PETA is a Complete Disaster

I do think that by Peta pushing for such extremes, it pushes people away. In a sense, Peta has become its own worst enemy.

Let’s be honest: people come first, since we are the most sophisticated animal, and we are going to need (at least minimal) experimentation on mice to test new therapies and learn about our own biology.

What was Peta thinking dressing up as the KKK to hand out fliers? Did those guys get approval to do that? Does anyone really think that shock value like that will change the way people think? It’s the antithesis of the foot-in-the-door phenomenon and establishing a yes-ladder. It’s simply offensive!

People need pets. I have two cats, and they’ve taught me all sorts of things about life. They’ve helped me learn to respect life more, and even love myself more in addition to them. I never thought we shared so much in common with these little critters since I’ve had them. They’re very smart. And Please support spay and neuter programs.

Can Peta, perhaps, promote vegetarianism instead of veganism? Veganism is an ideal, but for many people, it’s just not realistic. Personally, after I stopped eating meat a year ago, I felt much better. However, even trying veganism with a sincere gusto for months, I never felt right or thought clearly. Adding eggs, some cheese, whey protein, and anchovy omega 3 back into my diet, I now feel more nourished than ever. Not all body types are the same, and mine particularly requires _high_ protein- 75 g whey / day even if I don’t exercise. Other body types can get away with a nut and vegetable diet.

The health cons of cooked meat far outweighs any benefits, but we have to be realistic here, too. Most vegetarians don’t know how to properly supplement their diet and eat high glycemic foods, which just create a quick sugar rush. Creating nourishing vegetarian and vegan diet ingredients (not just recipes) should be a very high priority for Peta.

Some people will never change, and they will always eat meat. Realistically, if we ever want to create unconscious meat, animal experimentation will have to be done. Spinal cord research and cancer research have to rely on animal models. Still go after the people testing cosmetology products on animals in cruel ways, but leave the NIH lab mice out of this!

We animal lovers and vegetable eaters all have to be on the same page on this, and we can’t be too extreme. Our goals have to be more modest. I plan on giving $200 to WildAid soon for their shark finning awareness campaign. I can’t give to Peta, however, because it makes those of us who support animal rights look like hysterical zealots.

It’s already so hard just to change one person’s opinion on eating meat. I do believe, though, that Peta taking a little more of a science-focused over emotional approach would be a step in the right direction.

Frankly, I think those among us who believe being a dedicated vegetarian is admirable are a worse enemy.

quote:

I’d go so far as to wager that your attitude has resulted in far more (not less) animals being eaten just from running people away. The evangelism of your approach directly poisons your cause. Your nasty responses like calling me a troll do not contribute to a civil, intellectually honest discussion.

If you get a cancer that’s ultimately cured through an animal model, you’re telling me that you’re going to abstain from treatment?

This extremist, fascist attitude really does not warrant sympathy. It’s a shame, really.

And yes, HUMANS first. I don’t feel bad if I step on an ant, just as I feel a lot less bad about someone shooting a squirrel than a person.

By “people” I’m assuming you are referring to humans.

Are you KIDDING me? You would think that animal rights activists would radiate warmth, but with Peta it seems to be exactly the opposite.

And no, I’m not going to say “animal companion” every time I mention my cat. That’s right MY cat. His welfare is my responsibility and on my conscious. Semantically it’s not any different than saying MY cousin, etc. Pet is three letters and in no way does it NOT mean animal companion.

I wish you were expressing minority opinions here on Peta, but as far as I can tell, that’s not the case. It’s a shame when a organization has so much opportunity for good, not just hatefulness. You might be surprised how much more effective you’d be if you just acted with some humility.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creatures that cannot.

Wow, that’s like almost totally exactly like what I said. That’s like so totally awesome that you can summarize my insensible ramblings like that. Why didn’t I just say that in the first place? So much more eloquent.. such tact and.. prose. You know, you should totally be like an English teacher and you could, like, teach kids how to write really cultivated poetry and cunning haikus.

// The animals that I (don’t) eat are on my conscious. My decision to (not) eat animals has little to do with you. You can only try to help people make that conscious, informed choice.

Let me think about this carefully. So, what you’re saying is that maybe we should just compromise. Convince people to give up meat and allow people a comfort level about torturing dairy cows and hens? Hmmm.

Okay, then we can just tell people that they can wear leather; just please stay away from fur.

Oh wait… now I got it… we can ask nicely ask circuses to please not beat the elephants; just torture tigers.

Do you seriously believe that apathetic necrovores are more likely to become vegetarian if I ask them nicely? If that’s the case, I’ll put on a dunce cap and parade through KFC wishing everyone a pleasant lunch, as long as it’s the last time they’re going to sink their teeth into flesh.

But you know as well as I do that people would rather let non-humans suffer than adjust their dinner menus.

Here’s my problem with compromising. You only achieve what you are willing to fight for. If I have an equal chance to persuade someone to be come vegan as vegetarian, why would I want to negotiate the suffering of diary cows? To please the ignorant?

I know, I’m extreme. I’m extremely opposed to torturing innocent sentient life. I’m extremely offended when I hear an activist negotiate the welfare of the enslaved. I’m extremely positive that the suffering our species inflicts on other life for taste and profit is not something about which I’m willing to compromise.

quote:

You’re under the sum total of zero obligations to support PETA, financially, politically or ethically. Coming here and telling us all about your dislike *OF* PETA is completely irrelevant. No one cares.

…he’s NOT an activist, EC. He’s just a bored pseudovegetarian (maybe), who didn’t get enough attention today, so he’s here to whine about PETA.

There’s your first mistake…. voicing an opinion against PETA on the PETA boards. None of us give a fat jolly gnome’s @$$ about what you think.

Hmmm… “Hysterical Zealots” ehh… A Zealot by definition is harmful to other beings, whether it be animals or humans or the earth itself. Okay so you say “Can Peta, perhaps, promote vegetarianism instead of veganism?” Well seems to me a vegetarian is more of a Zealot than a vegan, by definition.

Let’s see you said: “However, even trying veganism with a sincere gusto for months, I never felt right or thought clearly. Adding eggs, some cheese, whey protein, and anchovy omega 3 back into my diet, I now feel more nourished than ever.” You feel more nourished than ever… we are so proud… THANK YOU for contributing to the death of calves and fish….

Hate to break it to you, well actually I don’t, but there IS NO MEDIUM GROUND TO ARGUE. You either eat animals or you don’t. You decide, but don’t come here and try to convince anyone. This isn’t a negotiation forum, it is an AR forum.

See, a bit of restraint already changed the tone of my response.

You have to separate idealism from reality, though, in your approach. That’s what Kissinger’s Realpolitik was all about (but I’m not going to go there). America, let alone China, is so far from an idealistic scenario, that you cannot strategize action based on an imaginary reality.

If you know much about human psychology, you should know the foot-in-the-door phenomenon where if you can get a customer to your parking lot, you’re much more likely to get them in the door; if you can get them in the door, you’re much more likely to get them to buy something.

The cruelties that are the most inhumane are the ones which should be hammered on first. In my opinion, these are taking a stab at factory farming as well as an onslaught to realities of fur. People are going to eat cows possibly for the entire span of civilization. Consequently, leather, a by-product of this is just not a priority. Leather, while I avoid it, does not offend me like a mink collar does.

Because of the law of diminishing returns, it’s basically impossible to try yield perfection. Reducing meat consumption by 20% and inhospitable animal conditions by 30% may be attainable in so many years, but it’s still where the most opportunity is. The average American eats something like 100+ animals per year. Surely reducing that to even 80 would be a worthy feat.

You have to look at dairy cows from a utility standpoint. I agree that unfermented milk is unhealthy, but if even not ideal, many products from milk are considerably beneficial. They’re almost insurance for a proper amino acid intake.

Eating a healthy vegan diet is complicated. Even vegetarianism has its difficulties. But society has to move towards a vegetarian state, and that change is radical and won’t happen quickly. From a utility standpoint, since dairy cows produce such huge volumes of milk, these products are so distantly beyond the situation of eating a a pound of a cow’s flesh. I only purchase organic whey and cheeses, and if society was more aware, mass dairy cows would certainly endure better conditions.

We’re all enslaved. If you have a job, adhere to societal norms, or dedicate your time to a cause, your freedom is restricted too. A free roaming dairy cow raised ethically and allowed to live a reasonably natural lifespan doesn’t imply suffering to me. At least until we can synthesize these products void of consciousness.

We all want pretty much the same thing here: less suffering of life, a lot less. And that includes people too. The difference is goals and approach. Reality, however, does not consummate reality. The physical world doesn’t accommodate ideals. Have the ideals you want; don’t hide them, but don’t push them. If Obama was a vegetarian, and he’d said, “I’m going to require government employees to eat vegetarian,” do you think he’d have a chance of winning the election? Of course not, and then we’d be stuck with the much worse shoot-everything-that-walks-on-three-or-more-legs-Palin.

If the payoff in animal rights activism is quantified by the reduction of suffering, the time and money put into the cause should go directly into the tactics with the biggest bang for the buck. Probably if we were to cut down on animal suffering, it would start with factory farmed pigs, followed by other meat mammals. You may disagree, and that’s fine. But I still don’t think I’m too far off. Impose stricter regulation on the worst of conditions, and save more sentient life first. I don’t want anyone having a dolphin grill out.

No, we REALLY don’t. Please don’t fling around the “we all want the same thing” meme, when it’s obvious that we simply do not.

You’re arguing, essentially, for animal welfare.

PETA is not an animal welfare organization.

Many people confuse animal rights with animal welfare. The two are not remotely the same thing.

Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done. -Harriet Beecher Stowe

That’s my point: Peta is alienating huge blocks of the population. This argument would be valid if the enemy was a small, niche group that could be taken on. You cannot take on the scientific establishment, for example. Reason prevails over time.

How can you claim to say people come first when by this statement you’re pretty much saying disabled people don’t deserve the same treatment for they’re not as sophisticated as the majority of the population? Please tell me where a mouse really proves anything about human biology. There is a huge difference between Mice and Dogs..Example if a mouse is place a on a diet of dog food only after a few months the mouse will develop tumors yet a dogs can eat this food all of their lives and never develop tumors. So if there is a difference such as this between mice & dogs you would have to consider there is a GREAT difference between mice and humans. Animal testing doesn’t save humans it is inhumane, and produces inaccurate results on how to deal with human diseases. I mean come on it doesn’t take a genius to figure out if animal testing worked there wouldn’t be so many diseases that are yet to have a cure. If you really want to become educated on this issue pick up a copy of “Sacred Cow & Golden Geese” written by two doctors that without a doubt proves animal testing doesn’t work.

I really don’t mean to sound patronizing here, but this shows an ignorance of the mouse research process and our genetic relation to them. They’re our earliest mammalian ancestors.

Most vegetarians/vegans know more about their diet, and what to eat than their doctor does. I’m sorry that maybe you haven’t done enough research on this, but don’t act as if ALL vegetarians/vegans have no clue how to eat

Many certainly do, but I don’t think either of us can speak for ‘most’, and you must admit there was a learning curve.

…he’s NOT an activist, EC. He’s just a bored pseudovegetarian (maybe), who didn’t get enough attention today, so he’s here to whine about PETA.

I already addressed that concern. Somehow many animal activists have shut themselves off to open debate. And, unfortunately, it serves to alienate all but your closest constituents. It makes animal rights activism a closed door philosophy in a very grey area. Very grey, at least in where to prioritize.

Hmmm… “Hysterical Zealots” ehh… A Zealot by definition is harmful to other beings, whether it be animals or humans or the earth itself. Okay so you say “Can Peta, perhaps, promote vegetarianism instead of veganism?” Well seems to me a vegetarian is more of a Zealot than a vegan, by definition.

A zealot is not, by DEFNITION, harmful.
Zealot: n : a fervent and even militant proponent of something

A peace zealot is arguably beneficial. Intellectual honesty here too, please.

There’s your first mistake…. voicing an opinion against PETA on the PETA boards.

There’s no mistake. That’s exactly why I posted here. What am I going to do, go on a hunting forum and detail my opinions on Peta’s misappropriations of energy? I came here because Peta is the most public animal rights organization there is. Peta has the biggest voice and other animal rights orgs are consequently umbrellaed under the Peta brand. I know you don’t think I’m ‘helping’ Peta. I’m just explaining an outsider’s opinion of Peta and trying to emphasize the opportunity Peta has to collaborate outside of its exclusivity for the reduction of animal suffering.

Fundamental animal rights positions are not OPEN to debate.

You don’t have to agree with them, but that you disagree is irrelevant. You’re here advocating animal welfare. PETA is NOT an animal welfare organization. You’re never – EVER – going to find a compromise position between animal welfare and animal rights, because the two positions are mutually exclusive.

Animal welfare: “We have every right to use animals, but we should do it nicely.”

Animal rights: “Animals are not ours to use AT ALL.”

Stop begging for compromise, here. There is none.

quote:

We both want less animal suffering, no? If I’m not mistaken what we want is reasonably close to the same end. It’s just different means of achieving that end. Animal rights is an unrealistic ideal. Cows with free roaming and gambling rights are far, far away (if ever). If that time comes, then we can discuss idealistic animal ethics.

quote:

You really aren’t reading, are you?

We want an end to animal exploitation, not nicer exploitation.

I would suggest you research more for it is obvious you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about! You come in here telling us we haven’t a clue how to maintain a healthy vegetarian/vegan diet, and you haven’t even researched the consciousness of cattle? I think you should go get your facts straight before trying to justify taking one life over another!

Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done. -Harriet Beecher Stowe

Wow. A straw man AND rampant stupidity all in one.

Really, trolls, you’re outdoing yourselves this morning.

So the Peta organization turns away those who want to reduce animal suffering primarily through the means of animal welfare? Makes sense.. that definitely supports the cause of ethical animal treatment. :-/

quote:

How is that a straw man? You really DO want all cows to have free roaming rights. I didn’t misrepresent Peta’s position at all. Please understand the nature of various debate tools before accusing me of employing one.