I have a subject to bring up.

Remove all ads!

What's with the thread's title? I mean, doesn't every thread have a subject to bring up?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of kicking dogs on the street, but I think PETA's methods (and most of its goals) are really silly. And they're hypocritical. IIRC, the Vice President of the group uses medicine that has been also used on lab animals.

 

Well, I'm a little surprised (and more than a little relieved) to see a complete lack of PETA love here.

This is is what prompted this thread. Warning, contains coarse language.

 

Check me off as a member of the "PETA are douchebags" camp.

I personally am a huge animal rights advocate (not an activist, mind you), and think people who engage in cruelty to animals are the scum of the earth. I consider treating animals ethically and respectfully to be a hallmark of being an enlightened, civilized human being. It's how I was raised.

Because of this, I hate PETA. They are far too extreme in their PR tactics and do far more damage to the image of animal rights activism than just about anyone. They make animal rights activists look like lunatics, because all they know is SHOCK SHOCK SHOCK, IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US YOU HAVE NO SOUL, BABY SEAL KILLER!!!!

Never in history has that kind of approach changed the minds of anyone but the most gullible. Because of this, PETA will never effect change on any kind of meaningful scale. They'll just continue to self-promote. They hurt far more than they help. Instead of creating interest in their cause, they create resentment for it. In fact, PETA is more well known than the movement itself.

 

This video refuses to cooperate.
Pity. I would have liked to see what it is that's so scandalous about PETA.

 

Dod Food Anyone

 

I don't like cruelty to animals. But I also like to eat hamburgers, steak, chicken, fish, pork chops. I have no objections to lether jackets, but think fur coats are a bit much. Not offensive, just rather gaudy.

I don't support the wanton destruction of animals, but judicious use of what you kill, and the ability to euthanize a critically ill or injured animal without being treated as a murderer or something like that...

 

As an animal rights activist I always get a bit annoyed at hearing the implication that it is more important that we work on treating people humanely. Not because I don't agree with it, but because it shows that no one seems to understand that there really aren't any animal rights activists that aren't also human rights activists and environmentalists as well.

PETA's tactics are over the top. On the other hand, PETA'S "lunatic" behaviour has enabled people to look at organisations like the PCRM, AAVS, or VRG and see that what they have to say is actually quite grounded, sensible, and scientific. Without groups like PETA or RUCKUS, no one would actually take the many sensible and balanced animal rights/human rights/envioronmental groups seriously. Every good cop needs a bad cop in order to get the suspect to talk.

PETA is actually just a marketing organization. They pull the occasional publicity stunt, sure, but most of what they do is produce pamphlets. The activists using those pamphlets don't answer to a greater hierarchy, don't sign a "terms of use" agreement, and often aren't even members of PETA. Marketing exists to sell products, services, or even ideas. It doesn't need to be funny. It doesn't need to make you feel good. It's even OK if it pisses you off, as long as you buy the products being marketed. And people do buy what PETA's selling. Grocery stores and fast food chains are being forced to actually enforce the (woefully inadequate) animal rights legislation on our books, the Fur industry is waning, and it's very rare that you find anyone who actually serves or is willing to eat veal. You aren't supposed to like them. PETA is the bad cop.

 

I agree that this is true - but only to a degree. The problem is, many people now associate animal rights activism with PETA, and PETA with lunatic paint-throwing, protest-rally jerk-offs. To the point where people assume that if you're an animal rights activist, you must either be part of PETA or support PETA. If you ask a few hundred people on the street if they could name an animal rights group, PETA would by far get the most mentions. IMO, that hurts the image of the entire movement.

You're right - they are a PR/marketing organization. They get far more mentions in the press and have far more celebrity endorsements than any other organization of its kind. And yes, they are the bad cop. But they are so prevailent and dominant that most people don't realize there even IS a good cop. And sure, it may be out of PETA's hands what overzealous activists do with their flyers and in their name. But PETA doesn't exactly go out of its way to distance itself from the fringe.

 

@DR: I can't disagree with you. I would, however, strongly assert that, without PETA, the credible scientific organisations that spend their time showing that there are more versatile, accurate, and inexpensive avenues out their than animal testing and arguing that it isn't exactly nice to cut the toes and beaks off baby chicks without anesthesia so they can be more easily stored in a coop where they don't even have the room to spread their wings would be the ones everyone is calling a crazy fringe group. Labeling is powerful. Without PETA to show everyone what crazy really looks like, the meat and dairy industry would simply label animal rights activists into insignificance. Many animal rights activists don't like PETA, but if you look at what we've accomplished with PETA out there making noise against what we were able to get done with out them it wasn't exactly a pretty picture. Before PETA, animal rights organisations were considered little more than a bunch of stoned hippies (or that decade's equivalent) going through a rebellious phase. Animal rights organisations aren't all that new.....the American Anti-Vivisection Society (of which I am a member) is over 100 years old. We accomplished jack **** in this country before we had PETA to use as a scapegoat. Now, organisations like PCRM, AAVS, and VRG aren't even considered animal rights organisations by most people even though they most definitely are. They are almost main stream.

[ August 12, 2006, 10:30: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Hmm...very good point, and I've never looked at it that way. Thank you.

 

PETA are lame. Some of the things I've seen from them are just stupid ... do they actually do anything but bitch though, or are they more hardcore and actually do stuff?

 

They've actually accomplished quite a bit, Aikanaro. The decline of the fur industry is largely due to their efforts. PETA has also managed to get a great deal of grocery stores and restaraunts to only purchase food from companies that actually comply with government-set welfare standards. A substantial number of people are becoming vegetarians and vegans also converted as a result of PETA's efforts, as well. I, myself, would likely have never become vegan (while I've been a vegetarian for 11 years, I've only been vegan for 7) were it not for information I got from PETA. Like them or not, PETA's information is always accurate and heavily cited. Usually, their info is taken from non-biased government sources like the USDA.

 

Hmm - okay - that's cool. When I think of PETA I think of this comic strip I saw released by them once which made them seem flat out insane-drooling-from-the-mouth nutsoes...

*goes to educate himself on wiki*

... Right. After that I can't say that I'm in full support of them (some of their campaigns are just flat out bull****) - but I'm glad that they exist for the good things which they have done (all the videos, court cases, etc.). They need to tone down the stupidity of their campaigns though and stick to getting things done. Direct action is better than propaganda - and hell, serves as propaganda anyway when you publicise it.

 

They don't lie but they don't present all the informaton, they're quite selective when it comes to opposing something.

Peta, however, like all cults and religions (yes, I view them as a cult) have varying degrees of insanity within their ranks. Some PETA representatives are actually quite respectable and realise that animals 'are' a source of food and other products but when killed for them they should be done so in a merciful manner. Then again it's usually the more extreme members that grab all the limelight and become the stereotypical member of said faction despite how reasonable other members can me, if you're PETA, you're a nutter.

 

I'm all for treating animals as humanely as possible...however, PETA does more harm for the cause than good because they come off as insane. What rational person would take them seriously? Anyway, if God did not want us to eat cows, He would not have made them out of beef.

 

Actually, PETA's stance is that you should never kill animals for food, since it takes far more resources to produce livestock than it takes to simply produce crops (the ratio is about 6:1, to give an idea how much greater our yields would be without livestock production) and meat is never necessary for survival. Humans simply do not need it to live, be healthy, or even to be a champion body builder, power lifter, or olympic lifter. We have absolutely no need whatsoever of animal products. We want them, and even can benefit from some of them, but we have no need of them. It isn't cooky, cultish, or naive to advocate the avoidance of unnecessary bloodshed.....even if we are talking about non-humans.

You don't have to like PETA. Just recognise that their tactics are measured, purposeful, and they work. The people I hear from who argue about how PETA does more harm than good are usually the same people who refuse to acknowledge a word I have to say once they find out I'm a vegan......even if all we are talking about is the pros and cons of using VOIP instead of conventional phone service. Once those people know that little tidbit about me, I am suddenly relegated to the "hippy stoner nutjob going through a rebellious phase" role in their mind. In other words, I am ignored. Before PETA, this was what American society did with all vegetarians (how many of you knew that Ben Franklin, Mary Shelley, Leonardo Davinci, or Albert Einstein were vegetarians, huh?) In fact, this thread bashing PETA is actually helping them because the participants of this thread, by talking about PETA, are actually talking about vegetarianism and the practices of modern agribusiness. Without PETA to stir up all this controversy, this "discussion" and many others like it would never have happened at all.

[ August 13, 2006, 22:11: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

That 1:6 ratio means that 1/7th of farmers would be out of a job should PETA manage to push their views into law. The amount of damage that PETA would cause to the modern world should their ideals become reality is just incredible. Most medical practice would come to a standstill, a massive shakeup of the food industry and the clothing industry. Millions would lose their jobs and possibly never recover so that some people can feel happy that no little bunny-wabbits are getting shot by Elmer Fudd.

Once you can't kill livestock farmers will have no need for them. Can you picture what would happen should farmers suddenly 'throw out' their livestock since by law they can't do anything with them now? Coming from a long line of farmers in my family I can honestly say the prospects are horrible, most of the livestock would die if nothing is done about it and the cost to keep them alive... well who will foot that bill? Because I'm 100% certain it won't be PETA. They'll probably expect the farmers to pay to keep their livestock alive yet expect no compensation for it as 'punishment' for their vile deeds.

A world without meat consumption would be near impossible to live in and changing from meat to veganisim/vegetarianisim helps nobody.

And as for the

idea I must admit it's true. We don't 'need' meat TODAY but we sure as hell needed it years ago when agriculture was not as efficient as it is today.

 

There was a thread on this a while back:

http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/20/1303.html#000000

At the time I did my own research and was not impressed by PETA.

 

no, i dont endorse PETA, they spread too much misinformation to get peoples signatures