PETA: love 'em or hate 'em?
 

just curious if y'all support PETA or think they are crazed fanatics. i've been to a lot of sites that adhere to the latter, but so far other than being extreme in some cases, i think they are fightin the fight.

what about it veg*n chicks? thoughts on PETA?

I'm not veg of any kind, but I do have a very strong sense of ownership of our planet - I think that it's everyone's responsibility to be thoughtful in what they eat, wear, and use.

That said, I think PETA as an organization is one step away from terrorism. Their officers and administrative people have admitted that they "fudge" and manipulate data in order to "prove" their points. They fund organizations that have caused bodily harm to human beings in order to "save" animals. Most of the information they provide is heavily propagandized.

I cannot, in good conscience, support an organization that uses terroristic tactics, no matter what "good" they may be trying to do.

.

Honestly,

I would say I don't know a lot about PETA but from what I do know, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them.

I'm vegetarian and I love animals but PETA really puts me off. I think they have the right message but execute it terribly. The way they go about spreading the message puts more people off than it helps.

mmmm..well, as a country, the U.S. funds organizations that cause bodily harm to human beings i.e. in the name of democracy. do you support our government? we use terrorist tactics like ummm....war. so what's the difference?

any org uses heavily propagandized info. right? that's the point to get the message across right? i'm totally playin devils advocate here btw

then how would you suggest they (we?) execute it? are we not a country that only pays attention to shock tactics? is that not why we know the name peta and no one has ever heard of vegan action? have they not put animals and ethical treatment in the same sentence? do we not need lobbyist fanatics on the hill? is the system not designed this way? again devil's advocate

PETA put me off many years on vegetarianism as well as veganism. I might've explored both at a much earlier age if it wasn't for PETA. I do think there are better ways to educate about the benefits of vegetarianism/veganism as well as animal rights.

Photochick - Although ollie mentioned the same thing playing devils advocate, when I read your post, I had to think about the numerous other organizations that 'fudge' their numbers in order to further their cause. PETA is selling a product in a sense in that they want people to understand the horrors of animal cruelty but does it really matter if 500 animals are tortured versus 50? Do the 50 animals feel less pain? I do think organizations should be truthful but I don't have much faith in most organizations. Again, I don't want anything to do with PETA but I think fudging the numbers, putting their own slant/bias etc is expected.

Ah. See, I'm not going to get sucked into this conversation. I had a feeling this would go this way. :)

Good luck to you. :)

.

They have turned two of my friends veg. I think personally they are a little extreme.

hmmmm....sorry photochick. wasn't tryin to suck anything out of anybody. i would honestly just like to know the right way of going about things that won't turn people off...but actually gets something accomplished. it's more than just "oh well, peta sucks let's go buy some wool socks"

i want to know what works without the fanatical approach....and wanted to hear folks' idears...

Stewardship and moderation and tolerance are my mantras. I have some issues with Peta, but philosophically, I agree with them much of the time. They take things to the extreme, and get a bad (deservedly) rap much of the time, but their core message is solid.

When they decided to come and cut up my aviary for my injured birds of prey that were to be released in the wild that was when it went sour for me when I think about PETA. All of my animals are treated with love and respect but I guess they wanted to prove a point, just have no idea what it was.

So yeah I have no respect for them and I'm a big supporter of animal rights....not a vegan or veggie though.

I would have answered but I couldn't have said it better than this. :(

i agree. i am a total passive pacifist:) but throughout history all the social movements are centered around extremism...i was wondering why that is and is that the only way we as humans finally pay attention? (hope not...)

ollie - It depends what your goals are. If your goals are to get people to eat less animal products, then sometimes health will do it. For me, I read 2 books that helped me immensely, eat to live and the china study. Both being on the scientific side and supportive side helped me. I've also decided to stop buying leather as well. I figure if I'm not going to eat animal products, I'm not going to wear/use them as much as I can control.

If your goals are purely 'stop animal cruelty', that is a harder thing to do because well there are different opinions about what is animal cruelty. Some people will see animals as things always and some people will see animals as sources of food always. Again, I think plain old education is useful but you need a sympathetic ear.

If someone came up to me said "Hi I'm from Peta and ...", I'd stop them right there because really I don't have any interest.

Of course then you also get the people who think you are a crazy whacko when you say you are vegetarian because of the things PETA does. I also know some people have a real hard time with peer pressure and staying vegetarian and I don't think that helps.

I just have to say for me personally, throwing buckets of red paint on people who don't agree with your beliefs, and making light of the brutal murder and decapitation of a man on a greyhound bus to further your own cause is not the right way to go about things. THAT is what puts people off. :(

Extremes certainly do get attention. Maybe we (humans in general) think "Hey, that person is going to an extreme. They must really believe in that cause.... what was that cause they were going to extremes for...? Hey look over there ponies!"

But back to your original question. I get a kick out of PETA throwing red paint at Vogue editors. I don't get a kick out of them putting human beings lives in danger to get their message across. If anything, at least the ASPCA commercials make me want to cry. PETA should try making me cry... not making me roll my eyes.

Perhaps someone people can't pay attention without extreme tactics shoved in their face, however I am not one of those people. If I were a meat eater, there is no way in **** that someone calling me a murderer for eating meat would change my mind about eating meat. All it would do is make me ignore them. Call me crazy, but I just can't absorb information when someone is calling me a murderer, lol.

yeah. take the civil rights movement. folks pamphleteered and had sit ins till their arses were sore, but the world didn't pay attention until people were hosed, hanged, and assassinated and even still some turned a blind eye...and still do.

i think PETA is trying to make folks cry, but they are a bit out of touch on how? and make folks roll their eyes instead...:dizzy:

ugh. perhaps i opened a can o'worms.

nellie - goal would be total liberation and freedom from oppression of all sentient beings...humans included... sung to the tune of sinatra's High Hopes :D

That's dead on. They need to totally revamp their campaigns. It's not what you say, but how you say it. ;)

Which is exactly the rhetoric I expected from a PETA supporter. What makes you thinh\k I support our government either? But of course you throw this out as a question phrased in such a way to suggest that I *do* support everyone except PETA.

That's EXACTLY why I don't support PETA or PETA supporters. That mindless rhetoric that puts words in my mouth and baits me to answer.

And again, the implication that I support any organization that fudges their numbers except PETA. This is exaclty why I don't want to get sucked into this conversation.

I don't support ANY organization (including governmental ones) that advocate terroristic tactics to support their point of view.

Period. End of discussion. Thanks for asking. I won't be responding again and I'm unsubbing from the thread.

.

I actually support a lot of PETA's initiatives, even if they do sometimes border on the illegal (or immoral, or whatever). What turns me off to them is how they trott out the celebrities all the time, as though knowing Pamela Anderson doesn't eat meat is someone going to convince me to give it up too lol. I know it always helps to have celebrities promote your cause, but I'm personally *SO SICK* of hearing what totally unqualified, know-nothing celebrities think about important issues, I'd rather PETA didn't associate with them so closely.

But just to throw this out there: I think a lot of times, when you're dealing with a controversial issue, trying to change laws (which PETA campaigns to do), trying to make a point loud so that people will pay attention, you NEED to be a little extreme. I don't agree with everything they say and do, but I guess I understand WHY they do it... if that makes sense.

hmmm....again. just for the record as i think this is a bit too hostile of a response for someone that had good intentions (me).

i never meant to imply that anyone supported the government, terrorists, or anyone except PETA. i was just making a, err, der, umm, point. and as with most people that make points, i used an example. sorry. no suggestion as to what you support. no rhetoric from me. and actually, i am not even a PETA supporter. don't know that much about them, save for the handy dandy shopping guide i just got in the mail. that's why i asked.

didn't mean to piss in anyone's cheerios. sheesh.

ha!!! totally. that's what spawned my post. i went to the library today to check out a vegan cookbook and came across the PETA Celebrity Cookbook with the likes of Bea Arthur and Kevin Nealon. Most of the people weren't even veg*n, but just remarked that they like to, sometimes, eat guilt free so here's a fab recipe for orange punch...:doh:

Not that Bea Arthur isn't awesome, of course... :D

But seriously, I just feel like having the celebrities around actually weakens their position in a way. I can understand like... casual recognition of important vegetarian and vegan celebs, but they base whole benefits around them and that's a turn-off, imo.

celebrities: apparently just another out of touch tactic in a stream of out of touch tactics that attempt to support what i consider a good cause. and yeah KLK, what you said, i, too understand why they do it. we the sheeple need to be shocked into paying attention. i get it. hmmmm...when are we gonna learn?

thanks for everyone's input.

I think it's pretty well agreed that most people don't support PETA due to their methods, though we all support ethical treatment of animals :)

Please, let's support each other by not slinging accusations at each other or we'll have to close this thread. It's a fair topic, but let's stay on topic :)

That's funny, because I remember (not that I was there!) the turning point in the civil rights movement as being the day that Rosa Parkes refused to give up her seat on a bus.

Certainly not a violent or forceful protest there.

Or is history in my part of the world being taught differently to what actually happened? Maybe the PETA people could learn a thing or two from Rosa.

Rosa Parks was one of the catalysts of the Civil Rights movement, but no, it was not the turning point. It doesn't necessarily sound like you've been taught anything wrong or even differently, but attributing so much of the movement to Rosa Parks is, IMO, an oversimplification of a turbulent and complex period of U.S. history. I didn't mean to change the subject...

blah. I think Peta is ridiculous.

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.