thanks for the friendly reminder suzanne:) sorry to you and the others if the thread erred on the side of harshness. however, lots of people that answered eat animals and support unethical treatment of animals by doing so and by giving money to companies which support inhumane practices, so i don't think what you said is accurate. when i posed the question, i was looking more for the input of veg*n chicks and people who as you said, do support ethical treatment of animals in the first place.

but it's probably goin nowhere, so feel free to close the thread; won't hurt my feelings.

Hate 'em. My two biggest problems with PETA:

--They kill adoptable animals to "save" them from domestication, "slavery", and the effects of overpopulation (http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549, http://www.petakillsanimals.com/).

--Their "shock" tactics usually employ the objectification of women. Naked Pamela Anderson, naked Alicia Silverstone, naked female protesters (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archive...strikes-again/, http://blogs.denverpost.com/wp-conte...ilverstone.jpg, http://www.itsvery.net/pamela-anderson-nude-peta.html, http://socialitelife.celebuzz.com/ar...s_for_peta.php, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127005.html).

I don't see why we have to sacrifice women's rights for animal rights. Shouldn't respect for living things happily accommodate both?

Honestly, I wasn't thinking of you when I was thinking about organizations that fudge their numbers/information. I was thinking of the facility where I worked at where Foxnews would be on TV all day long, talking about how fair and balanced they were when they obviously weren't. I was thinking about the dairy industry going into schools and talking about health benefits when there are some serious health concerns with dairy. I was thinking about about the tobacco industry and cancer statistics. I was thinking about how when you hear about the benefits of soy, you start to see soy in EVERYTHING and hear it is healthy due to the soy. etc. etc.

As always, a little or a lot of skepticism is good and I have quite a bit :)

I definitely support the ethical treatment of animals but PETA should look at themselves before throwing stones (or paint).

3Beans pretty much covered most of my problems with PETA. Their latest declaration of "victory" over KFC Canada is pretty lame too. Yes, they will now gas their (debeaked, mutilated, sickly) birds and throw a pittance vegan "chicken" item on the menu to make PETA go away, let's call it a historic victory for animals and get the lettuce ladies out there to promote it ASAP. :rolleyes:

Really, that's all you want? I'd think we ought to be focusing on, oh I don't know, NOT EATING CHICKENS AT ALL??

Perhaps you mean "animal welfare" not "animal rights"? I know to most people it's not an important distinction, but it really is. You can be all for treating animals well, that is for animal welfare, before you eat them. But if you eat them at all I think you're violating anything that could be called "rights" by nature. If a being doesn't have a right to her own life and bodily integrity, she doesn't have any rights at all IMO.

Please be careful about stating what "ethical" treatment of animals is, without putting a "my opinion" qualifier in front of it. After all, the definition of "ethical treatment" varies from person to person and group to group. A vegetarian might think it is ethical to take an egg from a chicken, while a vegan might not. Some strict vegans might think it is unethical to keep animals as pets, while some vegetarians and vegans have no issues whatsoever with companion animals.

No one person, viewpoint, or group owns the definition of "ethical". I think Suzanne was correct in saying that we all support ethical treatment of animals...but our definitions of "ethical" vary considerably, even within the vegetarian and vegan community, not to mention between vegans/vegetarians and omnivores.

By "nature" ... really?????

So the lion that kills the wildebeest for food is violating that wildebeest's rights?
The orca that eats the seal is violating the rights of the seal?
The hawk that kills the rabbit is violating the rights of the rabbit?

Sorry. In nature there are predators and prey. I fully respect the *right* that everyone has to decide for themselves where they draw the line. I also expect them to respect MY right to do the same.

.

Disgusting Tactics
 

Forgive me, but how you conduct business is just as important as the gains sought. Justifying behaviors by simply saying, "Everyone else does it and nothing else gets attention!" is entirely a cop-out. Please read this newspaper article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

I watched the story unfold surrounding this poor child's death and was shocked and dismayed by that organizations insensitive behavior toward a family that was already suffering such shock and agony.

By the way, their "vegan friendly chicken" is cooked in the same fryers as the real chicken. This info comes directly from a Canadian KFC worker. It might not be true for all locations, but only for the one she works at. So, it's not really as vegan friendly as they want to deceive themselves into believing.

Forgive me if this sounds angry or terse, but I am vibrating in my chair from anger in regards to that organization.

Thanks for the link, Alethea. I had not heard about that ad. I am horrified that any group would use that tragedy to further their own ends or message.

Wow.

No doubt there are predators and prey in nature. I think I phrased my point about "rights" poorly, let me see if I can explain better. By having a "right to his/her own life" I mean the right to live as a free agent without being the property of another. Humans are the only animals that breed and keep other animals captive as their property. The predator/prey relationship in nature is completely different form the owner/property relationship humans have with domesticated animals. You don't see humans running down gazelles or rabbits and taking them down with their bare hands and teeth National Geographic style.

Also, humans have moral agency, I'm pretty sure lions, hawks, wolves, etc. don't.


ETA: Maybe the confusion was in the phrase "rights by nature"? I meant, as in the meaning of the word "rights", not rights as they exist in the natural world or something like that.

Actually that's not true either. :)

There are plenty of wild species that have symbiotic relationships where they "keep" other species as food, labor, etc. Ants breed and keep aphids as a food source. That's just the one most obvious and well known ones in the wild.

And how do you know that lions, hawks, etc. don't have moral agency? If you're going to anthropomorphise them to have "rights" then, I think you need to extend that out to include their own species-specific moral and ethical code.

.

Another reminder to stick to topic, folks. The question was about PETA and their tactics, not about whether it was morally, ethically, or naturally "correct" to eat or keep animals.

It means the same to me as I do not eat the animals I rehabilitate. If they were after me because I do eat meat I would have figured that they would have tried to free my meat in my freezer or at least thrown paint on me when I was eating dinner? Since my meat eating is not up for debate in this thread you should not have pointed it out in the nit picking of the animal welfare vs. animal rights definition.

I feel like nothing I'm saying is being understood as I mean it so I'll butt out, it's just becoming an argument over semantics and while I feel words and meaning are important it's getting totally off topic for this thread.