PETA – babble

Not sure how I missed this, but the usual silliness at PETA usually doesn’t bear much comment. That said, this does:

Re: Ward Chanley. While Clinton is not a strict vegan, we nonetheless congratulate him on rejecting meat, dairy, and eggs. He has chosen a healthier, more compassionate diet that causes far less suffering than his previous diet had. PETA is thrilled that Clinton, a man of such prominence, has chosen a plant-based diet, and for this, we have named him PETA’s 2010 Person of the Year.
http://www.peta.org/features/bill-clinton-named-petas-2010-person-of-the-year.aspx?c=weekly_enews

This in response to my comment on the story, here:

Given that Clinton admits to eating fish on his so-called “plant based diet” (http://www.fitsugar.com/Bill-Clinton-Eats-Plant-Based-Diet-Loses-Weight-Hopes-Healthier-Heart-11150638), PETA’s award for “promoting” veganism isn’t actually, you know, promoting veganism.

…are PETA’s comment moderators really this tone-deaf? From the actual piece, here’s the bolded, pullquote:

Because he uses his influence to promote the benefits of following a vegan diet, PETA is pleased to name Bill Clinton its 2010 Person of the Year.

So, let’s unpack, shall we?

PETA awards a silly, “Let’s get PETA mentioned in another news cyle” nonaward to Clinton because he’s high profile, for supposedly “promoting” veganism, which the former President admittedly doesn’t even do, since he isn’t vegan, and isn’t promoting veganism. At most, you might claim that Clinton is “promoting” the health benefits of pescetarianism.

When this obvious disconnect is pointed out, well, of course a PETA response furthers the idiotic claim that the former President has “rejected” meat … because, you know, fish are vegetables.

This, folks, is why the animal rights movement as promoted by PETA makes zero progress. It doesn’t actually mean anything.