WARNING: The video below contains implied graphic images of violence towards rabbits
At what point does implied animal abuse cross the line? Herman Cain was a Republican candidate for the presidential run before pulling out last December. While he has been quiet the last several months, this month he started to resurface with a series of ads with the intention of illustrating the dangers of "our economy on stimulus".
Perhaps you remember the "Your brain on drugs" ads from the 80's? Well it appears Herman has his own spin on the vintage commercial. Only this time, instead of using a lifeless egg, he is using live animals to make his point.
His first ad showed a goldfish knocked out of its bowl gasping for air. Many people felt it was fairly cold hearted to use a goldfish as a political prop. But the Cain camp did not learn from their mistakes and made the decision to run another ad. Only this time, his prop was a rabbit.
Now, I do not dispute the fact that the rabbit and probably the goldfish are both well and fine. It is obvious in the commercial that the rabbit in the air is not, in fact, a real bunny. But this opens the question, "Does simply implying harm to an animal encorage abuse"?
While this commercial will not in itself cause a rational adult to go out and shoot a rabbit flying through the air, how many young boys, even teenagers will think this video is hilarious? I have a feeling that the video will go viral simply because the bunny was shot in a "funny" way. How many will attempt to duplicate the ad?
What do you think? Do commercials like this make animal abuse more acceptable or will it shine a light on the ignorance of those who produced it? What does this make you think of Herman Cain? Leave your comments below the video but please, let's keep the discussion civil. Any comments encouraging more violence, either for or against, will be deleted. And of course, if you find this ad offensive go to Cain's website listed at the end of the video and tell him so!