PETA not so peaceful...

I support Peta becuase of the work they do in helping animals and raising awareness. I have to admit they are responsible for being what got me thinking about veganism. Peta has supporters around the world and not all of them have to agree on every issue. Like for me, I dont believe in caging or tanking anything, which means I will never have a bird or a fish as a pet.....but cats, dogs, other animals that can live happily with me in my home as I live, I believe in that whole heartedly. They have been domesticated and that is the way it is. I think the relationship between my animals and myself is a great thing and consider them lucky to have me Anyway, my point is that not everyone agrees with peta's tatics or whatever, and that is fine, but not everyone who supports them is some crazy who upholds any and all the things they teach and follows them blindly. They are not a cult. And I have never ever heard anything from peta about pets being kept is wrong........so Im wondering where you got that from, because if it is from peta then I would be interested in reading what they have to say although I dont agree with it completely. And that thing on zoo's as well. Thanks

 

Ya...right....how much do you think pETA brings in for one year's harvest? I'd say around 24 million, that sound about right? Most of that goes to the wealthy people who run it (OMG) and funding ridiculous scare tactics in their absurd and abhorrent campaigns.

President Ingrid Newkirk:
“We are complete press sluts.”
- The New Yorker 4/14/03

“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
- Animal Rights 2002 Convention 6/30/02

 

if you've ever watche the Penn and Teller show called Buul S***. they have a really good episode regarding PETA and similar organizations. PETA provides monetry and legal support to people who use very violent tactics.
they are against any kind of testing on animals at all. iwhat a lot of people don't realize is that most medications for animals are tested on animals. just like human medications are tested on humans (after being tested on animals). most of the animals used in these lab studies are well card for. they get high quality food and bedding and excellent vet care. they need to be in peak condition for this type of testing. if they are not, the results will be skewed.

just remember all of this the next time you go to the drugstore or take your pet to the vet.

and as for PETA. contact them directly and ask them for their official viewpoints on zoos, pets, animal testing, etc. they'll be more than happy to tell you themselves.

they are also anti-hunting. not acknowledging that hunters (not all, but i'd say a good majority) are actully very supportive of preserving wildlife habitats. hunting, whn done within limits, also helps cut down on over-breeding which leads to starvation.

yes, animal rights are important, but man has had such a strong impact on the world (by domesticating animals and wiping out natural preditors, and introducing invasive/non-native species, that we now have a responsibility to fulfill certain roles. we made the animals bed, now we need to lie in it.

 

Give me a fucking break. I can't stand all this apologist bullshit about torturing animals. "Oh, we're human, so we should be able to torture animals!" "Oh, the tortured animals get good bedding, so torturing them is ok!" Fucking bullshit.

The point here is that animals DO NOT COMPLY with your torture. They are not plastic toys that feel no pain. Their "superior" bedding and food is no comfort when they are filled with cancerous tumors, poisoned with toxic chemicals, or cut open while still very alive (without anesthesia, of course, because you wouldn't want "skewed" results.

As far as PETA's views on pets, they DO NOT support just "letting all domestic animals run free" - that is a lie. PETA supports spaying and neutering of ALL pets and an end to for-profit pet breeding. As far as zoos go, many zookeepers and/or zoologists may have good intentions with breeding projects and the like, but it doesn't change the fact that these animals are being kept in unnatural conditions which they quite often become mentally ill from. Many animals won't even breed in captivity - which is why it is such a feat when a baby panda or white tiger is bred in a zoo. Circuses are just plain disgusting on so many levels - I'm sure people can figure it out - if not, I'll be happy to rant on that here as well.

And why SHOULDN'T animals have total liberation? Because they're not "human?" So the fuck what? Humans are fucking this planet to hell - but for some reason, we have this insane notion of our "superiority" over the rest of nature - and it's BULLSHIT.

 

This asinine philosophy is even more outrageous than PETA's moronic publicity stunts. I can only guess that they prefer bad PR to none at all. If they weren't so obnoxious, most rational people would simply ignore them. It's unfortunate that the few valid points they raise about animal cruelty get completely overshadowed by the utter absurdity of their misanthropic worldview.

 

I very much agree with you.

 

So Huck, animal rights are "irrational" because...

Of course, you provide no argument, you simply attack those who believe it is WRONG to torture animals. The only argument anyone ever seems to be able to give AGAINST animal rights is some "human superiority" theory, which is itself far more irrational than any argument animal rights activists put forth. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever that humans are superior, there is evidence that humans are inferior to pretty much every form of life on this planet, considering the fact that humans are the ONLY creatures that murder for entertainment, that decimate entire ecosystems, that build devices to torture other living things, or that create weapons that can destroy every living thing on the planet. If this is "superiority," I'll take my animal nature anyday.

 

I belong to an offshot group called PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals.

 

Chill the fuck out. The original question was NOT about PETA's cause but about whether or not they as an orginization are effective at promoting their cause. Now, I would appreciate it if you responded to Diomedes post about PETA putting so much of their money towards their own salaries.

 

The problem is that PETA doesn't just want to improve the treatment of animals by humans. They ultimately want to eliminate any use of animals for food and even medical research. The fact that they would even dare to compare the slaughter of chickens and pigs with Nazi extermination camps speaks volumes about their total lack of moral discernment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042503.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/308ouqpv.asp

 

Of course they want to end those things. They are an organization against animal abuse and those two things fall under the category of animal abuse, whether they benefit people or not. And that is the point.....not to abuse or use animals for the benefit of man.
And as a previous poster stated before, those of us who see animals as our equals in suffering, surely agree that their comparison of slaughter houses to Nazi camps is not that far of a stretch.

 

As I said, the absurdity and depravity of this mentality is self-evident to most rational people. I'm not going to debate such insanity; I'm just pointing out that their agenda is far more insidious and odious than many people realize. The name "People for Ethical Treatment of Animals" deceptively suggests a benign goal of improving the treatment of animals used for human benefit, not abolishing all such use entirely.

 

There is nothing absurd or irrational about wanting to end the suffering of precious animals caused by man....the end.
And on the last statement.......I guess that depends on your perception of "ethical".

 

I couldn't agree more.

The absurdity of PETA's tactics and their unrealistic world view are indeed appalling. I think we shall let all the animals run free and let millions of humans die because animals can no longer be eaten.

The Alaska natives and homesteaders would have ceased to exist because we can't grow enough food. People all over the world rely on animals for food and use animals to turn their fields and carry their crops. Everyone does not have a health food store to go to buy their corporate produced, plastic wrapped, vegan food, nor could they afford it were the store there.

I believe in proper treatment of animals. I thanked that moose I humanely shot, for that animal provided my family with subsistance.

Treating animals kindly is a good thing, but to think the humans of the world can survive without using animals is unrealistic.

 

i am a vegitarain..but i dont like peta..they tell native alaskans its not right that they should be able to trap to eat when we are the people who took there land from them...
People. Eat. Tasty. Animals...*my mom said that.*

 

To address the claim that PETA is spending some huge portion of their revenue on "massive" salaries for their employees, you can look at a breakdown of how they spend their money at:

http://www.peta.org/about/numbers.asp

According to their financial report - based on independent auditors' assessments, their president earned less than $31,000 last year. I suspect this is far less than the average president of the average charity benefitting humans.

I'll also say again, Huck's argument here is pointless - he doesn't present a good case for torturing animals - only criticizes those who don't like animals being tortured. If we're so "irrational," why can't a rational case be made for torturing animals? Make a case for pouring chemicals into rabbits eyes. Make a case for disecting apes (humans' closest animal relatives) without anesthesia, still alive. Make a case for factory farms. There isn't a case to be made - not without relying on the idiotic, unfounded "human superiority" argument - which AGAIN, is FAR MORE IRRATIONAL than anything PETA says.

 

I don't agree with the PETA use of nudity and 'lettuce ladies'
to get attention..

but God bless their good work
http://www.peta.net/feat/military

 

I met and discussed issues with some PETA folks on the Washington Mall last summer. They are, in all due respect, kooks. They agreed that ants deserve the same rights as human beings. They even said that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the U.S. military were using dolphins to find mines (they were not being hurt, mind you), that they would "rather see 2000 U.S. troops killed than one (1) dolphine harmed." Yep, kooks. How can any American take this group at face value and believe in their cause? If you get ants in your house, do you kill them, or pick them up, pet them, and feed them? Please.

 

Thank you Willow!

I'm also amuzed that seemingly intelligent people ignore the fact that 1)Humans are members of the animal kingdom and therefore AR applies to us; and 2)PETA is for protecting the rights of all animals, both non-human and human. To be AR is to be HR.

 

You can get rid of ants without killing them. Prevention is the best policy. Ever heard of insect repellent?

Also, please read this...

http://www.askcarla.com/answers.asp?QuestionandanswerID=271

and this...

http://www.askcarla.com/answers.asp?QuestionandanswerID=368

You might want to learn the facts before running your mouth. That is what educated people do.