Comments | burneybannerman: My five pennoths on smoking ape debate.

burneybannerman

My five pennoths on smoking ape debate.

Jun 24, 2005 12:56

I reserve the right to be amused by tastelessness and even horror I am not responsible for or supporting. Kissycat there was only upset because she likes animals - but lets remember that this is NOT like we are buying fur, or eating meat, or doing anything at all that would contribute to the likelihood that anyone else would give the poor ape a ( Read more... )

Comments 6

azekeil June 24 2005, 14:42:52 UTC

I think the point is that it's fine to laugh at people's misfortune when they have an informed choice. The chimp doesn't have that, which in my book makes it cruel to promote in any way, including amusement.

Say we change the circumstance to something more obvious - someone taking a baseball bat to the chimp's head, for example. This is analagous to the chimp smoking. It's something being done by humans to the chimp to cause it harm. I don't find that thought at all amusing.

Hey dont I get a percentage? burneybannerman June 24 2005, 16:50:36 UTC

Hmmm you know a promoter ususally gets a share in the cash generated by what hes promoting. I am not promoting chimp smoking, I am not taking a profit from it and I cant think of any person or cause who would benefit from this being in the public eye of whom I approve ( ... )

Re: Hey dont I get a percentage? azekeil June 24 2005, 18:50:55 UTC

Even bad advertising is still advertising. I don't mean promotion for money. It's like telling off a child for doing something wrong - even the fact that you're giving them attention is promoting their bad behaviour; they're getting what they want: attention.

A joke about starvation or war would be in bad taste. Perhaps the difference is in the immediacy of the situation. War and famine are unfortunate and people campaign against them. A chimp smoking cigarettes fed to him by that very same public that campaigned against war and famine is reprehensible.

amadou June 24 2005, 15:13:55 UTC

Addiction is completely independent of intelligence. I know several very intelligent people who started smoking either due to being young, thinking 'addiction wouldn't happen to them' or that they were in such a bad emotional state they didn't care whether they lived or died.

Then they were hooked.

Tobacco companies have been manipulating the public and pumping cigarettes full of additives - even chocolate! They are now well into destroying the lives of people in the developing world now that developed countries are savvy to the fact that Smoking Kills. And it has become a strong political issue...

I'm glad for all the responses to this article. It has had an effect and has made people think. It is sometimes the case that people's helplessness can be better seen when the analogy of a helpless ape is brought up.

azekeil June 24 2005, 19:13:23 UTC

I disagree about addiction being completely independent of intelligence. However, my definition of intelligence is fairly broad; I wouldn't say that thinking 'addiction wouldn't happen to them' was a sign of intelligence.

I agree that there are a number of products available that were they discovered now would be banned from sale to the general public - tobacco being the prime example. I also dislike their underhand selling tactics.

Did you know that Chimps have been used in tobacco advertising before now?

amadou June 24 2005, 19:48:03 UTC

Did you know that Chimps have been used in tobacco advertising before now?
hadn't actually... but I expect they've been involved in research into addiction.