i would appreciate the perspective of parents, of 2, 3, 4 yr old kids

[seabeyond]

Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

i was in a peta thread that has this ad coming out, or so they say. the first image will be what the taller adult sees. the second ad will be what the little kids sees. forget peta and the whole issue with them, i do not care. but, in conversation, many people defended this picture saying kids, little kids see much worse. that this picture would not effect them. i know in my household my kids were well into the double digits before stepping up in their movies or games to where there was any kind of violence. we never had it in my kids environment. at all. i was so particular about my kids environment at those younger ages that they didnt even watch shows like ed ed and eddy, that promoted stupid. or power puff girls cause even when they were happy, they had angry faces. they watched little tv.

as a parent of very little kids, 2, 3, 4 yrs old, would you have a problem with your children seeing that second picture?

would your kids have a problem seeing that picture?

can you imagine being out and about with your kid, and they react strongly to something. when looking at the picture to see what the problem is, you see the first picture. and the kid is horrified at the second picture.

i am told that i am way off base on this.

what do you think. i would appreciate your opinion.

again, this is really not about peta. it is not about our choice on diet. i would just like other parents that have been around little ones day in and day out that would understand the reaction to different stimulus.

thanks.

edited to add for clarification: "The ads incorporate lenticular technology, so that people 4-feet, 3-inches and shorter will see an image different from the mother carving a cooked turkey in front of two children. Shorter viewers will see the scene with the two children spattered with blood and horrified as the mother cuts into a live bird."

and the picture is small. here is a link to the magazine that has a larger picture to better see it. if you need it. http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131107-peta-plans-ads-with-one-image-for-adults-another-bloody-one-for-children-poll.ece


&cfs=1&upscale

[d_r]

1. my kids would have a problem with it

it would freak them out. I think that's the intention of it. I wouldn't want my kids to see it. This is pretty sick to do to kids. This kind of thing is what bothers me about peta.

[s-cubed]

2. I have a 3 year old granddaughter. It would freak her out. nt

[Codeine]

3. It would freak their mother out,

but I'm comfortable with it. I want the kids to know about the reality of what meat is and what eating it means.

[seabeyond]

6. i really dont want to argue the whole peta thing, but cant it be age appropriate?

conversation. i know i have never shied from my kids with the reality of the world. but, i always did it age appropriate. when they were ready. we explored a subject and they directed and guided me what they could consume in information.

[Codeine]

16. I'm coming from a different perspective regard "age-appropriate", I guess.

I grew up in a family that hunted wild game and raised rabbits for meat. I was exposed, - as have the vast majority of human beings from pre-history up until just a handful of decades ago - to the killing and slaughter of animals for food. I helped skin rabbits starting at about five, and watched before that. I shot at (never hit -- terrible shot) deer and antelope from age eight. A common sight in our front yard was some sort of mammal strung up for dressing out and butchering, and in that part of the country no passers-by would have thought it odd at all.

This sort of exposure is unusual in the here and now, but it's been considered "age-appropriate" for just about. . . forever, really. It didn't terrify or traumatize me; it taught me what eating an animal means -- it means violently killing something that was alive and minding its own business up to that moment.

All it taught me was that I want to do as little of that as possible in my life, so I've refused to eat meat since I was old enough to fend for myself.

[seabeyond]

21. my son did it at an older age. 7 or 8 and a couple times after, with his father.

he lost all interest. my youngest never wanted to do it. they werent deprived. they chose not.

i lived on a farm. at 2 i saw my father wring a chickens neck. they kept me away from that stufff. i was really sensitive. so sensitive, per their story, i didnt talk to my father for weeks. ate the chicken, lol. of course i do not remember.

interesting

it is in what they are use to in life.

[pnwmom]

90. Speaking of "reality," do you understand

that the image a child is seeing is not the same image an adult is seeing? What is real about that? They think they're both looking at the same picture, but the parent is seeing a typical Thanksgiving dinner and the child is seeing something else entirely. Why doesn't PETA use just the scary image for EVERYBODY to see? Why are they presenting one image at the parent's level and a different one at the child's? So if the child is disturbed the parent won't know why, and won't be able to offer effective comfort?

[Electric Monk]

98. I see it differently. The one on the left is what lots of people only see for thanksgiving, while

the other represents what they'd rather forget/sanitize/ignore.

Douglas Adams had a scene in his book The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe that made the same point, but with humor.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8695.The_Restaurant_at_the_End_of_the_Universe

A cow walked over to their table, and asked everyone what cuts they would like to eat, then voluntarily went into the kitchen to be prepared for dinner.


Same basic point.

edited to add: Chapter 17. I'd scan it, but I don't want to break the binding. It goes on for about 2 1/2 pages. It ends:

"Very good, sir. Nice choice. I'll just nip off and shoot myself."

"Don't worry, sir. I'll be very humane."

It waddled off to the kitchen.

[pnwmom]

101. Why don't they simply place both images side by side to make their point?

That way people can discuss them, if they wish. I wouldn't object to that at all.

Why do they deliberately put up only one picture -- but a picture that, depending on the vantage point -- would look entirely different to a child than to a parent? And that a parent couldn't even explain to a child because she wouldn't realize that her child was seeing something different than what she was seeing?

[pnwmom]

105. THERE AREN'T TWO PICTURES.

Sorry to yell, but that's the point. There's only a single picture; but how you see the picture depends on your vantage point -- you'll see one image if you're 3 feet tall and another if you're adult size.

[Electric Monk]

106. Ok, somehow I'd missed that detail. I'll self-delete some of my posts. nt

[pnwmom]

108. I didn't understand either till I read this paragraph in the linked article.

Thanks for understanding now!

"The ads incorporate lenticular technology, so that people 4-feet, 3-inches and shorter will see an image different from the mother carving a cooked turkey in front of two children. Shorter viewers will see the scene with the two children spattered with blood and horrified as the mother cuts into a live bird."

[Electric Monk]

109. It's awfully nice of seabeyond to edit that little detail into their OP, after your post here. nt

[seabeyond]

110. she asked me to. i said ok. thank you. nt

[Electric Monk]

111. It really does change the discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who missed that detail. nt

[pnwmom]

112. I'm sure you're not either, Electric Monk, based on reading

the comments here. But you're the first person who paused to listen to me -- thanks!

[seabeyond]

114. i did say the adult being taller will see the first image and the little kid will see the second.

i also referred to it again a little later in my post. adult seeing one image and the kid seeing the other. i had come off the peta thread where i had read the article. i was trying to stay away from teh peta drama trauma of conversation and just talking about how parents would perceive their children's reaction to the picture.

[pnwmom]

115. The problem is that some people misunderstood this to mean

that there were two pictures on the wall of two different images, one placed on a higher spot on the wall than the other -- in which case of course the parent could see both pictures, (even if she had to bend her head down to see the one on the bottom.)

I'm glad you put up the OP. It raises some important questions. Thanks!

[seabeyond]

116. ya. i really need that clarification. like i said, i was well familiar with the issue and focused

on something other than the specifics since i knew. absolutely. i get it. especially as the pictures i post are side by side.

[pnwmom]

118. I've been a technical writer, so I know how hard it is to describe

something clearly that you already understand. It should be easier when you understand it, right? But not really. You're more likely to leave important things out when something is very familiar to you.

[seabeyond]

122. there is that. but... when starting this OP i really did not want this to be about peta.

i was trying to keep it to parents with little ones and how little ones would take soemthing like this. i really did not want it to be about peta and that controversy. but, it is kinda hopeless because part of the controversy is the fact of hiding it from parent, targeting the kid exclusively.

[pnwmom]

113. Thank you! n/t

[antigone382]

135. But the one on the right isn't realistic either.

Factory farming produces lots of suffering, but animals are not deliberately carved up live like that. The kind of savage, painful suffering depicted in that image is not how it goes down. I've slaughtered chickens on more than one occasion. You quickly chop off their heads and let them bleed out, then you process them. Pain and suffering is eliminated to the maximum extent possible.

[Marrah_G]

12. That picture is not reality either

[antigone382]

134. But this is not a realistic portrayal of animal slaughter.

I have participated in the slaughter of seafood and poultry (with the assistance of young children in the latter case). I have never seen a live animal gutted in that way. Even in mass production slaughter houses the idea is to kill the animal as quickly and painfully as possible before processing the corpse (of course I realize it doesn't always work that way and it's one of the many reasons I support drastic changes to our food system). If the ad realistically depicted how animals are slaughtered, and if it showed the same image to adults as to children in order to initiate some kind of productive conversation, I might not have a problem with it.

[kcr]

4. Mine definitely would have at that age.

They were that young not that long ago. The premise that kids see violence so it's fine is flawed. For one thing, I didn't let my kids watch violent content at that age, and I know I wasn't alone. For another, even if that were so, how is it okay to thrust violent images at kids against their will, or really anyone at that age? Really, I think it's a fundamental flaw in PETAs strategy. As an adult, even though I've watched violent movies and seen violent things on TV, I've willingly subjected myself to that by choice. I really don't appreciate being accosted by violent images. Even if it's a cause I believe in. It's very off putting.

[seabeyond]

18. i really had a problem with so many people telling me that kids this age were immersed in the

violence on tv, movies and computer games at this age. could be further from the truth. and reality? all my kids friends they hung out with.

we didnt watch our movies or shows when they were around. and they certainly didnt watch the garbage. they didnt want to either. no desire.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. The message I take away from those pictures is, your kids will appreciate poultry far more

if it is properly cooked.

[seabeyond]

8. thanks for the laugh. that was funny. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

24. *

[Electric Monk]

14. Good point. Especially with poultry. That's an important lesson to learn. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Seriously. That family on the right is just asking for salmonella.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. PETA is as usual exploitative and in this case they are exploiting the 'second image for short kids'

bill boards which were initially and righteously used to pass on to children how to get help if they are abused without the abuser even seeing it. This is a twisted mockery of a fine idea.

[seabeyond]

9. i didnt know that part. hm... thanks for the info. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Part of the power of such boards lies in the little known nature of the double image

This way kids can see and not be seen seeing. This crap pretends good parents are dangerous when there are actual dangerous adults, parents and others. Reprehensible.

[seabeyond]

22. good point. i had never heard of it. nt

[kcr]

13. Exactly. It isn't just the gore. Their mockery of other causes is ridiculous and unnecessary.

PETA is ridiculous.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. What do you do to stop animal abuse?

Well?

[seabeyond]

25. again. that is not what the thread is about. we are talking about the picture and how we think our

child at a very young age would receive that picture.

[HERVEPA]

30. How do you get to control what the thread is about?

I don't think the Admins provide anyone with that capability.
How many more threads can we expect to see started on this?

[seabeyond]

36. of course i cannot. i asked. respectfully. that parents talk about their experience with children

but it is amusing that i cannot keep the conversation of peta out of it, as you insist this be about peta and challenging how many more threads.

you want to disrupt the thread? that surely is your right.

[HERVEPA]

117. Nah. I wemt damcing and had fun. It's all yours.

[kcr]

34. Well, clearly, if I do nothing

then that justifies the exploitative and ineffective campaigning of PETA. Brilliant question. You win the internets!

What do I do? I throw on my superhuman cape, run around and save all the animals I can. It's not much, but it's better than the typical canned answer of Blah blah blah, I make x personal choices, I do blah de dee blee to raise awareness, etc. that you just wouldn't believe anyway, right? Because as long as the corporations exist in the political system that props them up, there isn't a whole lot that any of us do that will really make that much of a difference. I know one thing that seriously doesn't. PETA.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

49. How does it feel to be so wrong?

The PETA adds work for some people. PETA has stopped some very bad things.

Give credit where it is due.

[kcr]

63. I guess if I were actually wrong

I've never claimed they've never done good. I think the harm they do outweighs it by far. There's no point in giving them credit when they could do so much better.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

71. You could do much better.

We all could do much better.

Timshel!

I do not see the harm. When you are fighting against a great force, every little bit helps.

[kcr]

77. I think the harm is it actually turns people away

It shuts their minds. You can't just look at it from the point of view of those who are already of the same frame of mind. Shock and offense isn't the way to go. And then of course the most shocking and offensive, like offending people's children, that will of course get the most attention and that is what people will think of. And of course since they're the most shocking and offensive, that is the organization that people will thinkg of most when they think of animal rights, setting it all back. There is much harm.

[Kali]

78. interesting, I have never heard of that.

thanks, learned something new

[Marrah_G]

10. Yes I would

I don't think will be well received in this city.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. our four year old was well prepared for something like this

having been taught that meat is animals. she has no problem with that fact. so, killing a live turkey at the table would simply confuse her... now, little one NOT having been educated about the 'dining situation' would probably not be thrilled with this depiction.

sP

[d_r]

38. my kids know that meat is animals

but that picture is freaky. It is a freaky story book looking weird picture.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

40. yeah, it's weird... i'll certainly grant you that.

my four year old just came in and i showed it to her. her question : why would anyone do that?

sP

[d_r]

48. good idea to ask

I just called my six-year-old daughter over and asked her what she thought of the picture on the right She said "Weird. Now ask me about the other one." I said "OK, what do you think of the other one?" She said "its good, because the kids are happy and the mom is making them dinner." And I said "OK, so what about the other one, why is it weird?" She said "because she is trying to cut the turkey while it is still alive at the table and the kids are like "AAAAAGHGHGHGH!"

So at least for her I don't think PETA got the intended response.

[seabeyond]

52. i think it is really 2-4. after that kid can process much better. nt

[d_r]

55. yeah, but my 6 -year-old

is well within the height range they are targeting with the lenticular picture. But yeah, they are story booking it up to freak out kids in the preschool range.

[seabeyond]

56. i get that. they are in the height range. i was just thinking back to the ages that i would have

an issue with it. i think about 5, then conversation could be had and i would not be so concerned. i think the younger ages is where i think it is unhealthy.

[pnwmom]

95. And to freak them out without their parents' being able to understand

why they're upset, or to comfort them effectively.

"What's wrong, honey? It's just a picture of Thanksgiving," will tell the child that she can't trust her mother's perception of the world.

This is a form of psychological assault.

[seabeyond]

50. lol. ya. then there is that. give her a hug for me, tell her she made me smile. nt

[seabeyond]

47. i didnt not like what they did to the moms face. that bothered me. nt

[d_r]

51. yeah they demonized her

[Electric Monk]

73. What a horrible mom indeed, to feed her kids raw turkey. Salmonella can kill. nt

[Marrah_G]

75. That picture has little to do with slaughtering a turkey

I would have had no problem with my kids seeing a chicken, turkey or even a cow slaughtered for meat on a farm. What is shown in that picture has little in common with that.

[pnwmom]

91. I doubt that most 2 year olds would understand that.

And the picture was designed so a 2 year old would see the disturbing image but a parent -- looking at the exact same picture -- would see an innocuous Thanksgiving image. So if a 2 year old were frightened, the parent wouldn't even know why.

[giftedgirl77]

17. My youngest is 11 now & would have had some

issues with this. He knows where meat comes from but won't eat it if he sees it as the animal first (i.e. when we go fishing). I have also had to deal with him taking my bait and freeing it because it deserved to live. Needless to say that wasn't a productive fishing trip.

My oldest wouldn't have thought twice about it.

[seabeyond]

27. that is so so so funny. and ya, with my second son too. he is very sensitive.

he is just getting past comedies and watching more intense movies. not too intense though, lol. and he just turned 16.

[giftedgirl77]

35. Kids today are so different

I have two boys 15 & 11 my oldest will not watch scary movies, doesn't do spiders & hates crowds (huge crowds). Neither one of my kids do roller coasters or thrill rides which is great we haven't been to an amusement park since 09.

The best part is they are totally cool with themselves & who they are.

[seabeyond]

39. you and i have a lot of similarities with kids

my youngest has the thing with spiders. he says he will marry a woman that can get them for him. no desire to get past that. my oldest is just getting into horror (18), and hides behind the girl. and they too are good with who they are. actually they really like themselves.

youngest can do amusement, but it messes with oldest. so we do not have to do that either.

that is fun. thanks gifted.

[giftedgirl77]

61. No problem. Cheers!

[Viking12]

20. My kids would laugh.

They know where their food comes from and would say, "that's not how you butcher a turkey'

[seabeyond]

28. at 2, 3, and 4? of course, not all environments are the same. thanks. nt

[Viking12]

32. Yes, even at that age.

We clean fish and fowl in the kitchen before cooking and serving it. But, yes, environments vary. It might not work in every household.

[seabeyond]

33. there you go. i can see that. nt

[pnwmom]

66. Would a 2 year old laugh at the blood on the kids faces

and the expression on the mother's face?

[seabeyond]

68. little ones goes to faces. especially moms. to figure out the world. that was the first to grab me

and instantly put me on alert. that face would bother a little one. confuse them

[Viking12]

76. Probably.

Kids think dumb & messy is funny. If the children have been raised to know that blood is an inherent part of the food gathering process, they won't be freaked out about it any more than they would by being splashed with mud.

As I said above, YMMV. In my household animal blood is not a scary, unfamiliar thing. We hunt, fish, and incorporate freshly slaughtered domestic livestock into our diets. I understand that in your household it may be different.

[pnwmom]

89. Your 2 year old wouldn't react to the angry look on that mother's face?

The vast majority of U.S. children aren't being raised the way yours are.

The children who see this picture are deliberately being exposed to images that would frighten most preschoolers -- and the worst part is the parents don't even know it. The parents are seeing an innocuous (to them) picture of a thanksgiving dinner, while their small -- because of their vantage point --are being treated to an entirely different image. So when their parents see them react, they won't be able to understand why they're reacting that way, or to comfort them effectively.

[seabeyond]

94. another from a little ones mind. they are not even thinking food. they are seeing a mother weilding

a knive stabbing something alive, to death. in their minds it is not even .... she is killing dinner to cook and eat. all they see is an animal that is alive being stabbed by a woman with an oddly mean? perverse? look on her face.

[Throd]

23. I would be against it.

[Sheldon Cooper]

29. I would not have wanted my kids to see that at such a young age.

And PETA is an asshole group.

[hunter]

31. I saw the real thing up close and personal as a little kid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3997840

I'm very very respectful of the women in my family who are good with knives.

I do know how to prepare a freshly caught fish and I could probably serve up a bird or mammal if friends and family if we were really, really hungry, but mostly I'm a beans and rice sort of fellow.

[seabeyond]

41. i read that. i like your posts.

so gentle even talking about old women weilding knives, lol

[pnwmom]

37. As a grandmother of a 1 year old, I think this is reprehensible.

This picture could be very frightening to a small child.

Peta's message should be aimed at parents, not their small children.

[d_r]

43. yes

one thing that is getting lost in this is that children are a protected, vulnerable group. Marketing directly to children is something that we should take seriously and be concerned about. Pushing agendas to children who do not have the critical thinking skills to see through the agenda is something that we hold be repulsed by if it was done by the tobacco or alcohol companies. Or the NRA, anti-abortion zealots, etc.

[pnwmom]

65. And the worst part is they're marketing to children surreptitiously,

by making the pictures viewable by children different than the ones their parents will see. So when a child is upset, the parent won't understand why.

[seabeyond]

69. yes. lol

these things bother me. i could not figure out the disconnect from this stuff. yes.

[seabeyond]

44. i didnt think i was really off. thank you to the parents coming in and expressing

your perception of how a little one would see the pictures.

i really appreciate it.

[Codeine]

45. Agreed. nt

[seabeyond]

46. so every one, every where, must walk your life and live your life experiences at the same age

and fuck everything else? k. well, i pretty well know i do not want to talk to you anymore.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

54. NO - I was being sarcastic.

I hope no one has to feel what I felt.

I am just saying that the picture might bring a little reality to the situation.

[seabeyond]

59. thank you for the clarification. i will go back and re read.

i really appreciate you letting me know.

[d_r]

53. I understand what you mean

I eat meat because I know I can kill it and clean it and cook it.

But to me, the thing about this isn't the picture being realistic, because it isn't. It is the picture being done in a creepy story book style to manipulate kids.

[Kber]

57. My son would have been freaked. My daughter not so much

In my mind the larger issue is my absolute right, as a parent, to control the media messages they received, and to know how they were being marketed to so I could react and counteract.

Anyone trying to sneak one by me on that score (looking at you Mattel!) is on my shit list, no matter how noble the message may be.

So, and especially at that age, no fetus dolls, no mutulated animals, no religion, unless I cleared it first.

[seabeyond]

60. absolutely. that was a big one for me. try to get it to the child on the sly.

it is sneaky. dishonest. disrespectful

[JCMach1]

58. I have an 18yr daughter who some bratty kid when she was in KG

told her that the melted cheese on pizza was 'cow skin'...

She has massive food issues now in-terms of what she will eat...

Young children can be heavily affected by something like that...

[seabeyond]

62. ahhhh. that is bad. so sorry. man. and agree. you should see oldest.

germ phobia. first grade i would visit at lunch. he would put books and lunch pail around him. but when the kids talked with food in their mouth, he saw it flying. and you know... couldnt eat. he never got far in his lunches.

[Turborama]

64. Parent of a 26 month old, here. I agree with you.

My daughter would not get their message, she's 2 ffs, and all it would achieve is to imprint a violent image in her mind and make me angry towards whoever did that to her.

She will be educated about different diet choices when she's old enough to understand and able to make an informed choice. Until then, it's up to me what she eats, not PETA.

[seabeyond]

70. exactly. you are right there in real time with a 2 yr old. i was going off memory. i agree.

thanks

[Yo_Mama]

67. Many younger kids would be disturbed by it. n/t

[gollygee]

72. It would be disturbing for them

And I agree that kids need to know where meat comes from, but not with a scary sadistic looking mom spraying blood all over their faces. That picture isn't an accurate representation of where meat comes from either.

[X_Digger]

74. When I was a toddler, my grandmother would give me a switch to chase the dead chicken running.

She'd snap it's neck with a sharp spin with a pop at the end and off it'd go.

I've always known where meat comes from. I imagine my response would have been along the lines of, "That's a stupid way to do it, you'll get feathers everywhere."

[seabeyond]

84. That's a stupid way to do it, you'll get feathers everywhere."

i can see that. with your experience, how you would take it differently

[greatlaurel]

79. My partner and I were extremely protective of what our children watched when they were small

This ad is wrong on so many levels. We went to great lengths to protect our children from inappropriate images. They only watched PBS at home. At the sitter, they watched some of the early cable children's shows like Blues Clues plus PBS tapes we recorded at home. Barney, Sherry Lewis, Wishbone, Magic School Bus, Arthur, Mr. Rogers and Reading Rainbow were all favorite shows. Sesame Street bored them for some reason. The biggest problem for images were commercials during sporting events, so wish we had DVR back then. The cartoonish portrayal of the vicious and crazed looking mother figure is meant to terrify.

My kids would not have reacted well to this image when they were little. I am deeply disturbed by the ugly mindset that would target little kids like this. It is child abuse, plain and simple. Especially by using the height based ad view, it prevents parents from being able to spot it first.

We had many people make fun of us as being over protective. Children need to be protected from vile and inappropriate images. It is damaging to their development. My kids are now grown. The oldest one tells me all the time how much she appreciates what we did, now that she is an adult. PETA is way out of line with this. Whoever sells them the billboard space should be fired.

As farm kids, butchering was part of life and was not damaging in to our mental state. Animals were quickly and humanely killed. The raccoons, opossums, hawks and mink that killed our poultry and rabbits were far more cruel to their prey. I am completely opposed to factory farming and buy my meat locally raised and processed. I understand if anyone wants to be vegetarian, but this is not the way to go about this.

PETA is a bizarre organization. IMO they are not a legit outfit. They must be a front for some right wing group to make humane and green organizations look bad, guilt by association.

[seabeyond]

85. little bear. that was a favorite. like i said,

they didnt watch much. blues clue. magic school bus. barney. about like you. see that is the thing, when putting so much effort for creating an environment. that is a lot fo time and engery, not an easy thing to do. then to have conversations why we do that. even watching the good shows i was mostly in the room so we could talk over the lesson learned.

my kids too say how much they appreciated it. they trusted me to know what they did not want to watch. they appreciated the protected home. watching their cousins grow up in an household that was the complete opposite with very little parenting. and even less appropriate parenting. and how hard it was for those kids.

[bravenak]

80. My kids would start asking questions and probably cry .

Not cool.
Nobody puts a live animal on the dinner table and carves it up. It's not very realistic.

[KoKo]

81. It's OTT and yes would think those age groups might be upset

and I would be upset.

But, it depends on what kind of TV those kids are exposed to and I'm speaking from a generation back where that would be shocking. These days...I'm not sure. But, I was a careful mom in my TV exposure. Limited viewing times and monitoring. But, there was little then like there is now. If I had kids that young these days...the TV would be thrown out of the house and a varied collection of DVD's would be available. I'm not for censoring but "age appropriate" was always my guidelines. Of course...I was the judge of that..which might upset some folks. But for little kids whose minds are just forming. I'd kind of think that PETA Ad was disturbing.

Still..you can't stop the kids who would photo it and the little ones would see it at a friends house or school. So...one can only do so much. Best thing is to talk about it and point out what you feel appropriate and your views and let them make up their own minds.

[Kali]

82. I am kind of a MEH on this

the image is pretty cartoonish and not very realistic, but I do have a problem with aiming a biased political message to young children without parental knowledge or consent.

I think peta has become pretty irrelevant in the conversation about food and animal welfare. Extremism is not that effective in any endeavor.

[NoOneMan]

83. Not sure

First, my kids have watched me take a salmon from a river and filet it in front of them in a matter of minutes. I want them to know where food comes from and have a connection to our ecosystem.

But I also--while I don't eat chicken or any other meat besides salmon--don't want something else (besides us) telling them as children what is morally good or bad at that stage in their life. Not sure why.

[mrs_p]

86. I think my 2 1/2 yo would

Mostly be confused but not scared. She hasn't been exposed to much blood so I don't think she would understand at all. That said, she always surprises me with what she has picked up at school.

I work in the vet med field so we talk about
sick animals all the time. Hubby is a wildlife biologist and we talk about wild animals as well. If she asked me about the ad, I think I would be honest. We eat meat in our family and that meat comes from animals. Mommy and daddy have never killed an animal like that and in fact that would be a bad way to slaughter.

We would take it from there.

[aikoaiko]

87. There is a bigger issue of mind screwing

Really, when the kid describes what s/he sees, the parent will tell him or her she is wrong when s/he isn't.

Its a stupid thoughtless prank.

My son, now 8, would have definitely been talking about it at 2 - 4.

[pnwmom]

92. Exactly. Except that it's more than stupid and thoughtless.

It's a form of a psychological assault.

[seabeyond]

96. pn, that is what i felt and didnt get why i was one of the few. nt

[pnwmom]

97. Some people lack empathy. That's all I can figure. n/t

[sarisataka]

88. My youngest is six now

but even younger he would not have been bothered. When my daughter was that age she might have thought it yucky but not overly traumatized.

As a parent I would say that those are my kids and I don't expect others to fit the same mold. I think it is in poor taste and steps across bounds of parental prerogative.

[pnwmom]

93. What PETA did that crossed the line was not show the 2nd image

to the parents.

At least then the child and parent would see the same image and could talk about it -- or the parent could turn the young child away before she saw it.

This is exactly what PETA doesn't want to happen. They want to disturb the child without the parent's knowledge. And that's a form of assault -- psychological assault on a child. This shouldn't be legal.

[Electric Monk]

99. I think PETA wanted to encourage a broader discussion, and it has.

There's nothing stopping the parents from seeing both images.

[pnwmom]

100. Yes, there is. The parent isn't three feet tall. The parent won't understand

what the small child is seeing because the parent will be seeing an entirely different image -- while looking at ostensibly the same picture. All they'll know is that their child is disturbed by a picture that looks innocuous, to them. So whatever words of comfort they tried to provide would fall on deaf ears.

Yes, if a parent sat down on the ground they could then see the picture from the child's viewpoint. But how would most parents know to do that?

[pnwmom]

104. No, that isn't the crux of the issue. The picture for short people

is EMBEDDED in the picture for tall people and neither group can see the image the other group is seeing.

[Egnever]

125. Agreed

[Th1onein]

107. I have a three year old granddaughter and YES, I would have a problem with that.

[LeftyMom]

120. How do you feel about her seeing gory (and fake) abortion pictures on posters?

Just wondering because I used to work at a foster care agency that happened to be next door to a women's clinic, and at times we'd have to call our foster parents and tell them to go the long way to our office on account of the gory pictures being held up by protestors at the neighboring clinic.

Considering your anti-choice politics, I'm curious if you find those as upsetting.

[Th1onein]

133. Of course I wouldn't want her to see that crap, either.

I don't think anti-choicers, for the most part, play fair. Then again, I don't think that it's altogether true, or that it helps their cause, for pro-choicers to frame the abortion issue as solely a women's rights issue, either.

[LeftyMom]

119. My kid would have been more upset by the smiling serial killers in the first image.

[OwnedByCats]

121. I don't have kids

but if I did, I know I wouldn't want them to see that - but then again, I wouldn't want my kids to see anything PETA puts out these days, not just this one in particular. I'm extremely pro animal rights but PETA is ridiculous. They turn people off with their rhetoric and I don't appreciate something I'm extremely passionate about being exploited in this manner.

I think it's interesting that some seem to believe no child would be effected negatively by that picture. Of course not all will be, but you can bet it will effect some.

[Chan790]

127. Agreed. n/t

[In_The_Wind]

123. My granddaughters would be very frightened if they saw this ad.

Personally, I'm offended by the ad.

[rug]

124. My daughter's 11 and has been a vegetarian since kindergarten.

She won't even go into a butcher shop, the smell sickens her.

[seabeyond]

126. good for her. i have two nieces that are on and off. they really want to for moral reasons.

i support absolutely.

[riqster]

128. My three-year old granddaughter would be freaked out.

She lives on a farm and has seen real animals die. So that is not the issue with the picture.

What would bother her, I think, would be the portrayal of a mother as a crazed, demonic, sadistic evil being. The cartoonish portrayal is far more troubling than a farmer dispassionately putting down a sick dog or killing a chicken for dinner.

[seabeyond]

129. people were saying... but it is a cartoon. i think the cartoon of it is worse also. and

the child is not seeing the correlation to the other photo of a typical thanksgiving dinner. they are clueless why this mom is doing something so bizarre and cruel right in front of her children.

it is sick.

[riqster]

132. Indeed. As I believe you have said, a side-side picture would encourage conversation

And allow parents to manage the child's emotional state during the conversation.

[meadowlark5]

130. My kids are beyond 2,3 and 4yrs old

What I wouldn't like about this ad for my boys to see, if they were still that young, is it's *me*, their mother, who is the butcher and hacking that turkey alive on the dining room table.

That part is what I think would be more disturbing to them than the bird being killed for a meal.

[seabeyond]

131. absolutely. nt

[cbdo2007]

136. My 2 year old wouldn't even notice it....my 3.5 year old would think it's silly.

I would tell her it's just red poo and the turkey is playing a joke on the kids. She would laugh her head off.

Then we would go on with our lives.