PETA decides Super Mario 3D Land promotes animal cruelty

[Isolder74]

Link

PETA decides Super Mario 3D Land promotes animal cruelty
Nov. 15, 2011 (5:45 am) By: Matthew Humphries

PETA is a well-known foundation setup to protect the rights of all animals. However, some of their tactics for doing so are questionable (which other animal rights organization is launching its own porn site?), even if they do end up getting the group a lot of coverage in the press.

Video games seem to be a favorite target for PETA, and you may remember Cooking Mama coming under fire for promoting cooking and eating meat. PETA went so far as to recreate the game online, renaming it Cooking Mama: Mama Kills Animals.

This week, the group has a new target due to the release of Super Mario 3D Land for the 3DS. Apparently, through releasing that game both Nintendo and Mario are promoting animal cruelty due to the use of the Tanooki Tail Power-Suit.

PETA points out the fact that tanuki are raccoon dogs that are skinned alive for their fur. By using fur as a Tanooki suit, Mario is “sending the message” that buying and wearing the real fur is acceptable.

To help get the point across, PETA has drawn Mario in his Tanooki suit holding a racoon’s head with blood dripping all over the floor. You can also play Super Tanooki Skin 2D the game, which puts you in the role of a skinned raccoon performing jumps as you try to catch a flying Mario who is wearing your blood-drenched skin.

At best this is a leap by PETA to associate the game with the cruelty. I bet most players don’t even notice a link between a suit Mario wears in the game and the fur trade. I have never played a Mario game and wanted to go out and kill me some raccoons, either.

While this is sure to get PETA some healthy coverage, as this article demonstrates, I think their efforts would do more good targeting those who actually purchase the raccoon fur in the first place and then the stores that stock it.

You can play the game on the Mario Kills Tanooki web page, via IGN

More proof that PETA is crazy. Not only is this not even worth griping about considering it's some magic leaf that turns Mario into a part animal thing to begin with. Even if it isn't how does the magic suit with a coon tail automatically = animal skin?

The face palm part of all this is the millions PETA wastes on this kind of nonsense instead of actually doing anything useful with their time!

[Bakustra]

No, this is perfectly rational. Their goal is to draw attention with stunts and try and get people motivated. Stuff like this or like "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" draw them plenty of attention. The problem (and the reason why many animal rights groups dislike PETA) is that this usually focuses attention on them more than on the animals. But this is perfectly in line with their goals.

[Lord Zentei]

This reminds me of Pat Robertson complaining that some Teletubby or other is supposedly gay. It may draw attention to them, but not in a good way from the POV of anyone who isn't already a firm supporter of theirs.

[Gil Hamilton]

Who do you think they are trying to motivate, Zentai, if not people that already believe in their cause? PR stunts like this are to motivate the true believers and keep their name in the press. Frankly, with PETA, for anyone whom this is seriously bad press likely already thinks poorly of PETA anyway, so what do they have to lose?

[Lord Zentei]

Who do you think they are trying to motivate, Zentai, if not people that already believe in their cause? PR stunts like this are to motivate the true believers and keep their name in the press. Frankly, with PETA, for anyone whom this is seriously bad press likely already thinks poorly of PETA anyway, so what do they have to lose?

True believers are already motivated. But what have PETA to lose? Seriously, they are an activist group, supposedly trying to promote an idea. Do you even need to ask that question?

[Kon_El]

More proof that PETA is crazy. Not only is this not even worth griping about considering it's some magic leaf that turns Mario into a part animal thing to begin with. Even if it isn't how does the magic suit with a coon tail automatically = animal skin?

In Super Mario 3 the Tanooki suit was a different item than the leaf that gave Mario the tail. It was an actual suit and had a extra ability to turn into a statue.

[Eframepilot]

It's about damn time that PETA went after Mario. He's been stomping on turtles and savagely kicking their shells for decades now. Not to mention his ruthless hunting of a certain gorilla.

[CaptainChewbacca]

And yet they have no problem with Mario killing Kurribo just for his shoe.

In Super Mario 3 the Tanooki suit was a different item than the leaf that gave Mario the tail. It was an actual suit and had a extra ability to turn into a statue.

Super Mario 3 and Super Mario Land 3D were different. In the latter, there actually was a Tanooki Leaf.

[CaptainChewbacca]

double post

[Gil Hamilton]

True believers are already motivated. But what have PETA to lose? Seriously, they are an activist group, supposedly trying to promote an idea. Do you even need to ask that question?

Their purpose is to get their name in the press. Most people that know what PETA is already have an opinion about them. People that would dismiss PETA as crazy already have for the most part. I mean, has this particular stunt changed your opinion of them at all? I'm guessing not. So it costs them nothing, keeps their name in the press, and motivates their supporters to keep talking about them.

Take Pat Robertson, whom you brought up. When he goes on the 700 Club and claims that tolerance of gay people caused a particular hurricane, do you honestly think he is trying to convince anyone? Of course not and he's probably gotten his "Perhaps I misspoke" speech already written before the show airs. But it gets his name in the papers and motivates his supporters, which is the point.

[Lord Zentei]

You don't think I realize that? That is the approach I'm criticizing!

PETA should be trying to convince people to change their attitudes towards how animals are treated, unless the objective of the organization is to simply preach to the choir and troll everyone else. It's these kinds of professional protest (or professional advocacy/rebel/activist organizations) that really tick me off - they seem more in the business in order to stay in the business, not to change people's minds.

[JME2]

* Reads article *

...You have got to be fucking kidding me.

[Count Chocula]

Should they rename themselves to PETFA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Fictional Animals now? They've gone from laughable to batshit crazy. Maybe they should criticize the asshats bringing their dogs to Occupy Whatever protests and getting them sick or pepper sprayed. Protip: a rowdy protest ain't the place to bring Fifi, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Should they rename themselves to PETFA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Fictional Animals now?

[DaveJB]

Unless there's some rare breed of Tanooki which is 5' long (even without the tail) and whose skin grants the power to fly and turn into a statue, I don't really see what PETA is complaining about.

I'd post more rebuttals of their bullshit, but right now I've got to scoop out the insides of this gorilla carcass in order to make myself a Donkey Kong costume...

[Zixinus]

As someone who volounteers at an animal shelter from time to time, I have to wonder whether the bullshit they pull here actually benefits the animals they want to protect.

Shelters, based on my experience, always need money, always need people to care, always need promotion. I doubt that there is a shelter that is not overflowing with dogs.

Does this campaign get money for those shelter? I doubt it. Does it discourage people from buying raccoon fur? How many people that play Mario buy raccoon fur clothes anyway? Would they even care?

I'm sorry, but "this keeps them in publicity" does not make them any less reprehensible, delusional or stupid.

[Serafina]

You are aware that PETA is actually against animal shelters and is in favor of putting down the animals instead, even without medical necessity - and that they have in fact done so themselves?

[Archaic`]

PETA's actions make more sense when you think of them as the Animal Rights movement's equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church. They're crazy, but they're predictable.

[Zixinus]

You are aware that PETA is actually against animal shelters and is in favor of putting down the animals instead, even without medical necessity - and that they have in fact done so themselves?

No, I was not aware.

This makes them more reprehensible, if anything. Again, does this even remotely help to archive their overall goal of preventing animal cruelty? I doubt it.

[Losonti Tokash]

PETA kills over 90% of the animals they "rescue" as strays.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com

[K. A. Pital]

I read the percentage was more like 85%. In any case killing animals isn't the worst thing you can do. Torturing animals is far worse.

That's what kids do (and some continue doing it well past adulthood) and what we humans routinely excuse.

[Losonti Tokash]

Um, yes. Torturing animals is bad. I don't see anyone excusing it, nor is the choice between torture or killing the animal. I don't particularly care about whatever PETA's latest publicity stunt or attempt to discredit animal rights activists is, but people should know that for all their bullshit they deliberately kill thousands of adoptable animals every year.

[evilsoup]

I think I can sort of understand their position, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I mean, do dogs in shelters get regular walks, or do they spend the vast majority of their time in little cages? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, which could be seen as a kind of cruelty; and unnecessary cruelty, if most dogs don't end up getting adopted. So instead of putting them through that unnecessary suffering, just put them down, as you would with any animal when the alternative is a great amount of suffering.

[open_sketchbook]

PETA's reasoning for killing these animals is that they are contaminated by human contact. No joke.

[evilsoup]

If that's the case I retract my post, but I'd like to see a source for that. I mean, they're a large-ish organisation, aren't they? Is that the official reason they give, or was it just some moron shooting his mouth off one time?