IMHO, while I am aginst PETA in general and this campaign in particular, I too was unsettled by the mentions of physical violence a la "stick it you know where." While these are probably in the category of figurative exaggerations, even as such, I don't think those kinds of actions would be a good or healthy response either.

Rockr - I see direct insults flung from you as a person as us as people ("all of your holier-than-thou responses"). While you may not be the only one doing it, you are certainly the pot who calls the kettle black with regard to things like hostile tone, insults and judgemental comments. Perhaps your tactics simply reflect your agreement with PETA's use of shock to 'wake people up." Taking this thread as a microcosm, however, you can see that it tends to generate more heat than light.

Torture and murder? I have no evidence for that. Unrepentant, inappropriate advertising to children - yes. And, IMHO, the ol' throwing paint on women in furs bit constitutes battery. I also feel that targeting women and children has very nasty implications with regard to current and historical trends in oppression.

As for the targeting of children, I see the strategy more as a desire hurt KFC financially. Parents will avoid the restaurant to protect their children and/or avoid the whole issue. A civil call for a boycott and an educational campaign (e.g leafletting) would probably get less media attention and have a lesser economic impact. Such measures would likely have a much greater chance of long-term success if consciousness raising was indeed the goal. As others have stated, since PETA would like to see (virtually) all consumption of animal products stopped, I do not believe that consciousness raising is indeed their goal.

There is a long-standing tradition of civil disobedience in this county, but both the ethics and success of any such movement hinge on the word 'civil'.

Cheers,

Friday