Reply #75: Personally, I don't see too many similarities.

[superduperfarleft]

I only see that equivalence brought up on left-leaning messageboards to distract from the fact that people just don't like PETA's core message, for whatever reason. On some boards, more right-leaning ones, comparing PETA to the anti-abortion movement would be seen as an compliment. Points should be able to stand on their own, not be dependent upon trying to tie the opposition to some unnamed evil group because you think your audience or your peers will be receptive to that (kind of like the tendency of certain conservatives to try and tie the left with the Nazis, or the tendency of fucking EVERYONE to call anyone with whom they disagree a Nazi). I dislike anti-abortion protests because I disagree with their cause. You dislike PETA protests because you disagree with their cause. Why not just say that? There's no need to try and draw an equivalence.

As for me, wholly unaffiliated with PETA, if you brought the subject up, I would gladly tell you why I abstain from eating or using animal products for ethical reasons. If you asked if I thought you should go vegan, I'd absolutely tell you, "Yes," and if you continued to be interested (at least in humoring me), I'd give you plenty of reasons why. Is that considered forcing my morals upon someone? How is that any different from me explaining why you should vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate (or, as has been the case lately, why you should vote AGAINST the Republican candidate)?

For the record, I agree with what PETA claims is their cause, but I don't like their marketing campaign, which seems to rely on some combination of making spectacles of themselves, animal snuff films, and white male heterosexual privilege.