Ethical treatment of advertising

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 2nd, 2017 at 02:10 pm

The PETA ad at left was first submitted about ten days ago. I’d ignored the initial and several subsequent requests to run it, but now that it has somehow barged on to the site by itself, well, I’m inclined to leave it there. For aesthetic purposes.

It’s only running for a week. Be aware that I am opposed at an almost psychotic level to both the cause and the group, and will be spending any profits on panda skulls and veal.

Posted by Tim B. on 12/23/2005 at 05:52 PM
    1. If that’s what a mulesed bum looks like I’ll never make fun of a kiwi again.

      Posted by TonyD on 2005 12 23 at 06:58 PM • permalink


    1. Mmmmmmmmm – veal.  😀

      Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2005 12 23 at 07:20 PM • permalink


    1. For aesthetic purposes.

      Can’t argue with that!  Heh heh heh!  PETA trying to use sex appeal to push their screwball agenda is a waste of perfectly good female skin.

      And to further demonstrate my support for your opposition at “…an almost psychotic level…” to PETA, tonight I shall have roasted chicken breasts for dinner.  Sadly, Safeway is out of panda skulls.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 23 at 07:22 PM • permalink


    1. Wait until they find out about Hilal slaugher methods.  They fill an airplane with lambs and crash it into a barbeque pit.  Not only are no painkillers used, all the pilot gets is a cigaretee and a blindfold.

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 12 23 at 07:31 PM • permalink


    1. Silly PETA fools wasting their money thinking it will convert some of us perhaps. Why don’t you use the money they pay you to take out an ad on their site explaining the benefits of eating animal protein or 101 Ways to Cook Steak. I’m sure they’d let you do that.

      BTW A quick survey of the fridge for tommorrows christmas dinner: 9 kilos of prawns, oysters, crayfish, plentiful of inch thick steak, bacon, fish, chicken, sausages…..BWU HA HA HA it’s going to be a veritable genocide.

      Posted by Hank Reardon on 2005 12 23 at 07:35 PM • permalink


    1. Cheer up, tomorrow is the one time of the year that middle class Australians like me get to eat fancy crap like quail. Quail is like chicken except an animal has to die for every mouthful of food you scoff down like some sort of drunken omnivorous caveman. By boxing day, our wheelie bin will be full of so many discarded prawn heads that passing PETA members will be making comparisons with the holocaust.

      Posted by AussieJim on 2005 12 23 at 07:43 PM • permalink


    1. #5 Correction.

      I’m told by my dear mother that it is 12 kilos of prawns. 9 kilos of kings & 3 kilos of tigers.
      Sorry for the inaccuracy folks.  🙂

      Posted by Hank Reardon on 2005 12 23 at 07:55 PM • permalink


    1. It’s the only ad I’ve ever clicked on here. As punishment, I was greeted with a picture of Ingrid Newkirk. Uhhhh.

      Posted by Lawrence on 2005 12 23 at 08:03 PM • permalink


    1. Yes, but why does she need virtual paper-bagging?

      Posted by Jeremy Nimmo on 2005 12 23 at 08:24 PM • permalink


    1. If I click on it and you make money then for God’s sake man, leave it alone. Maybe even make it more prominent.

      Posted by Rotorhead on 2005 12 23 at 08:31 PM • permalink


    1. For ust for a little balance, check out:

      Peta Kills Animals

      Posted by Boss Hog on 2005 12 23 at 08:32 PM • permalink


    1. Likewise Lawrence, it is the first ad I have clicked on.

      Perhaps their ad has had lots of viewings and is the most “successful” ad ever run here?

      If they are after money/converts then their ad is likely the most unsuccessful ad run here.

      I share the psychotic level of opposition.

      Posted by Steve at the pub on 2005 12 23 at 08:32 PM • permalink


    1. I think you’re allowed to eat Pit Bulls.  PETA favors offing them.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2005 12 23 at 08:32 PM • permalink


    1. Arrgh! Should be ‘yoost a little balance’

      Posted by Boss Hog on 2005 12 23 at 08:35 PM • permalink


    1. hey hang on a sec, the Pet site says; “It is the 21st [c]entury. I don’t think that we should use flesh or the skin of any creature to make ourselves look good. The abuse that is involved in Australian wool is so outrageous to me. We can do something that’s really compassionate or something that’s cruel. I really make every effort in my life to make the compassionate choice.” 
      —Alicia Silverstone

      So whats with the skin and flesh of the good looking creature holding the placard?

      Posted by rog2 on 2005 12 23 at 08:38 PM • permalink


    1. I can’t figure out why they want to advertise on your site. Usually advertisers want to reach a sympathetic audience, and they sure as hell won’t find that here.

      Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 12 23 at 08:39 PM • permalink


    1. And look what Santa brung

      Posted by rog2 on 2005 12 23 at 08:41 PM • permalink


    1. What’s their problem with fur?

      Some of my favourite places are furry.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2005 12 23 at 08:51 PM • permalink


    1. I’m inclined to leave it there. For aesthetic purposes.

      Yes, I see: at least it features a nekkid moonbat protestor worth looking at. Too bad they beheaded that sheep, though…

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 12 23 at 08:52 PM • permalink


    1. Gah! I hates it when I fo’get the <enter>…

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 12 23 at 08:53 PM • permalink


    1. Save the crabs from humiliation! ‘Football helmets glued to crab’s heads scandal’ !

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 12 23 at 08:57 PM • permalink


    1. Now that we’ve all clicked the ad, PETA will want to advertise here all the time.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 12 23 at 09:00 PM • permalink


    1. Nope, leave it there. That way we can mock it and obtain laughing pleasure, and the irony of PETA funding this part of the VRWC is delicious.

      I man, what are the chances of any henchman, minion or camp follower of the VRWC being convinced by PETA of anything? Except maybe that PETA losers are totally bonkers.

      I am so glad to hear you admitting your evil psychosis, Tim. That befits you rexalted position!

      Meanwile, I am in the middle of planning not two but THREE hunting expeditions!



      Posted by MarkL on 2005 12 23 at 09:01 PM • permalink


    1. We live in a topsy turvy world were respectable capitalist businesses support with revenue The Aged newspaper and PETA ends up supporting this font of wisdom and insight.

      Part of the rich tapestry of life.

      PETA though are doing damage to the Australian brand. I say take their money and smoke a big fat (non-Cuban) cigar with it. In fact everyone should click on the ad as many times as possible so they think it’s a great success.

      I happily take the “New Internationalist’s” ads and even – and I am filled with shame about this – the increasingly left-wing Crikey.

      Game on.

      Posted by Andrew Landeryou on 2005 12 23 at 09:08 PM • permalink


    1. I hadn’t noticed the ad, once drawn to my attention PETA managed to make me think “nice arse” – well done PETA, I’d never have thought that without you.

      Posted by Harry Buttle on 2005 12 23 at 09:43 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmmm. Click on the ad. You get the web site, with a photo of some sheep at the top. Scroll down and you see a photo of Ingrid Newkirk. An astonishing resemblance. I think Ingrid’s advocacy verges on self-preservation.

      Posted by paco on 2005 12 23 at 10:00 PM • permalink


    1. Um, by the way, are those pockets drawn on the model’s buttocks or are they real pockets taped on in some way? Er, anyway to get a bigger picture? Just curiosity, you understand. About the pockets.

      She seems to be covered in blood, incidentally. What did she do, knife someone eating a lamb chop?

      Posted by paco on 2005 12 23 at 10:05 PM • permalink


    1. #4, When it comes to hilal slaughter, PETA are like the NSW Police: they won’t take on the Moslems, they go for whitey instead – Aussie wool growers.

      #11, Boss Hogg, that site is a great exposure of PETA. I hope the wool growers see it.

      Posted by Arnie on 2005 12 23 at 10:17 PM • permalink


    1. From Boss Hog’s link to PETA Kills Animals

      In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA’s Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. “We could become a no-kill shelter immediately,” she admitted.

      PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

      PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

      Here’s another PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2005 12 23 at 10:22 PM • permalink


    1. It’s time for P.A.S.A – ‘People Against Sexist Advertisements’.

      Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 12 23 at 10:22 PM • permalink


    1. Well, you can run that up my flagpole.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2005 12 23 at 10:36 PM • permalink


    1. Dave S,

      Or, down mine.

      Posted by J F Beck on 2005 12 23 at 10:55 PM • permalink


    1. That woman should reduce her daily intake of weird, while increasing her intake of common sense. Muslesing is done to protect sheep from fly strike, it is no harmful that having a dog de-sexed and do you see people protesting about that?

      Posted by cjblair on 2005 12 23 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. Boy am I hanging out for their anti cruelty to PUSSY advert.

      They don’t show us her face. Is that because we are already seeing her best side?

      Posted by the nailgun on 2005 12 23 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. Interestingly enough, P.E.T.A. gets a 4-star rating from Charity Navigator.  Which isn’t to say they’re not a pack of raving frootloops, just that they do seem to operate fairly efficiently. (Check out the listing for TreePeople if you want to see a group that doesn’t).

      Posted by Achillea on 2005 12 23 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. Well, I for one think that’s highly unethical of letting PETA run their article here.  The money PETA uses to pay for this advertisement comes from supporters such as Barbara Streisand and Susan Sarandon.  By taking their money, you in effect allow them to pay for your beer, your women, and your depraved habits, possibly including the hunting of endangered emus.

      Tim, shouldn’t you give back the money?  How will you live with yourself?

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 12 23 at 11:14 PM • permalink


    1. Hm. Apropos of nothing, I had a lovely late lunch of grilled lamb on rice at a Turkish restaurant here in town. Cruelly slaughtered baby sheep are yummy!

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 12 23 at 11:16 PM • permalink


    1. Bum bottom of the world

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2005 12 23 at 11:25 PM • permalink


    1. I’m disgusted by the treatment of Australia’s flag in the ad. Those white bikini bottoms should be removed immediately to end the shameful coverage of Australia’s ensign.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2005 12 23 at 11:49 PM • permalink


    1. Ingrid Newkirk looks like Margaret Whitlam reincarnated.

      Posted by amortiser on 2005 12 23 at 11:50 PM • permalink


    1. Had the buffalo burger today for lunch.  Pork for supper.

      Tomorrow, the veal.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 24 at 12:01 AM • permalink


    1. Dear God, amortiser, did you have to? I just had lunch!


      Posted by MarkL on 2005 12 24 at 12:03 AM • permalink


    1. Just in case Peta folks are visiting to check reaction to their ad, I must report on the counter lunch menu board at my local pub which I visited earlier to place my doubles and quaddie.
      Brains and bacon (calves’ grey matter with slices of widdle piggy,I think),
      Lambs fry and bacon (baby sheepies wivvers)
      Braised rabbit (widdle bunny stewed til he’s moist and delish).
      Kangaroo snags (they fairly hop onto your fork).
      Flathead tails (without these, widdle fish go wound and wound in circles, making rest of fish easy to corral into net).
      Finally, there’s the meat-eater’s steak, cook’s instructions: cut off its horns, wipe its arse and bung it on a plate.
      MMMMMMM… meat!

      Posted by slatts on 2005 12 24 at 12:08 AM • permalink


    1. I wondered what we were referring to then realised Mike’s wonderful no-ads hosts file was blocking the ad (as it does most ads) – recommended:

      Posted by walterplinge on 2005 12 24 at 12:37 AM • permalink


    1. My wife claims I have an Australia-shaped birthmark on my arse, but that’s ridiculous.

      Posted by Andrew on 2005 12 24 at 12:40 AM • permalink


    1. PETA won, I ate no mutton today.

      It was a pork themed day, ham for lunch and chops for dinner.  Now it is cool out tonight in my hemisphere … where is that rabbit fur hat?

      Posted by Roberts on 2005 12 24 at 01:33 AM • permalink


    1. I had sausages on the barbie for lunch.

      I guarantee no animals died to make them, although the sludge from the refinery that produced the alleged “meat” may well have contained dinosaur bones.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 12 24 at 01:39 AM • permalink


    1. I used to live in Turkey and during Moslem festivals such as Id al Fitr, the streets would literally run red with blood as families slaughtered goats and sheep, to celebrate. Wives and children gathered round to clap and cheer as their menfolk slit the animals’ throats (no poofy stunning them first).

      I never saw any observers from PETA. They probably would have fainted at the sight.

      Posted by Arnie on 2005 12 24 at 01:57 AM • permalink


    1. PETA’s case against mulesing is so weak that, after Toni Collette was originally conned into issuing a statement in support of PETA’s anti-mulesing stance, she almost immediately retracted it when given the facts by the sheep industry.

      When a knee-jerk lefty actor like Collette can be so quickly convinced to recant from an anti-business, be-kind-to-animals position, the case must be as clear-cut as can be.

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 12 24 at 02:32 AM • permalink


    1. Hmmm, is there anything unseemly about the fact that, upon learning that PETA is against “mulesing”, I suddenly find myself all in favor of “mulesing”, despite not not knowing the first &&*&^# thing about what is actually involved therein?

      Posted by Teemo on 2005 12 24 at 03:16 AM • permalink


    1. Well teemo imagine a really really really bad hot wax treatment

      Posted by Francis H on 2005 12 24 at 03:28 AM • permalink


    1. PETA are commercial terrorists who should be fought by all means. They give out misleading propaganda and engage in blackmail pure and simple.
      Like intestinal parasites in our herd animals, they should be treated as the destructive menace they are.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2005 12 24 at 04:03 AM • permalink


    1. My favorite sheep-humiliating device is the “sheep squeeze,’’ a pair of gates that you tighten up on the sheep and then lift and invert him while you tend to his hooves or whatever horrible plan you may be intending.

      PETA is silent on sheep humiliation.

      Then there’s Border Collies.  As a regular bicyclist I know what they’re like when they start herding you.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2005 12 24 at 06:12 AM • permalink


    1. If I ever encounter any sort of animal rights activist around here, it’s usually a good sign that I need to go find a good bacon double cheeseburger .

      Posted by Vexorg on 2005 12 24 at 06:29 AM • permalink


    1. PETA participates in the torture of sheep – making their members wear that ridiculous agitprop, its disgraceful!

      Posted by 2dogs on 2005 12 24 at 09:36 AM • permalink


    1. What PETA ad?

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 12 24 at 11:49 AM • permalink


    1. Gotta love that Shania-Twain-quality butt.

      Posted by Rittenhouse on 2005 12 24 at 12:41 PM • permalink


    1. My favorite sheep-humiliating device is the “sheep squeeze,’’ a pair of gates that you tighten up on the sheep and then lift and invert him while you tend to his hooves or whatever horrible plan you may be intending.

      Sounds like what happens to Ender around here.

      Posted by Achillea on 2005 12 24 at 02:02 PM • permalink


    1. I did a rough calculation.
      Shedhand/butcher for a shearing team for 4 years. minus days off,is around 1000.
      2 sheep per day killed and butchered ( thraots cut and broken, cleaver the next day).
      2000 dead sheep by my hand alone!! Bite on that Peta, you anemic, flatulent, tofu molesters.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2005 12 24 at 10:07 PM • permalink


    1. And I always thought Mulesling was European cereal.

      Posted by ushie on 2005 12 25 at 12:34 PM • permalink


    1. If you look closely, after several minutes it looks like she’s holding a sign of some sort.  Can’t quit make it out.

      Posted by Hucklebuck on 2005 12 25 at 12:47 PM • permalink


  1. See more on the connection between PETA and Terrorism.

    Posted by blogstrop on 2005 12 25 at 08:50 PM • permalink