Peta

[xadrieth]

I have a strong hate for PETA.

They kill animals:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

Target the young with horrible comics:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downl...7_petakids.pdf

Advocate violence and destruction:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downl..._friedrich.wav

Objectify Women:
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7042/peta01vz3.jpg
(Semi Explicit content)

And practically ask for lawsuits:
http://www.peta2.com/OUTTHERE/o_p2_games.asp

So what are your thoughts on this "helpful" organization?

[farscapeone]

I really don't care about it. I have a lot of things on my mind right know (and for past few years) so I don't have time to think about animals.

[idontkno]

I say nuke them. I always hated them, and I always will.

[alcramer]

I don't hate anybody & I'm not keen on "nuking" anyone. The articles you cross ref'd were interesting but I'm not so certain of the accuracy of their content. Having said all that: I'm not a big Peta fan either. But I am a big fan of the various SPCA's (Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) that operate in the US. If you don't like Peta ( & I don't much) you should look into supporting them.

[bookworm99]

PETA seems unethical, obnoxious, and sensationalist. I don't agree with their views or their ways of explaining them.

[idfizbo]

I'm a huge animal rights person - I volunteer at an animal shelter three times a week - and I hate PETA. As it's been said, their tactics range from obnoxious to invasive, and by and large they do not represent the views of most animal rights activists. The SPCA, on the other hand, is the way to go.

[zen-r]

xadrieth, I don't know much about PETA other than a few of their publicity stunts over the years.

But I do know that your post is unbalanced nonsense. You are using the very same sensationalist propaganda that you presumably dislike PETA for using.

"They kill animals: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm" - This webpage is a waste of space. Having looked at it, the site makes no good reference as to why PETA has animals "killed" as they put. Had it occurred to you that PETA may be reluctantly & humanely using vets to put suffering animals out of their misery? And the site quotes (shock, horror) they "spayed and neutered" animals. Well, duh!! That sounds like responsible animal management to me. All vets I know would recommend exactly the same for any animal where there is a risk of unwanted pregnancies.

"Advocate violence and destruction: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downl..._friedrich.wav" - He doesn't mention violence to people, only damage to property. And this is clearly a soundbite edited out of presumably lots of other stuff he said. So for all we know, this may be a distorted picture of his message in its entirety. Whilst damage to property is not usually acceptable, some people may feel that if it achieves prevention of cruelty & suffering, than it is worth it in the long run. PETA are not alone in taking this stance - many people who protest about things often resort to damaging property in order to draw attention to the point they are making, if they feel it is being ignored. I don't condone it, but I do empathise with their feelings & certainly don't "hate" them for it, as you put it.

"Objectify Women:http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7042/peta01vz3.jpg" - Well if this is your evidence for such a bold claim, then I'm not convinced. The woman in that picture made the decision to dress the way she did, herself. I'm sure no-one forced her. I expect she believed in her cause strongly enough to want to do this in order to gain the extra publicity. It worked didn't it? - that picture's made it into the press as she wanted. And since PETA's membership & management is made up in no small measure by women, then I rather doubt your claim.

"And practically ask for lawsuits: http://www.peta2.com/OUTTHERE/o_p2_games.asp" - If they're asking for lawsuits, that's their choice, isn't it? So sue them.

As I said, I don't know a great deal about PETA, so can't say one way or another whether they are a generally "good" organisation (few organisations are perfect). But you have shown me nothing to convince me that they are worthy of hate.

If you want to make a balanced post, why not add some points about the disgusting & "hate-worthy" ways that many industries treat animals ; all the way through from areas such as fur farming (extreme examples including the millions of foxes every year in China that are crammed into tiny metal cages for their whole miserable life, then taken out & brutally skinnned alive - yes, I have seen video of this & it does happen), through to areas such as the laboratory torturing of millions of animals, & "modern" factory farming.

Please click my Reputation button (at the corner of this post) & make me -it costs you nothing!

If I've traded services/credits with you, please remember to leave iTrader Feedback. Thanks.

[withambition]

The only true reason against eating animals is because it's destroying a life. I say true reason because not all animals are butchered using the mechanisms PETA states in their pamphlets, videos, and other propaganda. PETA likes to focus on a few specific incidents and base their entire campaign on it; however, there are places that treat animals with a less painful death - in fact, most placed DO.

In most cases, animals are bred for the sole purpose of being eaten. It's an unfortunate life, but it's not like these animals were supposed to be pets one day.

And regarding cosmetics and animal cruelty - the rates have been lowering due to in vitro testing. It's unfortunate that some animals have been put through rigorous tests, but products can't be released without being tested.

[zen-r]

withambition........ Yawn.

The animals miserable LIFE is just as important as their death.

OK. So animals are bred for this suffering. That makes it all right does it?

And NO animals don't "Have" to be put through lab torture tests. Humans choose to do it, & we can also choose not to do it.

A lot of the reduction in testing is not because of any increase in in vitro testing. It is due to the campaigning & lobbying by people who respect animals, to get things stopped. I remember before so many of the products of today were labelled "not tested on animals". Every new shade of 1000s of pointless different brands of mascara or variations by different manufacturers of exactly the same type of drug were tested. Look up draize testing or lethal dosage testing & get educated. The vast majority of the products were not vital drugs, developed to improve our health. They were the result of greedy multi billion dollar cosmetic & drug companies, producing the same stuff that all their many competitors had already produced, but now with their own name on the packaging.

Things have improved in some areas for animals over the last twenty years, but the human race has a long way to go before it can call itself "humane".

[idontkno]

They call keeping pets slavery. That alone kind of gives you the impression that they've got something wrong with their heads.