Aggressive animal rights group PETA recently released the Flash-based parody Cooking Mama: Mama Kills Animals of the Cooking Mama series of games on its website. The objective of the game is to prepare a turkey for Thanksgiving by doing the whole process of plucking its feathers and removing its intestines. This gruesome game can be played here.

A post in PETA's official blog explains why they do it: "If you're wondering why we're picking on poor Mama, it's probably because you've never played the original games. They are so heavy on dishes made from dead animals that the only things missing are the blood and the slaughterhouse. So in the name of accuracy and honesty, PETA decided to introduce a little horror into Mama's kitchen!"

Majesco, the publisher of the Cooking Mama games, responded with a post on its site: "Food lover and culinary cutie Cooking Mama is a virtual chef who believes that good home cooked food, properly prepared from the best ingredients, can bring people together around the table and make the world a happier place. That's why Mama is taking a stand with oven mitts raised high against the latest PETA objection targeting her freshly released videogame, Cooking Mama World Kitchen.

I have to say, regardless of any validity to the complaints of PETA, the parody is spot on. I really had a good time laughing off the similarities to the official series.

I wonder what PETA would say about animals they advocate protecting, removing and eating the organs of their prey. We should petition the carnivores of the world to stop being so mean.

While PETA advocates for all animals, most food animals aren't carnivores. (And while animals, lacking ethics, can't be considered unethical for hunting and eating each other, humans certainly can be considered unethical for systematizing inhumane factory farm conditions.)

I agree with what you're saying. Certainly animals should be treated as humanely as possible. They may not always treat us humanely, but if we can go above that sort of reciprocal thinking, and treat them as decently as possible, then it says something about us as a species.

All the same, it's fun to make fun of PETA and the double-standards they sometimes display.

Er? If I was an ass, I'd prefer being treated like a donkey than being treated like G.W. Bush. :)

God, if PETA had it their way...they'd totally embargo all cuisine from Asia. Then again...maybe that's the main reasoning for their vision --> Westerners can't cook. :)

My understanding is that Asian cuisine is pragmatic, making use of what animal protein is at hand, the proportion of animal protein to everything else is among the lowest of most regional cuisines (vs. steaks, burgers and sausages with a piece of parsley on the side for garnish 8)

Not vegan, but not unlike the western menu not entirely revolving around the practice and principal of eating animal parts. There's always more rice, noodles, veggies and soya to go around 8)

PETA gets more stupid with every bit of shenanigans. This game is a prime example. Even with graphics to match the series, it's much more gruesome than the real thing. I stopped with the egg cracking, due to the sheer stupidity of it. Blood and feathers falling from an egg? Really?

I wish that most uses of the word "idealistic" weren't synonymous with the word "idiot", because there's too many people giving time, money, and energy to PETA and other hypocritical groups.

Even with graphics to match the series, it's much more gruesome than the real thing.

Presumably the typical Cooking Mama games minimise the messy and, well, cadaver-mangling nature of meat preparation (then again.. yikes!) -- is exaggerating to emphasize rather than to minimise more deceptive and propagandistic? Obviously they are employing some shock value in order to make a point... I don't think that necessarily undermines the point.

I stopped with the egg cracking, due to the sheer stupidity of it. Blood and feathers falling from an egg? Really?

I saw it as a metaphorical concession to the fact that industrial egg production is also not without its problems.

I wish that most uses of the word "idealistic" weren't synonymous with the word "idiot", because there's too many people giving time, money, and energy to PETA and other hypocritical groups.

PETA is renowned for crossing the line in overstating their case; that said, I don't think that this game is so egregious in that department. Cooking a turkey is pretty grody, and even as a meat-eater I've always been wary of stuffing.

Is this kind of idealist activism less abhorrent to you when it's the work of individuals rather than organizations?

I'm not very fond of PETA in general, but this was certainly one of their more subtle and harmless actions, which I applaud as a means to make a case. Another browser game in the queue popping up soon also did well in that regard.

Tell you what, Petards, you want me to respect you? STOP MURDERING THE ANIMALS YOU SAY YOU WANT TO SAVE.

I've never met a sane PETA follower. NEVER.

I like to think of myself as an animal lover....But I'm definitely not a supporter of PETA...I find their tactics to be rather underhanded and even despicable....I remember visiting their website for kids.....and on it they told readers (the kids) that by eating meat like chicken, they hate animals.

Of course there's also those infamous comics they produced that are nothing more than propaganda targeted at kids......How low can you go.......

Ronald McDonald and his Happy Meal toys are propaganda targeted at kids (to quote a poet friend of mine, McDonalds is using a clown to sell cancer to children!) ... I don't see how this is any more despicable.

Aww but I love happy meals!!!!!!! You get a toy and everything!

Altho now that I think of it....Cooking Mama on Wii does get rather.....graphic

Has anyone tried makin Paella??? Preparing that squid was almost gruesome....

hey wtf happened to toys in cereals?!

I got a Guitar Hero LCD game in some Frosted Flakes. 8D

I've seen some horrible comics made by those morons, including one where it says "YOUR MOM IS A MURDERER!".

There's tons of things I could say, but they're mostly not safe for anyone to hear. :p

PETA is to animal rights what Jack Chick is to Christianity. Nut jobs, the both of them.

Having said that, man, that parody game looks friggin' hilarious.

This article has now made it's way to Slashdot apparently. Anyway, I get why one should treat animals kindly, but the fact is we need to eat them to survive. I've never paid that much attention to PETA before this, but from what I've heard they're total nut jobs.

I don't eat murdered animals for years now and I'm still alive. Just because you are too lazy to inform yourself about all the alternatives doesn't mean you'll be dead by the end of the week by giving up your precious Big Mac or whatever you like to put your hands on.

I doubt you'd say that if you lived in a desert.

Edit-And I don't like BigMacs. A regular cheese burger is fine for me. Although I had that "heart attack on a bun" once at Hardees. 8)

Edit edit- Not really a fan of MCDonalds. More of a Wendy's guy.

I doubt you'd say that if you lived in a desert.

You mean he wouldn't have the luxury of being a vegetarian if he lived in a desert? Of course! Let's look at all the carnivores in the desert ecosystem...

If I had to kill my own animals, I'd probably be a vegetarian - although I'd still presumably have to plant my own potatoes and harvest my own grains, which could be nearly as hard. But at the same time, if I had to build my own house, I'd just live in a cave or under a tree. And if you had to set up your own computer, you'd use an abacus (assuming you had the woodwork skills to make one, which I don't).

I accept that people can eat healthily without eating animals, but it needs pulses such as lentils - Quorn and other TVP isn't really enough. Too many vegetarians seem to just eat chocolate, crisps and pizzas, which probably explains why the veggies I know seem to disproportionately be overweight.

PETA are a terrorist group, no two ways about it. They use intimidation, threats and propaganda to try to persuade the majority to change their behaviour.

That problem is not limited to the vegeterian part of the British society.


Nothing wrong with so-called terrorist groups in general but when I think of PETA I always have to think about their horribly executed Holocaust campaign.

It's hard to find a highly industrialized slaughter house in the desert. Nevertheless, you can't compare your own situation, living a spoiled and privileged life, with the situation in a desert or a third world country. These people don't have much choices but you and all of us have a choice because we are not starving to death every day.

Oooh... Is that smugness in the air?

Yeah, it sounds like that (at least if I understand the word smugness correctly) but it wasn't my intention. My decision not to support the whole killing machinery anymore doesn't make me a better person than any of you and I don't want to convince you should model yourself on my point of view. I just can't stand naive statements that there are no alternatives at all.

Though personally I'm against killing animals in general, I accept that there are people who don't have a problem with that. If anyone wants to eat meat, it's fine to me but there are other ways to "produce" this "product". It just doesn't happen because it's more expensive and money is more important than a natural animal husbandry.

Boy, I love Jack Chick's comics. =D

I gotta meet one of the PETA person(s) one day and eat a juicy hamburger in one of their gatherings. Ten bucks says that they'll crucify me, but will leave my dog alone. :p

I gotta meet one of the PETA person(s) one day and eat a juicy hamburger in one of their gatherings.

Offending people with inappropriate or provocative behavior isn't necessarily hilarious in and of itself.

My dog begs to differ. Woof.

Your dog also thinks that his balls are the most fascinating thing on the face of the planet, so I think we're likely better off without too many of his opinions being injected into our conversations here.

I'd like to know what's the difference that PETA makes from eating animal meat to eating vegetables. I mean, they're both life forms, where do they draw the line?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

They hate plants.

I'd like to know what's the difference that PETA makes from eating animal meat to eating vegetables. I mean, they're both life forms, where do they draw the line?

Blood. Red. Simple.

I don't know the PETA party line, but a commonsense explanation might go along the lines of:

Animals, those with central nervous systems at least, are more like us than plants are, and we can reasonably conclude that they experience stress and pain in a fashion not entirely dissimilar to how we feel them -- and that knowledgeably inflicting this discomfort as a matter of course is inhumane, not only bad to the victim (poor stewardship: when your herbivorous chattel begin eating /each other/ you know you're doing something very wrong) but also deadening to the perpetrator, who may lower their reservations against inflicting stress and pain against what are perceived as other inferior groups such as humans belonging to other ethnic or economic groups.

It's hard to say if the participants of this thread are genuinely opposed to the ethical treatment of animals or are merely specifically opposed to PETA's over-the-top antics and are challenging it with hypothetical questions issued from a position of posed ignorance (oh gee, animals feel pain also? I never thought of that!)

Animals, those with central nervous systems at least, are more like us than plants are, and we can reasonably conclude that they experience stress and pain in a fashion not entirely dissimilar to how we feel them

Some wag will often bring up plant pain, in response to which various vegetarian groups have come up with the notion of a diet consisting of seeds, grains leaves, nuts and fruits -- parts of the plant that the plant will naturally shed over the course of time without needing to be killed or mutilated to harvest it (and hence is "giving" the food, simulating a kind of consent.)

I'm not opposed to the ethical treatment of animals, in fact, I haven't though much about it. My question was sincere and if you think it was unintelligent, please, excuse me.

But if the argument is only about the suffering it would cause to an animal, they could just sedate them and then kill them. I guess there are painless ways of dying. But I guess the problem would be killing animals in general, the way I see it. And that is the reason I asked my question in first place: if the problem is killing, the question would be what is killing.

Seriously, Pseudo, maybe I misunderstood your statement, but as you can see, that was the second time I posted in this thread (the first to talk about its main subject), and maybe you just lumped me into "the crowd" who's "against PETA". I'm not against it, but I'm not in favor of it. In fact, I don't know. So, if I misunderstood you, please, excuse me. But if I didn't, please, don't generalize.

But if the argument is only about the suffering it would cause to an animal, they could just sedate them and then kill them.

A common objection of PETA and like groups is when a factory farming operation will save a few pennies per animal by employing a painful method of execution versus a painless or sedated one (or, hm, seemingly more common -- to stun batches of animals and then slaughter them within a timeframe such that the last animals may no longer be stunned when slaughtered). What I get out of the message is that if we ARE going to be eating the bodies of animals, let's try to do it with a bit of kindness and respect. Humaneness and ethicality are relative things where parting animals from their bodies are concerned, but certainly there are classier ways to do it than the general practice in its current industrialized form.

Apologies for my antagonistic postscript; it was more a response to the prevalent tide of bewilderment expressed here than to anything in particular you said. I personally have no views in support of PETA particularly; I just see nothing extreme in this game to warrant the defensive PETA-bashing that reflexively followed in the thread.

I am. Please lump me in (and my dog) in the crowd. The 21st century and I thought we'd be meeting aliens by now...but nooo, humanity has better issues to to fight about...like not wearing fur and sing lulabies to cows before we butcher them. My, my...aren't I sarcastic today. :p

Well, on another website, someone was noting that it was really pathetic to make a parody of a cooking game, who has nothing to do with the animal treatment, and that PETA should go against hunting games.

Somewhere, I agree with this remark, even if it's only games and not the real stuff. I'm for a respectful treatment of animals, even if I'm a meat eater, after all, I'm a dog owner.

What do you think?

someone was noting that it was really pathetic to make a parody of a cooking game, who has nothing to do with the animal treatment

Nothing to do? The cooking game promotes and normalizes the meat-eating lifestyle, which maintains the factory farming status quo in which food animals suffer. I suppose ideally PETA would like to see the publishers normalize the non-meat-eating lifestyle by offering a veggie game variant.

PETA should go against hunting games

My understanding is that a "clean kill" is something all hunters aspire for, to take the animal down in one shot without protracted suffering... I know that this is one argument used against proponents of bow and crossbow hunting. I still feel sport and trophy hunting is pretty despicable, but I see it more as tacky than unethical 8)

Since it's always difficult to tell from your posts if you're talking from your own perspective or rather acting like a prism of some other points of view, I'll just assume the latter, to be on the safe side. ;-)

In my opinion, Cooking Mama is a piece of entertainment which is no position and responsibility to promote or "normalize" anything. It's a game about food, food from different parts of the planet, from countries with various sensibilities, possibly about food the developers themselves enjoy. I can't understand why the fact that they don't go on a holy crusade against unethical food farming can be considered as a case against them.

The weren't supposed to do that. And they, most certainly, don't owe a special edition of a game for vegetarians. Just like any film producer doesn't owe any black man or woman an overwhelmingly positive portrayal of characters of that race, just because of the centuries of intolerance and bigotry. Or, to take into a ridiculous extreme, how about a romantic comedy in two editions one for straight people and another for gays?

Cooking Mama is a splendid game, which is perfect for children to see how kitchen works in a playful and joyous manner. My niece is loving it! Sure, it may not be suitable for families aiming to raise their children in a vegetarian environment. But it's not like they can keep a meaty alternative in secret for long. And it most certainly isn't endorsing the way food industry works, it's a kitchen simulator - not a slaughterhouse tycoon!

The way I see it, PETA used a game as a platform to launch a critique of the food industry, the way millions of turkeys are gruesomely slaughtered in a thanksgiving frenzy. That's a valiant cause, indeed. But, bringing the blame on the developers for not catering the wishes of people with a certain taste in food is ridiculous.

Having said all that, I think it would be great if developers would comply. I would certainly welcome a version of Cooking Mama which is comprised entirely of vegetarian recipes. But, certainly not because, it "normalizes the non-meat-eating lifestyle" or any other such nonsense the developers have no responsibility or commitment to.

Since it's always difficult to tell from your posts if you're talking from your own perspective or rather acting like a prism of some other points of view, I'll just assume the latter, to be on the safe side. ;-)

Quite fair. When someone asks "how could someone believe (x)?" I'll often just try to concoct a likely rationale that might lead someone to such a conclusion. (I've been peppering my remarks here with lots of "I suppose..." and phrases to that effect where I attempt to divine what PETA's hopes and intents are.) Whether or not I'm on board with it is beside the point.

Cooking Mama is a piece of entertainment which is no position and responsibility to promote or "normalize" anything.

Entertainment's lack of responsibility to do anything other than entertain (and, uh, recoup the investment from its backers) is frequently cited across all media; while I agree that this is an unassailable bare-bones and minimalist interpretation of the function of entertainment, it does come across as a bit ultimately anti-social -- throughout history people have found (for instance) combat to the death by slave gladiators tremendously entertaining.

I can't understand why the fact that they don't go on a holy crusade against unethical food farming can be considered as a case against them. The weren't supposed to do that. And they, most certainly, don't owe a special edition of a game for vegetarians.

To be sure, PETA goes off the deep end here a bit. Their expectation and request are somewhat irrational, but it fills column inches in a slow news week and stimulates some discussion (most of which, admittedly, boils down to "those pinkos can take my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead, artery-clogged fingers"). Also it gives them grounds for making their knock-off clone legally defensible as satire 8)

And it most certainly isn't endorsing the way food industry works, it's a kitchen simulator - not a slaughterhouse tycoon!

Not having played any of the legitimate Cooking Mama games myself, I can't speak with authority, but my suspicion is that the way it handles meat generally reinforces the happy and hazy 1st-world perception that meat is just another ingredient that naturally appears under cellophane on styrofoam plates. Where did it come from? Don't ask, don't tell -- that's a secret your butcher closes with a wink.

Surely people always eating meat in games (and why not slamming back a Coca-Cola and lighting up a Camel while we're at it? Where's the harm in it as long as it's entertaining?) is as value neutral as their tendency to have independently wealthy white, male, heterosexual protagonists (and perhaps disproportionally feature as villains ethnic types and sexual deviants, who are assumed to be a worse type of people? 8) Following the status quo party line is just good business sense! It does, however, indoctrinate children ("My niece is loving it!") into a sanitized and unrealistically simplified (and often deceptively outmoded) worldview. I felt horrified when I tried Animal Crossing and discovered that you begin the game enormously in debt and obligated to work it off. It's just a fact of life, kids, so get used to it early on -- there are no real alternatives! Ah, but I digress...

The way I see it, PETA used a game as a platform to launch a critique of the food industry, the way millions of turkeys are gruesomely slaughtered in a thanksgiving frenzy. That's a valiant cause, indeed. But, bringing the blame on the developers for not catering the wishes of people with a certain taste in food is ridiculous.

I agree with you on both points 8)

Having said all that, I think it would be great if developers would comply. I would certainly welcome a version of Cooking Mama which is comprised entirely of vegetarian recipes. But, certainly not because, it "normalizes the non-meat-eating lifestyle" or any other such nonsense the developers have no responsibility or commitment to.

I suspect that, as is often the case, the most effective kind of action here will be on the consumer level; perhaps it is time for PETA to put its money where its mouth is and demonstrate the commercial viability of cooking games for vegetarians. (And in a roundabout and limited fashion, they have done that -- the concept has legs at least, and will probably net them some donations.)

And now for a related tangent we haven't seen in a game in some time -- recipes for ethical, consensual animal protein.

So does the fact that humans have pointed teeth, two eyes in front (standard for carnivores/opposite to herbivores who have eyes at the side). The whole existence of humane civilization promotes meat-eating. But that's a bit stretching it, isn't it? Same point.

Edit: Fallout 3 has cannabalism. Yay!

So does the fact that humans have...

When I say lifestyle, I'm making more reference to consumer choices than biological imperatives. We definitely have the gear to eat meat, but it doesn't naturally follow that because we have eyes on the front of our head, we will primarily dine upon hormone-bloated animals which have been fed other animals who died of illness. That doesn't naturally follow since there's very little natural about the feedlot system.

I fear that you have overlooked that in my support for Peta's objections to factory farming conditions, I don't actually advocate a meatless diet. (Since you asked, I advocate humane and healthful conditions for food animals, producing high-quality meat to be eaten in small quantities by those who choose to.) I think that if more people got their hands bloody on it (as in this game), more of my peers might question their assumptions about the obvious role of meat with every meal instead of paying poor people to spare them the unpleasantness of carcass butchery in dangerous slaughterhouses.

(Do keep in mind that when I say "my peers", I live on a continent where most major health problems are results of the overconsumption of animal protein, while in much of the rest of the world many major health problems are the results of underconsumption of it 8)

The whole existence of humane civilization...

Over the course of this conversation you have also seem to have been reading and writing the words "humane" and "human" as interchangeable; while Webster's cites an obsolete definition as "1. Pertaining to man; human", I am intending it in its more conventional modern sense of "2. Having the feelings and inclinations creditable to man; having a disposition to treat other human beings or animals with kindness; kind; benevolent."

I don't see the point. A skillful hunter with sane mind, working for his environment etc., will kill his prey with one shot. And mistakes, well, they happen.

Beat'n

How many people posted in the last hour I was gone ? Wasn't this thread about a game at some point ? Oh well. I'll go back and play Genji. 8)

That's a brilliant way to support your previous arguments. =)

I'm just trying to humorously bring the thread back to it's topic. And my brain has been on the fritz for the last week, so I'm not up to any vigorous debates.

Ok, after realizing how poorly my last post would be recieved, I went in to a serious mode of thought. PETA is hypocritcal. Why ? They're just like eco terrorist. They say they want to protect trees. Why ? What would you make your house out of ? Are we supposed to make houses out of mud bricks and stone again ? Look at the Celts. They worshiped trees, yet used them to build almost erverything they had ! How could they do that? They worshiped special groves of trees, and cut down any wild trees that they pleased ! The point being they set aside trees that weren't meant to be used. I know what eco terrorist are doing is somewhat different (And still wrong.) but it's the best example I could come up with. If PETA loves animals so much why don't they set up shelters for animals, take in animals nobody wants instead of damning everybody else for killing them ? Or, err, does PETA do that ? (Sticks foot in mouth if they do.) And to another point, don't insects count as animals to PETA ? What if somebody cloned dinosaurs and said they were too dangerous ? I'm sure they would just love to have a army of raptors at their bidding. Is this becoming a rant ? 8)

Most houses around here are made out of mud bricks.

Oh. Sorry.

Edit-I'll shut up now.

Ok, after realizing how poorly my last post would be recieved, I went in to a serious mode of thought.

Oh, I received this post much more poorly than your previous one.

it's the best example I could come up with..

Please try a little harder next time. I'm reluctant to take you as an authority on ancient Celtic religious and architectural practices, especially when used to illustrate the practices of eco terrorists and elaborate upon PETA's hypocrisy. Eco terrorists, conventionally, sabotage equipment and raw materials (spiked trees, spraypainted seal pelts) and interfere with resource collection in order to draw attention to injustice or unsustainable practice. (Barring tree spiking, an extreme practice, the more softcore activities that characterise these actions typically result in property damage at worst (and of course lost or delayed revenue) and hence don't I feel warrant the use of the term "terrorism". Do you feel much terror when a logging truck encounters a group of hippies playing Ben Harper songs in the middle of the road?)

While the Celts may, according to your internal logic, have built homes out of the same plants they purported to worship, I don't know if much the same can necessarily be said of eco terrorists -- which makes the Celts the hypocrites. Is PETA like the Celts?

If PETA loves animals so much why don't they set up shelters for animals, take in animals nobody wants instead of damning everybody else for killing them ? Or, err, does PETA do that ? (Sticks foot in mouth if they do.)

PETA does run shelters, which are notorious for their high rate of euthanization. It is this, not some imaginary link to the practices of the ancient Celts, which in the eyes of most who are looking for a reason to disregard any legitimate points they may have makes PETA hypocrites. It turns out that your odds of making a cogent point go up if you learn a bit about the subject before saying the first thing that comes into your head.

And to another point, don't insects count as animals to PETA ?

What makes you think that PETA doesn't care about the plight of insects?

Does the FBI know where I live now that I clicked that link?

It depends if you activated your copy of Windows XP.

Well, if John Lennon was once considered a threat to national security...maybe you should start checking for "authorized" trojans. :p

Besides, you gave up your privacy rights the first second you logged in/on? the internet. :)

Many tribes in Indonesia still eat dogs by the way. And cats. Mice. Everything.

Nothing wasted! Best of all, unlike cattle, they're not clearing rainforest to make pasture for rats. (This is essentially why foraging farm animals like chickens and pigs have been domesticated; they turn our garbage into food that's good for us to eat without requiring us to divert our own food supplies much to raise them!)

ugh, that's one thing that bothers me about Indonesia. There are stray cats and dogs EVERYWHERE. I don't mean just like the occasional cat hanging out in the neighborhood and basically being everybody else's pet. I mean like legions of cats at every neighborhood. And most of them are spayed or neutered so when the time comes the problem just gets worse.

So really, eating cats? doesn't bother me that much now. Heck, I think I might change my cat's names to Emergency Ration 1 and Emergency Ration 2.

"Whose daddy's favorite emergency ration? Yes you! Yes you are!"

is that... that cat/dog thing from Excel Saga? oh how I missed that show.

I wish I had bought this when I had the chance. :(

Time for an after action report after finishing the game!

- The Animal-Killing Mama can't make good-looking Thanksgiving dinners for crap.
- Bleeding eggs? Is the Mama's house haunted by some creepy curse, or what?

spoilers ahead

- I thoroughly enjoyed completely ruining her ridiculous "tofu turkey". In fact, once I heard the words "tofu turkey", I was briefly stunned. I thought such things featured only in exaggerated parodies of ecology.
- Oh well... At least I got an awesome "Mama Kills Animals" wallpaper. No thanks to you, PETA, for not giving it in a God-given 1024x768 resolution, though.

I heard Australian govt is asking people to eat Camels....

Where did you hear that, because I haven't. Roos maybe, but not camels.

Eating low tar cigarretes? Yikes. Even I'm not that hardcore in smoking. :p