PETA: The worst friend an animal ever had?

I can understand the ideas behind PETA but some extreme people make them look like fools and those people seem to be the focus of any attention they get. Maybe that is intentional but it certainly doesn't help what they want to do. My wife is a 4-H advisor and we have had issues with animal rights activist types screaming at 8 to 18 year old kids during the fair and calling them all sorts of hateful crap. Even ignoring the fact that these kids take care of and work with these animals for months, sometimes years, how does a person think that is ok? You want to scream at some big time farmer who has his animals confined in one cage their entire lives, knock yourself out. You want to sneak into the barns of said farmers and get them in trouble for breaking laws, have a good time. Don't just pick on kids because it's easy for you to do.

I do really agree with treating animals ethically though. As crazy as it seems to some people, I would much rather eat something I have raised myself. That way I know what it has gone through and what it's diet has been. The cost difference is fairly small, the meat is leaner, it tastes better, and it keeps me from having to mow my pasture. It is a win-win.

PETA is obnoxiously stupid.  There are hundreds of video games that include actual violence against animals.  My wife rented Skyrim the other day and was killing wild dogs (and butterflies) within minutes.  They singled out Mario because of his ubiquitous recognition and the publicity it would get them, not because it's anywhere close to a logical thought that children will now skin animals in order to gain superpowers.

I'm strongly against PETA, as much or more so than I am against animal abuse, mainly because PETA fully condones the hurting or killing of human beings in the name of their cause.

Well, at least they're trying.  Honestly, the murder, narrow-sightedness and abject cruelty that defines our relationship with animals on this planet is #$#ed and shames every one of us.  There is no area in our relationship with animals that isn't tainted with horror.  We live with it every day, and by doing nothing, allow it to continue.  I understand people who want to eat animal products, but that doesn't justify the inhumane and downright evil practices of the big meat and dairy producers.  You have to pay extra to buy animal products that aren't tainted by torture.  It's sickening. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Baker 

I can understand the ideas behind PETA but some extreme people make them look like fools and those people seem to be the focus of any attention they get. Maybe that is intentional but it certainly doesn't help what they want to do. 

This sums up my thoughts of those shitheads perfectly.  I'd respect them so much more if they didn't pull stupid stunts like throwing flour/paint/food on celebs who wear fur.  Yeah, because frightening, assaulting, and publicly shaming people for your own benefit makes your cause look noble and worthwhile!  If they did that shit to me, I'd put a horse head in all their beds.  Crazy bastards.

Not really, they kill their fair share of animals.  Even ones that could have been treated and adopted.  Animal activism is one thing, but PETA isn't all that great an example of it.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

Well, at least they're trying.  Honestly, the murder, narrow-sightedness and abject cruelty that defines our relationship with animals on this planet is #$#ed and shames every one of us.  There is no area in our relationship with animals that isn't tainted with horror.  We live with it every day, and by doing nothing, allow it to continue.  I understand people who want to eat animal products, but that doesn't justify the inhumane and downright evil practices of the big meat and dairy producers.  You have to pay extra to buy animal products that aren't tainted by torture.  It's sickening. 

The people smearing PETA, the CCF, represent factory farms and big pharmaceutical companies, etc.  Please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

 

 

The people smearing PETA, the CCF, represent factory farms and big pharmaceutical companies, etc.  Please.

Can we add to that list people who take seriously right-minded, sensible animal welfare organizations who don't feel to need to clumsily pounce on any Kutcher-esque stunt or cultural reference they can get their mitts on, because of some immature notion that controversy automatically equals discourse?
 

I didn't say I think everything they do is smart or productive, just that at least they're trying to do something in an environment of appalling and heartbreaking cruelty towards animals.  You might say that what they do is counter productive but I would argue that what they do is more productive than doing nothing.

I honestly don't see a very big distinction between what PETA is doing now and, to pick something that had a fair amount of support here back in the day, what feminists did when they criticized Fat Princess. It's just a standard political ploy: use an easy target like video games to give them an excuse to get up on their soapbox and promote their personal views and gripes.

At least, I'm hoping most of these people are insincere. The idea that cutesy video games can have a serious negative influence on society is too stupid to waste time getting angry over.

Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit PETA episode on why that organization should be ignored.  They highlight the hypocrisy of wanting to ban animal-tested drugs while the head of PETA takes daily medicine whose development is directly from animal-testing.  They showed other stuff too, like the very unnecessary animal slaughter they have monthly. It's an eye-opening episode. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandhay 

Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit PETA episode on why that organization should be ignored.  They highlight the hypocrisy of wanting to ban animal-tested drugs while the head of PETA takes daily medicine whose development is directly from animal-testing.  They showed other stuff too, like the very unnecessary animal slaughter they have monthly. It's an eye-opening episode. 

Because obviously, a hardcore libertarian like Penn has no agenda and TV never lies.

My only experience with PETA, was one of my co-workers. she was a member, I found this out when she heard a news story on the radio about a alligator killing a young boy in Florida, and how she  was PISSED that they killed the alligator.  No sympathy for the child, all she went on about is how people are cruel and how the alligator was just doing what it knows. 

I wasn't talking about them, actually.  But, what groups do you believe?  Because if you're just going to make a blanket statement that everyone that badmouths PETA is biased, then there's no point.  You only believe what PETA says then?  Because they say so?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

 

 

The people smearing PETA, the CCF, represent factory farms and big pharmaceutical companies, etc.  Please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandhay 

Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit PETA episode on why that organization should be ignored.  They highlight the hypocrisy of wanting to ban animal-tested drugs while the head of PETA takes daily medicine whose development is directly from animal-testing.  They showed other stuff too, like the very unnecessary animal slaughter they have monthly. It's an eye-opening episode. 

Damn good episode.  While In college I worked on campus in the medical research area. Nothing too technical, just taking care of the rats that were used for testing for a drug that was being developed to fight alcoholism.  Being on the "inside" dealing with PETA was a very sensitive matter, and the amount of security the university had in place was amazing.  I don't agree with animal abuse and terrible living conditions, but when it comes to medicine, I'm not against animal testing.

Look, you're welcome to believe Penn & Teller's Bullshit, which also interviewed a Monsanto official on their episode "debunking" organic food and a pharmaceutical lobbyist for their episode "debunking" alternative medicine, and a representative of Big Tobacco on their episode "debunking" second hand smoke.  You can pretend that lobbyists don't use viral marketing to float false memes about anyone who would put even a small dent in their massive profit margins.  And you can support animal testing, which hasn't yielded a cure for cancer, AIDS or diabetes in spite of millions of animals killed or slowly tortured.  I didn't make my initial post to change anyone's mind about anything.

All I'm saying is that PETA exists to help animals, many species of which have no advocates, no one protecting them, no one speaking for them.  I am against cruelty to animals in all its many forms on this planet.  There's usually a massive profit motive in the murder/torture of animals, whether it's starving tigers to death then grinding up their bones for virility "medicine," giving chimps AIDS, or seizing newborn calves from their mothers before they can even be cleaned by their mothers to produce veal and dairy products.  I am against these practices.  PETA is working to stop these practices.  I'm not even a member of PETA and have never had anything to do with them.  But I will defend them for trying to make a positive change in the world that desperately needs to be made.  At least they're trying.

Do you really think lobbyists and lawyers and executives from big corporations could give two $#@!s about the world and the living creatures in it?  I don't.  They care only about raising their already massive profit margins.  You can choose to defend these people.  I choose not to. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

We need a bunch of serious, suit wearing professional PR people to attack factory farming. Instead PETA is there to explode out of their clown car whenever there is a danger that the cause of animal welfare might be making some gains in this country

Except that there's no profit motive in advocating on behalf of animals, hence no serious suit-wearing professional PR people.  It's people doing what they feel morally bound to do.  Mercy for Animals, WSPA, ASPCA, Conservation Fund, WWF, etc. etc. are all doing their best to advocate for animals but not because there's a profit in it.  And even with all that they do, species are disappearing off the planet due to poaching, farm factory practices are only getting more disgustingly evil, animals continue to be tortured for entertainment at zoos, circuses and aquatic amusement parks, and there are zero curbs or even checks on vivisection and other inhumane lab practices.  I think it takes all kinds to try to make a difference in this world because anything that tries to stand in the way of profit and dominance usually gets railroaded over.  PETA is one voice and I don't agree that it steals any oxygen from other organizations.  That strikes me as the kind of argument aimed at turning like-minded people against each other.  People who are inclined to hate PETA (like the libertarian, lobbyists' best friend Penn) are going to hate PETA.  People who want any and all possible forces fighting to end the kind of cruelty we as a species show to other animals on this planet are going to defend them.  

You know, I'd be fine with PETA, if it didn't interfere with people's rights.   They seem to think they have this god given right to go above and beyond demonstrating to get across their point.  They destroy property, and they harm PEOPLE (counter productive and hypocritical).  I probably wouldn't buy my wife a fur coat if I was rich, but I don't have a problem with other people doing it.  I do have a problem though, with a group of people that use intimidation tactics, and break into events just to destroy property.  Such is the case when they break into fashion shows and throw blood around.  

PETA also annoys the hell out of me, with how they despise people who eat animals.  I've read stories about them, again, breaking into stores, restaurants or meat processing plants to cause damage.  Maybe they missed that class in science, but there are other animals, besides humans, that eat other animals for nourishment.  You want me to stop eating cow, and switch to a vegan diet... bomb me with pamphlets of cancer, meat processing additives, hormone injections, and the health benefits of a vegan diet... don't destroy property... once you cross the line of what is essentially terrorism, any message you have, is null and void.  

 I agree, they take attention away from organizations that are actually helping the cause of eliminating animal cruelty.  

To me, PETA is worse then Westboro.  

I would say PETA is equal to Westboro when it comes to the gay marriage debate.   You remove all logic and reason, and insert insanity and nastiness. 

There's a great line in The Year of Living Dangerously when Billy Kwan is trying to goad Guy Hamilton into doing the right thing in Jakarta rather than just doing his job.  Obviously he can't feed every starving person in the third world, but he can do what he can do:  Add your light to the sum of light.

For all you all think about their practices, they do what they can do.  They may not do the kind of field work freeing each individual bear from each horrible cage like WSPA, but they put animal issues into the media where otherwise the media would go about its merry way covering Kardashian this and Herman Cain that.  You may not think that has value but I do.  The fly swatting thing happened because the lazy media contacted them, not the other way around.  And the reason they contacted them is they wanted a headline to (arguably) diminish the President somehow while at the same time giving people yet another reason to point and laugh at how silly PETA is.  God forbid anyone talks about the sanctity of living things, even if swatting a fly is an extreme example of it.  God forbid anyone talk about how in asserting our primacy we have made the world a holocaust for species we don't like or can use for entertainment or research or food or status.

And as for comparing PETA to Westboro, what does PETA want versus what Westboro wants in terms of end results?  They're kind of polar opposites.

Anyway, clearly you've made up your mind so I don't think there's any point arguing about it but I did want to stick up for PETA and disagree with the sentiment of this thread.  We're all entitled to our opinions, after all.   

Westboro and PETA want society to abide by their rules, it doesn't matter what side of the spectrum they land on, they are both extreme and use extreme methods to get their message across. 

I still remember the PETA billboard that was by my house a few years back (I live by a lake).  It was a picture of a Labrador, with a hook through it's mouth.  It said "you wouldn't do that to a dog?".  The message, besides being extreme in incredibly dumb.  Equating a pet, that many families consider a "member of their family", with a trout, bass, salmon, is ludacrus.  What's next, comparing a new born baby to a killing a mouse in your basement?  

I wonder how much of PETA is the publicity stunts and insanity, and how much is just good people trying to do right by animals.

I know what its like to work in a protest group and to try and do productive stuff, only to be derailed by a few psycho's who just wanna "Push 'The Man' up against the wall and that'll solve the issues".

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

I would say PETA is equal to Westboro when it comes to the gay marriage debate.   You remove all logic and reason, and insert insanity and nastiness. 

Truth.  

PETA gives real animal lovers a bad name. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

All I'm saying is that PETA exists to help animals, many species of which have no advocates, no one protecting them, no one speaking for them.  I am against cruelty to animals in all its many forms on this planet.  There's usually a massive profit motive in the murder/torture of animals, whether it's starving tigers to death then grinding up their bones for virility "medicine," giving chimps AIDS, or seizing newborn calves from their mothers before they can even be cleaned by their mothers to produce veal and dairy products.  I am against these practices.  PETA is working to stop these practices.  I'm not even a member of PETA and have never had anything to do with them.  But I will defend them for trying to make a positive change in the world that desperately needs to be made.  At least they're trying.

 

Do you really think lobbyists and lawyers and executives from big corporations could give two $#@!s about the world and the living creatures in it?  I don't.  They care only about raising their already massive profit margins.  You can choose to defend these people.  I choose not to. 

Yes but yt PETA aren't the only ones advocating for the rights of animals, they're just the obnoxious insecure teenager of that particular family.

In fact I would argue that PETA do do more harm than good, because they take rational, sane argument makers like ASPCA, RSPCA, WWF and any other number of legitimate organisations fighting for animal rights and tar them with their particular brand of immature attention-whoring.

So sure yt, they want to help all animals, but if they end up turning off more people than they switch on to the cause and in the long run end up undermining the very organisations that don't have their ridiculously childish ethos and they purport to stand with, then explain to me how we still need to give them a thumbs up for 'at least trying'

I love animals, I give to the rspca, the wwf and my local animal shelter - and I say, Fuck PETA.

It's a bit rich decrying criticisms of PETA as corporate spin, when spin comprises 98.9% of PETA's actual work. That's the entire problem. Their hijinks don't bring a shred of attention to animal welfare, but to PETA themselves and their own behaviour. They've been doing this long enough to not realize this. If they were so concerned that the reportage of their actions was all a corporate/media attempt to smear them, you'd think they'd make more of an effort to make their message sober and well-reasoned instead of getting even more over the top.

Because hey, if all you do is encourage the powers that be to laugh you off as a bunch of self-promoting idiots, you get exactly what you ask for.The only awareness of animal rights that comes of it is as the toilet floor PETA busy themselves pissing on.

This is kind of an interesting thread to read, simply because - in essence - I agree with all of you.  To a degree.  I'm with yt in that they're TRYING to do good work and I think underneath it all they mean well, and, as such, they deserve some legitimate attention.  But, at the same time, they get on my nerves because 1) they're HORRIBLY misogynistic and 2) they take minor things that should be used as a springboard for discussion and turn them into heinous hate crimes.  Like the Mario thing.  There's a valid jumpoff for some relevant discourse in the Tanooki Suit situation, but when they use a flash game depicting Mario running around his little Mario world with blood dripping off of him, that's ridiculously sensationalistic and horribly visceral.  And sometimes visceral is necessary, but that's an ace in the hole and not necessary in that situation and, as such, people miss the point because they're reacting viscerally to it.  And, of course, what could have been an intelligent conversation becomes "What the fuck, PETA?"

So, I guess that's a really long way of saying that I respect and appreciate and support the work that they do, but I fucking abhor the way they do it.

I used to date a girl who was the sweetest person possible, adored animals, and who's greatest ambition in life was to be a veterinarian. She joined PETA because she wasn't just upset about the plight of animals, she was fucking MAD and her one rant button was to bring up animal abuse. I don't know how many other people in the oranization happened to be the same way as her, but I wager it's a lot.

I'm not saying this as a "rah rah rah" PETA post either, I just kinda get why they go visceral, and it's mostly because most of them hold this WAY closer to their heart than you or I might. I myself think PETA is far too aggressive, has certain misogynist tendencies, and tends to fall into hysterics to be much of any good. But ultimately can't hate them like I seem to be expected to.

Penn and Teller's Bullshit on the other hand? Fuck that show with a rusty fork.

Well, look, some people are actively trying to stop people from abusing/killing/exploiting animals.  Some people care and volunteer/donate to worthy causes that help them.  Some people care but do nothing.  Some people are aware but don't have any empathy for animals.  Some people have no idea and don't care.  Some people hate animals and love to see them tortured/killed.  Some people have no idea what's being done but would care if they knew.  The way this latter group has the potential to find out is usually through the media.  Other than the heartbreaking ads that only run in the least expensive blocks of air time, the only way this latter group can ever know is through the media.  The media does not cover sober, rational events/people (unless it benefits board members/advertisers).  The media covers sensationalistic stories.  Sober, serious people don't usually get on the news.  Sometimes it takes over the top antics for unpopular subjects that people don't like to think about to get on the news.  That's the argument I'd make for their antics.  They may not be the best way to communicate the horrors animals face at the hands of mankind, but they're what PETA's using to raise awareness. 

The argument that there are other more worthy charities is true.  But when was the last time you saw CNN or any of the other "news" shows covering what they're doing to help animals?  And that's deliberate.  It's easier to get away with horrific yet profitable actions when fewer people know/care about them.  You may say PETA does more harm than good in this respect but I'd say people will just go back to not thinking about it--and maybe they will anyway.  Human history is a bloody, brutal, scary tale, not just involving animals but other human beings.  But it's easier not to think about it, and I'm guilty of that myself.

And as for corporate spin, I really think they've pulled off a magic trick because many people walking around don't realize how insanely reality is warped by corporate agendas. 

I just reject the argument that what PETA does is wrong.  It's their way.  There are other groups going about it other ways.  There are small success stories here and there but overall, things are only getting worse for animals in this world.  So what's the answer?  If you say sober, reasoned PR people in business suits, I'll point to all the groups that have been doing that for decades and gotten nowhere.  Money, convenience and superstition trump compassion all over this planet.  There will never be a profit motive for saving animals from harm.  So what's the answer?

That's a helluva question.  And the bottom line is none of us have the answer.

But then again...maybe I'm grasping at straws here but I think there's a parallel to be drawn between this and, say, the Occupy Movement.  It's a slow process but the discourse is happening and there's a sense all over the place that people just MIGHT be starting to wake up.  Call it an energy or a vibe or what have you, but I certainly feel it.  So how are they doing it?  The best shorthand way I can think of to describe it is by being low-key in a huge way.  The Occupy movement is fueled by an idea and their only tactic is to keep reinforcing it, over and over and over again.  And yeah, the Big Guys are fighting back, but you can't fight an idea once it starts to spread.  I think PETA's biggest mistake is that they don't know how to properly spread their ideas in that infectious way.  I dunno, it's late and I'm fuzzy, but there's a happy medium somewhere in all of this and if PETA can find it, I think we'd see their impact increase ten-fold.

Here's what I don't get: why would they choose to make their silly Nintendo publicity stunt about Mario's tanooki hat and not the fact that he constantly runs around crushing turtles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

Here's what I don't get: why would they choose to make their silly Nintendo publicity stunt about Mario's tanooki hat and not the fact that he constantly runs around crushing turtles?

PETA P.R. PERSON LURKING ON CHUD: "We need to go deeper."

Look, putting on the devil's advocate hat for a second: OK, it's perfectly plausible that there are some - some - people out there who might look at PETA's ad and become aware of animal cruelty, but we're talking about a very small minority who will take a genuine interest in the commentary at hand. Most, however, will think "What the fuck does Mario have to do with animal cruelty?" The answer to that one is: Absolutely none. They've taken a pop culture figure who they know people recognise, and constructed around him an animal murder narrative that has nothing to do with the character, what he was designed to represent or anything he's ever done as a media property (Do the games even say that the suit is actually made from Tanuki fur?) Parody with a point it may be, but the point is so far removed from the figure involved that the message loses sense and ultimately, people fixate on the parody aspect. Some may get the issues that the ad is about, but even then its inherent ridiculousness overwhelms any serious thought they may have on the subject.

Yes, you need to grab people's attention in our media-ruled society, and yes, the best way to get the media to give you a platform is to make your message ostentatious. But go too far and you simply become a clown, and if people are talking more about your antics than the actual issues involved, well, maybe that points to an imbalance in your own message.  

PETE'a role in the debate isn't to actually make things better for animals - it's to make vegetarians feel better about themselves. They tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room that the real good groups - WWF for example - could use to affect real needed change in the world. When's the last time PETA actually DID anything meaningful? They generate press releases, and fund stupid performance-art projects, but what do they actually do?

Conversely, PETA also tends to make people who eat meat feel better about themselves. I suspect that if you dug into their financing, you'd find the beef council and the other meat lobbying groups funding them pretty heavily. For every one person PETA converts to vegetarianism there are probably three the keep away from it.

PETA Plus: They do end up finding really hot girls to dress up as animals and pose in cages at Hollywood and Highland, which almost makes me wish I could be a furry if the concept wasn't so pathetic and depressing

rather go naked then wear fur ads are pretty good too.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

rather go naked then wear fur ads are pretty good too.  

Im convinced PETA was founded secretly by a bunch of guys that were trying to get women naked. Playboy was taken BUT they found a way, oh yes they did.

Funny!

http://www.dorkly.com/video/27944/dorkly-bits-mario-responds-to-peta

Credit goes to Werewolf Girl for pointing me towards this. 

And then you will ALL CREDIT ME!!!!!

Source: http://laist.com/2011/11/29/ringling_bros_hit_with_largest_fine.php

Breaks my heart. Glad i've never been to a circus. Fuck them.

Come on YT, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I am guessing if we wanted to play tit for tat I could post a helluva lot more pieces about the good work done by charities that don;t spend most of their budget on stunts, like the WWF, ASPCA, RSPCA and any number of others.

I don't get what you're trying to prove here - that because you can cite a couple of examples of some good they've done, that their tactics aren't still self-serving, ultimately self defeating and a negative for other more reputable charities that help animals in the first place? I don't buy it. The road to hell is paved with the very best of intentions.

There can be only one or handful of "respectable" animal charities worth posting about?  I'm a member of quite a few of them (not PETA though) and I could do the same.  I saw this news item and posted it, and if I see another news item about their good works, I'll post it as well.  I would appreciate posts about any actions to save animals, regardless of whether the the people who put their nose to the grindstone to effect change were "respectable" or not. 

As long as "PETA the worst friend an animal ever had" continues to be the prevailing opinion, I'm anxious to hear how those who hold that opinion are better friends to animals, specifically what those people have done to help the elephants who are being tortured for our amusement courtesy of the Ringling Brothers.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

There can be only one or handful of "respectable" animal charities worth posting about?  I'm a member of quite a few of them (not PETA though) and I could do the same.  I saw this news item and posted it, and if I see another news item about their good works, I'll post it as well.  I would appreciate posts about any actions to save animals, regardless of whether the the people who put their nose to the grindstone to effect change were "respectable" or not. 

 

As long as "PETA the worst friend an animal ever had" continues to be the prevailing opinion, I'm anxious to hear how those who hold that opinion are better friends to animals, specifically what those people have done to help the elephants who are being tortured for our amusement courtesy of the Ringling Brothers.  

Now now, that's a touch intellectually dishonest as not every charity can help every animal cause at once. Whats PETA doing to help tiger poaching in India or to help the ravaged, virus-ridden turtles of north queensland after the extreme weather events they've gone through in the last year? I'm not trying to score points I'm just saying that sure, those other charities may not be looking at the specific issue PETA have taken upon themselves to tackle at this point in time, but how does that make one better than the other? What we can judge them on tho, are their methods in reaching their higher goals. Here's where I happily make a personal judgement call.

Once again, I'm not saying PETA don't do some good, I just think it's mixed in with a lot more self-defeating "bad" than you get from other animal charities that seem to be about promoting animal welfare first and themselves second.

It;s also interesting that for you're defense of them in this thread, you do happily admit to giving to plenty of animal charities - but NOT them. Any particular reason for that yt?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

 

 

Source: http://laist.com/2011/11/29/ringling_bros_hit_with_largest_fine.php

I came here to post about this. I generally hate PETA's stunts but things like this justify their existence, its a big win for elephants and circus animals everywhere. Now if only they would stick to useful causes and stop with the sea kittens and video game protests we could all be happy.

I only just learned about the existence of shark finning.  Disgusting.  That's capitalism at its 'finest.'  Cut off the fins and dump the rest of the shark to leave more room to ship the expensive stuff used for soup and traditional cures in Asian countries.  Just sickening.