PETA and bad judgment

The worst press release of the month showed up in the ol’ Inbox this morning—not the worst because it was poorly-written, or because it was irrelevant to Sacramento, or just boring, but the worst because it was an exercise in exceptionally poor judgment.

Take a look:

Yeah, they’re comparing nuking meat—specifically, a pork chop—to the appalling tragedy that resulted in the arrest of a local woman for killing her eight-week-old baby in a microwave.

Yeah, PETA? Not such a good comparison. There are plenty of reasons to avoid eating meat, but the moral equivalent of infanticide? Not so much.

In fact, the inability to discriminate between an infant and a pork chop ranks right up there with anti-choice activists who can’t discriminate between an embryo and a three-year-old. Bad judgment, bad argument, opportunistic decision, and no, I’m not going to put up the copy of the billboard you want to use.

Pulling this idiotic move when some poor woman—who is undoubtedly suffering from mental illness—faces charges for murdering her infant is nothing short of ugly.

PETA, you’ve lost a lot of ground with this one.

Edited to add: Just got a follow-up call from PETA’s office, and I told him that the organization is doing a very good job of pissing off their friends. SN&R has an editorial position of supporting vegetarianism and veganism as sustainable, sensible choices to reduce our footprint on an endangered planet. This was just offensive, especially considering the circumstances.

Follow me on Twitter: @KelMunger

Share