# New Peta ad



## slavetoabunny (Jan 29, 2010)

I support spaying and neutering, but this is simply in bad taste:

http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/peta_targets_the_duggars_in_new_ad.php


----------



## RandomWiktor (Jan 29, 2010)

What, PETA doing something in poor taste? Shocking! 

I despise this organization. They are so grossly counterproductive to the cause of animal rights that it isn't even funny.


----------



## Jessyka (Jan 29, 2010)




----------



## hartleybun (Jan 29, 2010)

Patti - saw this on your FB post. i do find it in very poor taste. how can such young children give their consent to appear in this?. i know that Peta have used 'shock' tactics in past adverts but when they use minors in this way. what a poor decision by the parents.:nosir:


----------



## JadeIcing (Jan 29, 2010)

Ick! That is just wrong.


----------



## degrassi (Jan 29, 2010)

*hartleybun wrote: *


> Patti - saw this on your FB post. i do find it in very poor taste. how can such young children give their consent to appear in this?. i know that Peta have used 'shock' tactics in past adverts but when they use minors in this way. what a poor decision by the parents.:nosir:


My guess is the Duggars didn't consent to using their name in the ad. Since there is no picture of the family and all it says is "Duggars" PETA probably didn't need to get any consent. 

That ad is just in poor taste and PETA is once again showing as ridiculous they are.


----------



## Nancy McClelland (Jan 29, 2010)

once again proving that "common sense" isn't all that common.


----------



## slavetoabunny (Jan 29, 2010)

Valerie is correct - the photo isn't part of the advertisement, just the family name. They are supposedly putting up billboards in the Duggar's hometown and surrounding communities.


----------



## hartleybun (Jan 29, 2010)

if the family havent consented in anyway, then i guess we will be seeing a lawsuit pretty soon. i know this family have appeared in a documentary - it was shown here- and their values and way of life arent to everyone's taste. my sympathies lie with the children - this seems terribly cruel all round


----------



## Brandy456 (Jan 29, 2010)

I <3 the duggars. 
I don't get the add though..


----------



## pla725 (Jan 29, 2010)

They tried using Michelle Obama and that didn't work. I agree that is in bad taste considering that the family is against using birth control.


----------



## slavetoabunny (Jan 29, 2010)

While having 19 kids isn't my cup of tea, you do have to admire their family values. They own their 7,000 s.f. home free and clear and have never taken any public assistance. Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003 and was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002.


----------



## SweetSassy (Jan 29, 2010)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't agree with her having that many kids.



I DO NOT WANNA BE BASHED FOR MY COMMENT.everyone has opinions. 



PS) I do like the duggars and I have watched the show. I just don't agree with her having that many kids. I have my own reasons for that.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jan 29, 2010)

^^^ The point is, April, is that these are private citizens being targeted unnecessarily by a _malicious_ campaign.
There is no call for that. These people are raising their kids on their own, they aren't on welfare, they aren't a drain on the system.

To compare them to a b*tch in heat, cranking out puppies that go onto to burden the animal welfare system is exceptionally judgemental.

A far better, more accurate comparison would be the Octo-mom... not that a campaign about her would be appropriate either .

(Frankly, I don't agree with anyone having more than one child per parent - 2 kids in a 2 parent family. Otherwise, it is an unnecessary, added burden on the environment. 
However, folks don't go round ridiculing people with 3 kids in a national public campaign, right?) 

I hope there is a lawsuit in the works there :grumpy:.


----------



## missyscove (Jan 29, 2010)

*NorthernAutumn wrote: *


> ^^^ The point is, April, is that these are private citizens being targeted unnecessarily by a _malicious_ campaign.
> There is no call for that. These people are raising their kids on their own, they aren't on welfare, they aren't a drain on the system.
> 
> To compare them to a b*tch in heat, cranking out puppies that go onto to burden the animal welfare system is exceptionally judgemental.
> ...



Ignoring the fact that we've already reached overpopulation and probably could do with decreasing our numbers a bit, we actually need to have some 3 child families... to replace those that don't live to the age of reproduction or for some other reason cannot reproduce. From a purely scientific, not ethical or moral view, of course.


----------



## NorthernAutumn (Jan 29, 2010)

^^^ I agree, scientifically-speaking 3 child families are needed to sustain _current _ population levels.

Ethically though, the human species already over-runs the Earth like ants at a picnic... I think we could do with some reproduction reduction measures 

More ants, fewer people = happier planet:biggrin2::biggrin2:

Despite how much I like my own point of view (lol), it still doesn't justify PETA abusing private citizens in this way.


----------



## slavetoabunny (Jan 29, 2010)

*SweetSassy wrote: *


> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't agree with her having that many kids.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am in NO WAY bashing you with this comment April. I am just saying that comparing a private family who chooses to have 19 children and support them 100% from personal income should in no way be compared to animals having unwanted litters. It's just too personal and uncalled for.


----------



## SweetSassy (Jan 29, 2010)

Iunderstandwhat your saying Patti.


----------



## Happi Bun (Jan 29, 2010)

Oh PETA... it's too bad you don't put this much effort and money into actually SAVING animals instead wasting time putting out ad's that shock and disgust the general public so you can be the talk of the town. If they want to get out the word of Spaying and Neutering (which is a great thing to do) all you have to do is spread awareness of the statistics. 

Each day approximately 10,000 humans are born in the U.S. and each day approximately 70,000 puppies and kittens are born as well leaving 5 million animals without a home to die in shelters this year.


----------



## BlueCamasRabbitry (Jan 30, 2010)

That is just awful! I looove the Duggars and I do NOT support PETA at all! How crude of them to do that!

ETA: This is Amanda not Emily, I didn't realizeI was logged in as my sister.


----------



## bengal77 (Jan 30, 2010)

I really don't care for PETA. I think that they actually do much more harm than good with their shock campaigns and geurilla warfare. IMO they give animal rights activists a bad name with their shameful tactics.


----------



## BlueCamasRabbitry (Jan 30, 2010)

I hear so much about PETA. Good, bad...good, bad.. I don't know what to think so I just don't support them... 

I find it rude that they would use the Duggars for one of their ads. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen... and when it does, it's going to be all over the media, beause the Duggars are involved. Hopefully that will get people to dislike PETA even more. 

Emily


----------



## PepnFluff (Jan 30, 2010)

Jeepers thats distasteful! I'd never heard of the Duggars until now so did a bit of googling  It's there choice to have that many kids and they're not sponging off the govt so whoopdey doo. Maybe if PETA spent the money from creating this ad and the law suit they're probably going to get into actually saving animals rather than stirring!


----------



## OakRidgeRabbits (Jan 30, 2010)

LOL! I'm behind PETA on this one!


----------



## slavetoabunny (Jan 30, 2010)

I just found this press release from Peta on their plans for this ad:

http://www.peta.org/MC/NewsItem.asp?id=14201

I really wonder how the younger children will react to seeing their name on a billboard in this context. I still haven't found anything that indicates whether or not the Duggar family gave their permission for this.


----------



## xKuchiki (Feb 1, 2010)

This is terrible. 

PETA absolutely disgusts me in every way, shape, and form. They could actually be doing some good by helping to donate to shelters but noo. Obviously PETA is going to take the low road and do what they always do : create a useless and unnecessary ruckus and upset the public. 

I did not know about the Duggars until now, but IMO if they want to have that many children and they aren't mooching the government then go right ahead. I'm not saying I agree with having 19 children but if her husband and her can financially support themselves then they by all means can have as many children as they want...

But, that does NOT give PETA any reason to bash this harmless family like this. To me it seems like PETA prides themselves on their reputation.


----------



## Happi Bun (Feb 1, 2010)

I personally do not agree with people that decide to have so many children. I will never have any of my own, but if I someday do decide I would like to be a mother I will definitely be adopting. I'm not one of those people that think all people should adopt, I completely understand the desire to make a child of your own. I do believe people overdue it and need to look at the big picture more.

Humans are by far the most invasive, destructive and overpopulated species IMO. We use up all natural resources and do not respect the environment. We get angry at other animals deemed as "pests" when we are far more destructive. Thankfully most of us are intelligent enough to realize this and work towards a better tomorrow. 

I do feel that this PETA ad is in very poor taste though. :shame Saying you disagree with how many kids this couple has decided to have is one thing, posting it on billboards for everyone and their uncle to see is another.


----------



## Babsbunny (Feb 1, 2010)

Okay, help me here. My memory isn't as good as it once was.....

I'm trying to remember something PETA has done that was in good taste, that had no shock value. Yeah, I couldn't think of anything either.

Their modus operandi is to use shock and poor taste to get their message out. So, it is interesting that the most shocking and distateful thing about PETA, is something they wish had never never gotten out.

Read this interesting story about PETA . Be prepared to be shocked.

Barbara Cox
"Babs Bunny"


----------



## Jessyka (Feb 1, 2010)

I've been thinking about this for the past couple days. The family would have had to have given consent... This would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. I hate giving PETA the benefit of the doubt, but maybe it was meant more as a light hearted joke with a moral than a disrespectful attack on the family. I'll be interested to see how this progresses.


----------



## Happi Bun (Feb 1, 2010)

Not sure how reliable this info is, but according to this new's website...



> As fans watched the latest special of the Duggar Family, an ad for PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) has been shared with the American public. One might have thought it might have been an ad with another naked celebrity. However, to the shock of some, it it a new billboard and campaign incorporating (without asking) TLC's Duggar Family.


----------



## Jessyka (Feb 1, 2010)

Happi Bun wrote:


> Not sure how reliable this info is, but according to this new's website...
> 
> 
> 
> > As fans watched the latest special of the Duggar Family, an ad for PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) has been shared with the American public. One might have thought it might have been an ad with another naked celebrity. However, to the shock of some, it it a new billboard and campaign incorporating (without asking) TLC's Duggar Family.



Ah, I should have known better.


----------



## Mubunny (Feb 1, 2010)

I thought it was almost close to funny, but PETA doesn't do much right.
The Duggar's don't have a copyright on their name and it isn't against the law to say they have a crap load of kids... They do.

Unrelated: I've seen their show once, it made me really uncomfortable.


----------



## Luluznewz (Feb 5, 2010)

WOW!

Okay, so I have to say, I understand the thought process. I just cannot imagine why in the WORLD that family would consent to that.

That being said, its pretty funny. I didnt realize the family really realized how insane it was to have 19 children. But still, that's just a really stupid campaign. I think it leaves a really unpleasant image in peoples heads. I already know of people who have a problem with fixing animals because it seems like such an extensive surgery and it seems "unfair" to them, but associating it with people is really not helping that image.


----------



## paul2641 (Feb 5, 2010)

How can you call the family private when they have there own show documenting there family. They more then likely consented for a sum of money.


----------



## Jessyka (Feb 6, 2010)

I just feel bad for the kids. Nothing like being compared to a stray animal!


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Feb 6, 2010)

I too think it is sad to compare two consenting adults that are taking care of their young, financially, and in every other way , to a stray animal that is over populating the world and its young is having to be put to sleep at alarming rates. Having 19 kids is not for most people but who am i to complain when they are taking care of them, and affording them, they arent living off the system. I think the bilboard would be more appropriate if it was a mother that had 19 kids and wasnt taking care of any of them, and they were all taken away from her.


----------



## slavetoabunny (Feb 6, 2010)

I think Octo-mom, or whatever they call her, would be a better example.


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Feb 6, 2010)

yes most defintely Patty!!!!!!! lol


----------



## bunnybunbunb (Feb 7, 2010)

I, personally, had a big dislike for the Duggars. What they are doing is wrong, in my opinion. I can not watch their show or read anything on them. I have been waiting for a while for something to finely happen when they had a kid, I actually thought this almost death would finely put their minds right and make them stop, but it looks like they need the full thing.

I like the add, I find it very humorous. It makes me smile xD


----------



## bunnybunbunb (Feb 7, 2010)

"own their 7,000 s.f. home free and clear and have never taken any public assistance."

Sorry but I find that VERY untrue. They may say that but may god strike me down right where I sit if it be true. When the show started they lived in a rinky little house with what, three bed rooms? They talked about living month to month. Soon after the show started they started building that huge house. They got loads from that show plus people giving them stuff for being so overcrowded as a family, I have NO doubt about that.


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Feb 7, 2010)

What happened to their baby had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she has had a million of kids?lol. I think it is kind of sad to think that there mind is not right just because they have alot of kids. I have my hands full with four kids , i couldnt imagine in a million years what it would be like to have the amount of kids they do, but it works for them. Now the Octo mom on the other hand, needs to have her mind set right,lol


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Feb 7, 2010)

From what i have heard Jim Bob sold real estate and they have investment properties, and possibly investments, that last one i am not sure of, but according to them they are living debt free. They built the house that they live in now , with the help of the kids , family and friends, with skills that they have learned along the way. I am sure that the station that has their show, and by doing the show has given them donations of things in the house, but hey if they have the show and can benefit from it why not. Look at John and Kate plus eight, there whole income is based on what they make from the show and appearances for her book and things like that


----------



## TinysMom (Feb 8, 2010)

I guess I don't see a big deal with that family - I know several families who have 9 and 10 kids (by choice) - and some friends have 6-8 kids also.

Yeah - I admit - they have a LOT of kids - don't get me wrong. 

But I know a bit about their mindset (conservative Christian) and I understand a lot of what their goals are for raising their kids.

Most of the families that I know that are like this (all of them I think) - tend to be debt-free (or mostly debt-free) and working towards training their kids to be able to have their own business as they become adults (although if they do go to college it is usually paid for in cash).

Anyway - had God allowed Art & I to have more kids - we would have done so also. Like this family - we wanted to have however many kids God entrusted to us. It looks like the number for us...was two. (But we love them anyway).

I haven't watched their show - I may have to try and find a way to see it on the internet or something.


----------



## Jessyka (Feb 8, 2010)

bunnybunbunb wrote:


> "own their 7,000 s.f. home free and clear and have never taken any public assistance."
> 
> Sorry but I find that VERY untrue. They may say that but may god strike me down right where I sit if it be true. When the show started they lived in a rinky little house with what, three bed rooms? They talked about living month to month. Soon after the show started they started building that huge house. They got loads from that show plus people giving them stuff for being so overcrowded as a family, I have NO doubt about that.



Could have gotten donations after people started seeing the show. Donations are not considered "public assistance."


----------



## Raspberry82 (Feb 8, 2010)

*RandomWiktor wrote: *


> What, PETA doing something in poor taste? Shocking!
> 
> I despise this organization. They are so grossly counterproductive to the cause of animal rights that it isn't even funny.


TOTALLY agree. PETA is appalling and their leader is a very disturbed woman. I'll never forget her quote long ago when she said she felt the human race shouldn't exist for the sake of animals. Nutcase.


----------



## Raspberry82 (Feb 8, 2010)

*Jessyka wrote: *


> bunnybunbunb wrote:
> 
> 
> > "own their 7,000 s.f. home free and clear and have never taken any public assistance."
> ...



This may sound cold, but I have ZERO sympathy for a family that WILLINGLY chooses to have baby after baby after baby when they cannot financially support them and could easily access birth control but choose not to for religious reasons and instead uses public assistance and donations. It's practically guaranteed they used public assistance before the show. And I'm sorry, but that is really wrong. The only reason the Duggar family can survive now is because of their show and the tons of money from TLC. And let's not forget.. it is 18 kids AND COUNTING... they have no intention of stopping, the mother is already pregnant with #19. I think that is so beyond wrong in this day in age. But to do that and use public assistance when there are families that have 1 baby with serious health problems and desperately needs public assistance, they should get it.. not a family that chooses to have tons of kids they cannot possibly take care of. And what kind of future are these kids going to have when their parents cannot pay for any of them to go to college? It is wildly irresponsible to me.

Ok, rant over, lol.


----------



## Raspberry82 (Feb 8, 2010)

So finally on topic.. lol.. I personally think the ad is pretty funny. It send a message everyone understands because who hasn't heard of the duggars .


----------



## Raspberry82 (Feb 8, 2010)

*slavetoabunny wrote: *


> Valerie is correct - the photo isn't part of the advertisement, just the family name. They are supposedly putting up billboards in the Duggar's hometown and surrounding communities.


Now, PETA doing _that_ I think is terribly bad taste. That's just invasive and mean.

Willingly signing on to being a public family via TLC, they signed on to be very public, so it is to be expected that some unpleasant things would come from that. Similar situation with Jon and Kate.. things they would have much rather not have be public info were slandered all over the media, the media can be brutal, just how it is.


----------



## Luvmyzoocrew (Feb 8, 2010)

*Raspberry82 wrote: *


> This may sound cold, but I have ZERO sympathy for a family that WILLINGLY chooses to have baby after baby after baby when they cannot financially support them and could easily access birth control but choose not to for religious reasons and instead uses public assistance and donations. It's practically guaranteed they used public assistance before the show. And I'm sorry, but that is really wrong. The only reason the Duggar family can survive now is because of their show and the tons of money from TLC. And let's not forget.. it is 18 kids AND COUNTING... they have no intention of stopping, the mother is already pregnant with #19. I think that is so beyond wrong in this day in age. But to do that and use public assistance when there are families that have 1 baby with serious health problems and desperately needs public assistance, they should get it.. not a family that chooses to have tons of kids they cannot possibly take care of. And what kind of future are these kids going to have when their parents cannot pay for any of them to go to college? It is wildly irresponsible to me.
> 
> Ok, rant over, lol.


It is not irresponsible if they are affording it, how can you assume that they cant afford those kids, they do alot of things to cut costs, they have rental properties, they home school the kids, etc, etc, etc, etc,lol. They claim to not be taking any welfare type of assistance, they do have a strong community that they congregate with, that have like minded views as they do, and they help each other. I dont agree or even disagree with them, it is not something that is for me, but it works for them and they are doing it.


----------



## TinysMom (Feb 8, 2010)

I went to their website and was doing some reading. Several years ago - they went to a seminar on managing their money and living debt-free and that is how they decided to live. If they lived in a small house before - it is because that is what they could afford. (I know of the seminar they went to and have friends who live the same way - Art & I were talking about them the other day. They bought an old orphanage about 15 years ago - paid it off within 5 years and have lived without a house payment for over 10 years. They've done most of their work themselves and while they bought the property for $45,000 - because of the acreage it is on and all the work they've done to the place (over 3,000 square feet with a second house on the property and a huge barn, etc) - the house is probably worth over $250,000 now. In addition - they've had his $1500 month retirement since 2002 plus his income (probably close to $30 per hour) since then to live on - with no house payment and no car payment, etc.)

I don't see why people think they couldn't afford to take care of their kids - if you read their story- you'll even see that the tv station approached them to do the series - not the other way around.


----------



## BethM (Feb 8, 2010)

I think having that many kids is irresponsible, because of the environmental impact all those people (and THEIR offspring) will have. There are too many people on the planet as it is, and I think having that many kids is just wrong, whether they can pay for them or not. (NOT that I agree with legislating that sort of thing.) I think these people are using religion as an excuse for their irresponsible behavior.

I don't really have an opinion on the ad, though.

ETA: This is my personal opinion, and I'm not going to argue about it. *shrug* I know others may not agree with me, and I don't expect everyone to feel the same way about it.


----------



## Raspberry82 (Feb 9, 2010)

I just said IF they did get public assistance it would be wrong, I didn't say whether they did or not. I think they're sweet people with good hearts, just seems a little crazy they leave everything up to God like continuing with more children. If they lost the show, how would they care for so many? 

And I don't think people are really taking into account the whole picture of possible expenses. If they did it without public assistance, kudos to them.

But children are not cheap. There's tons of doctor/medical expenses for each child, clothes, food, insurance. And on 1 income too, since Michelle stays home. 

Since they make 50k per episode, they are now millionaires, so no problem. But before? Hard to imagine even if you're frugal. Jim Bob must have had a hefty salary.


----------



## degrassi (Feb 9, 2010)

*Raspberry82 wrote: *


> I just said IF they did get public assistance it would be wrong, I didn't say whether they did or not. I think they're sweet people with good hearts, just seems a little crazy they leave everything up to God like continuing with more children. If they lost the show, how would they care for so many?
> 
> And I don't think people are really taking into account the whole picture of possible expenses. If they did it without public assistance, kudos to them.
> 
> ...


They own and rent out a bunch of different commercial properties. You can make a LOT of money doing that. On one of their episodes they explained how they can afford it, their income and how they are debt free. They also explained that the kids have medical and some dental plan. They also have a smaller carbon foot print then most american families and the cost/child is lower then what most people think. 

Raising a "normal" kid thats spoiled with all the luxuries we have is expensive. Raising one thats homeschooled, no tv, only used clothes, only home made food, no extra $ after school activities, in a house thats paid off, is more economical. They don't have all the extra stuff people waste their money on.


----------



## irishlops (Feb 9, 2010)

*SweetSassy wrote: *


> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't agree with her having that many kids.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also don't see anything wrong with the advert.
All things in advertisting have some bad thing behind it if its from a large compnay, organatistion etc. I do think if it was used with out permission then it should be sorted out.

(Personally myself, it is up to the person in _my _eyes for how may kids they wan't, and its not for us to judge that at all. None of us know her and her family personally as far as I am aware.)
(and :wave: to every one)


----------

