Neil DeGrasse Tyson In PETA Ad

[Segnosaur]

It's not an ad, it's an interview that was used for an ad.

First of all, even if the interview was used for an ad, wouldn't he have still needed to give permission for his image to be used in the ad itself? (Not sure if using him in ads constitutes 'fair use'.)

Secondly, even if his main interaction with PETA was for an interview (and not an ad campaign), he still sat down and gave credibility to one of the most nutty, idiotic organizations out there.

If it had been me getting interviewed by PETA, I'd spend the time asking them things like "So, did you ever get the money back that you lent to the guy who firebombed research labs?" and "Do you know that AIDS organizations disagree with your anti-animal testing stance?"

 

[Silhouette]

I liked his interview, it was a reasonable argument for animal intelligence and how humans tend mistreat animals because they think they are unintelligent and therefore have no feelings. I am a vegan, but tend to not associate with PETA because I think they are antagonistic in their fervour to promote animal rights. That being said, is Tyson's argument invalid just because PETA gave the interview? You don't have to be a vegetarian to recognise animal abuse when you see it or evidence of animal intelligence when you are faced with it.

 

[Segnosaur]

I liked his interview, it was a reasonable argument for animal intelligence and how humans tend mistreat animals because they think they are unintelligent and therefore have no feelings. I am a vegan, but tend to not associate with PETA because I think they are antagonistic in their fervour to promote animal rights. That being said, is Tyson's argument invalid just because PETA gave the interview?

Nope, his arguments aren't invalid just because PETA gave the interview. Heck, I myself believe that we often mistreat animals.

The problem is that giving that message through PETA implies that he might just support more of their wacky extreme views.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope, his arguments aren't invalid just because PETA gave the interview. Heck, I myself believe that we often mistreat animals.

The problem is that giving that message through PETA implies that he might just support more of their wacky extreme views.

So would it have been better if Tyson had said, "No, I think you are a bunch of extremists and I don't want to be seen associating with you even though we may agree on some points about animals!"? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm serious. How should he have handled it when asked for an interview? He obviously had an opinion he was willing to share.

I see your point about association, and I know how it affects public perception especially in politics.

 

[Segnosaur]

So would it have been better if Tyson had said, "No, I think you are a bunch of extremists and I don't want to be seen associating with you even though we may agree on some points about animals!"? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm serious. How should he have handled it when asked for an interview?

Yes, I think that's exactly what he should have done. Well, OK, I might have been a bit more insulting to the PETA people rather than just label them as "extremist", but I would have preferred that he declined the interview.

As I said before, there are plenty of other groups out there that promote animal welfare, many without the extremist baggage that comes with PETA. Give a donation to his local SPCA. Bring up animal rights in other interviews that he gives. Granted, it might not get the profile that his PETA interview/ad received, but in my opinion PETA benefited more from an interview with a respected scientist than the animals benefited from his comments.

 

[Silhouette]

As I said before, there are plenty of other groups out there that promote animal welfare, many without the extremist baggage that comes with PETA. Give a donation to his local SPCA. Bring up animal rights in other interviews that he gives.

Yes, perhaps that would be more effective because it would reach a broader audience than just PETA fans.

Granted, it might not get the profile that his PETA interview/ad received, but in my opinion PETA benefited more from an interview with a respected scientist than the animals benefited from his comments.

I hope you're wrong about that, but what can you do? If what he said resonated with even a few people, then it helps the cause. It's unfortunate when animal activists turn people off to the issue by using heavy handed tactics such as throwing fake blood on other people's fur and leather or screaming at them. I think it has the opposite effect intended, which is to make people aware of the suffering involved in fur and leather production. They only remember being terrorised by activists, hence people's misconception that all vegetarians and vegans are militant, judgemental, and extremists.