is the motivation? An organization paid for by corporations that torture animals to make the maximum profit, as opposed to a nonprofit organization that is trying to raise awareness about how animals are tortured are operating on totally different moral/ethical levels, in my opinion. I don't see how they can really be compared (but would be interested in hearing an explanation of that point of view). The meat of the article I posted was what follows. I had hoped someone might want to discuss some of the more interesting points, like whether people should have the right to consume absolutely anything, regardless of the cruelty or environmental degradation or danger (for example, mad cow)that might be associated with it. It is really frustrating to me when people consistently give one line answers that make no sense. I like to actually discuss issues. I am totally wasting my time here if the quality of interaction has sunk this far. Here is that part of the article: It turns out that this is one of a series of Web sites sponsored by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as "a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the full range of choices that American consumers currently enjoy." We live in an age of organizations with anodyne names that conceal their real agenda, and the Center for Consumer Freedom is one of them. We're all consumers, and what could be better than freedom? But C.C.F. was founded by a Washington lobbyist named Richard Berman and is financed, according to at least one watchdog group, by many of the same meat, fast-food, restaurant and beverage companies that have hired him as a lobbyist. Seed money came from Philip Morris. C.C.F.'s reasons for attacking PETA are obvious. When it comes to limiting "the full range of choices" that Americans are used to finding at the supermarket, it is hard to beat an organization that opposes nearly every imaginable human relation with animals, including, of course, eating them. I hold no brief for PETA, which seems to me to be wrongheaded about as often as it is right-minded. But it has made common cause with more-thoughtful organizations in opposing the contemptible practice of raising animals like hogs and chickens - the source of most Americans' meat - in close confinement. And it is probably capable of defending itself in a billboard war. What strikes me is C.C.F.'s mission description and its implications. Here is the rest of its statement: "In addition to malicious animal-rights activists, we stand up to the 'food police,' environmental scaremongers, neo-prohibitionists, meddling bureaucrats and other self-anointed saints who claim to 'know what's best' for you." There's a hidden equation lurking in this sentence. It assumes that your interests - as a free consumer - are synonymous with the interests of corporations that are being closely watched, and often openly opposed, by organizations like the highly respectable Center for Science in the Public Interest, a lead advocate in the fight against obesity. In fact, the language of the Center for Consumer Freedom is as Orwellian as it is possible to get. Its basic linguistic strategy could have been taken directly from George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," still the most important single essay on how to lie without seeming to. It would hardly work for C.C.F. simply to tell the truth - to say to consumers, on behalf of the food and beverage industries, "Activists and watchdog groups are trying to stop us from selling you anything we want to sell you." Much better to say, "These groups are trying to prevent you from buying anything you want to buy." Then it becomes a matter of sustaining freedom, protecting individual rights and keeping the prairie of consumer choices unfenced. The blurring of the distinction between corporate interests and the individual and collective rights of humans is one of the central tropes of our time and the source of much purposeful confusion, of the kind that the Center for Consumer Freedom exploits. It may have its root, philosophically, in the legal fiction that a corporation is a person. But it is used again and again to hide from people exactly how their interests are being abused. It also keeps people from seeing the delicate balance that must be struck between their individual rights and the rights of the community at large. When you hear someone howling about freedom, it is worth asking whose freedom he means. Protecting "the full range of choices that American consumers currently enjoy" can only be the mission of someone who believes that those choices come without cost and that the only ethic that matters is the bottom line. But every consumer choice carries a cost, and the purpose of a real consumer advocate should be to make those costs - both moral and financial, to oneself and to others - perfectly clear. That, of course, is something that industries profiting from the untrammeled appetites of Americans cannot afford. Is it hypocritical for C.C.F. to attack PETA? Since its basic rhetorical strategy is hypocritical, the answer is almost certainly yes. Is it hypocritical for PETA to euthanize dogs and cats, as C.C.F. claims it does? Only if you believe that the ethical treatment of animals never includes euthanasia. The obvious retort to PETA Kills Animals is PETA Saves Animals. But that doesn't make much of a billboard. nytimes.com