PETA: Good or Bad?

Rydia

Rydia

Throwing rocks at emo kids
Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
3,212
Age
38
Location
The Land of the Summons
Gil
0
I am all for treating animals humanely and think that anyone who abuses a dog or cat needs to be arrested. I do not care for many of PETA's philosophy's though, especially when they called pets "human slaves" when most pets love their owners. Also they had some strange ideas such as selling human breast milk and calling fish sea kittens.

Lately, I'm been doing research on rescuing dogs and cats from shelters because I would like to do that in a few months. And I came across this website.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

And several more like it and became very upset.

Here is a youtube link that sums up a lot of what is on that website. There is foul language in the video and some things said may upset you if you are an animal rights activist. But I think they make several good points against PETA.
So, do you think the things they say that are considered hypocritical excusable?

What about all the animals they kill?

Should they still get tax exemptions?

I personally think we need a much better animal rights activists group than them! And a more sane one.
 
I remember seeing that posted on facebook a little while ago and was thoroughly disgusted. I don't know what all of PETA's fundraising money goes towards but it's certainly not for the wellbeing of animals.

Add to the fact that they don't even give any animals the dignity of what.. a proper burial? A more dignified death by being put down properly? No, they just freeze them up and burn them in the incinerater by the dozen. It's disgusting, and something that's only thought up by people who actually DON'T care about animals.
 


I thought I'd post this vid because it seemed really relevant to the topic. PETA is obviously not all its cracked up to be, and to be honest I never thought it was. They say that they are all about saving animals when they are willing to do it at great expense. I've never been a supporter of them, and I never will be. If I had money to donate to help animals, I'd rather give it to the ASPCA or something.
 
EDIT: oops I realized that there are 2 videos--this is in reference to the first one only.

@1:37--gee, because violence hasn't been used millions of times throughout history as a method for reform? :ffs: By that logic, the government is also guilty of terrorism :dave:

Also, he mentioned ALF (Animal Liberation Front), which as far as I know has a strict policy on only harming inanimate objects (property), and does not advocate or practice violence against actual human beings. It boils down to essentially the same thing as the original Boston Tea Party, where a bunch of citizens destroyed property (tea) in protest of something; and by their policy, even if they were using explosives, they wouldn't be allowed to do it while anything living was inside the building.

And @ 2:40--wtf? You could get away with having a neutral status on violence before 9/11, but not after? Sorry, but I didn't realize that that one terrorist attack was humanity's entire barometer for ethics :confused: Fuck all the other violence that has happened throughout history, we shouldn't have learned anything from any other acts of terrorism, only that one :ffs:

As far as medical research, I suppose the ethics depend on your personal viewpoint; however, I don't think animal testing would be considered quite as serious if those were the only animals abused by humans for our own personal advancement; i.e. if people weren't eating millions of them every day just because they taste good, and wearing them just because they look good. If they were *only* killed for medical research, then it would at least look like we were doing everything we could to not kill them; I think what pisses people like PETA off is the attitude that many people consider animals to be our bitch, and I honestly don't think that's right either.

I do get what they're saying about the Mary Beth woman being a hypocrite, and that area is kind of sketchy :hmmm: Because to take a purely animal-friendly route would obviously mean that you would sacrifice your own life if it meant not having to use animals to sustain your health. However, if every animal rights activist in the world required animal-derived medicine to live, and they all refused it and died, then animals in general would be completely fucked over to hell. And whether she in particular is actually doing anything significant to help or not (being with PETA, that's questionable), if that's the only animal product she uses, then she's probably still harming fewer animals in the long run than a person on no meds who eats meat every day for their entire life. You can call principle on people, it's true, but the actual numerical impact you're having still counts for something as well.

Dude @ 5:50--uh, what? O_O Our generation doesn't know real evil? Maybe he didn't hear the guy who mentioned 9/11. Or, he thinks that western, developed countries are the only ones that exist. Or he's not familiar with politics or corporate CEOs. And we don't take history courses either, apparently :hmmm: Nope, I sure as hell can't think of anything evil that ever happened in the world :hmph: Not to mention that many animal rights activists are middle-aged or older, and would have been alive during the things he mentioned.

@ 7:20--Do we actually know why PETA euthanized the animals? If they were healthy that's wrong, but many animals are put down because they're too sick to lead comfortable lives anymore. I suppose you could just let it suffer for a few years and die naturally, but seeing as how they support the "Ethical" treatment of animals, I could see that as potentially motivating them to put down the sick ones. This part of the clip seems to need more research, rather than just whiny whistleblowing.

All in all, this sounds like just a whiny batch of whistleblowing for the sake of whistleblowing. I could throw together a video in 10 minutes that lists all the things PETA does that are far more shocking and stupid than anything mentioned here (like that whale billboard I mentioned in another thread a while back) :jtc: I doubt I'll ever watch anything by PT again after this, except to make fun of it and compare it to political propaganda.

EDIT: The website link does explain better about the euthanization, but the video sure as hell left that out :jtc:
 
Last edited:
PETA is pointless. So when I heard about all the hipocracy and shady things going on with them, I figured they should just shut themselves down and disperse.
Really, the world isn't going to start humping animals and throwin up peace signs. We are natural omnivores and are far too populated to worry about extreme animal rights. Go preach some PETA to someone in Texas and they'd laugh in your face. America worships the cow, not the soybean.
 
Sum1sgruj said:
PETA is pointless. So when I heard about all the hipocracy and shady things going on with them, I figured they should just shut themselves down and disperse.
Really, the world isn't going to start humping animals and throwin up peace signs. We are natural omnivores and are far too populated to worry about extreme animal rights. Go preach some PETA to someone in Texas and they'd laugh in your face. America worships the cow, not the soybean.
Click to expand...

We may have started out as omnivores when humans were hunter/gatherers, but when the agricultural system first developed, people ate very little meat because they needed the animals for milk, transportation, or sometimes bled the animals without killing them and drank their blood for nutrition purposes. And at this point in history, we have the technology to choose not to eat meat anymore, so whatever natural instinct exists is merely created in us by whatever our parents choose to feed us when we're small children.

And worrying about animal rights in these cases would actually help out with some of the issues that human overpopulation has caused--for example, the amount of farmland and resources it takes to raise livestock is staggering, and they output a large amount of methane which is detrimental as well.

I do agree that PETA is not the best group out there, but it just seemed like Penn and Teller were arguing mostly against animal rights activists in general, and only citing a few things about PETA to have a familiar name to put on it. There are plenty of things PETA has done which are shameful that weren't even mentioned in this video, so if they were going to do a legitimate, believable attack on PETA, they should have gone about it better than this. And with all the stupid things their guests said that I mentioned in my above post, it really felt like they were trying to insult the audience's intelligence, and I can't stand stuff in the media that does that.

I dunno, this kind of thing just really pisses me off, and does more damage than good. If P&T actually gave a crap about animal rights, they would have suggested some better groups to go for at the end, instead of just bitching and then not offering a solution. Sorry to rage so much but it's just really irritating when some of us try so hard to make conservation and animal rights a more socially acceptable and more widespread thing to do, and then these idiots have to go and make videos that try to ruin it.
 
Well when we can convince 51% of the population to replace steak with tofu, then we'll see animal rights go into full effect.
I'm not necessarily all for the way we treat domesticated animals, but there is nothing that can be done about it. It's as simple as that. Not until we re-write an entire world order will that happen. Because lets face it, we are not going to worry about the space and resources for livestock until we build a city over them and cram the livestock into even smaller spaces. Slaughter houses will become hellish death camps and no one will care. Even if PETA and a million other ethical groups come out the woodwork. This is just one carnal influence of man that cannot be helped.

Whether we can adjust our omnivorous state or not, the general population is simply not going to turn into damn vegans unless they absolutely have to. So I don't have any idea how early civilization has anything to do with this subject_

The reason I don't take kindly to the subject is because, of all things that need worrying about, there are people who actually put something such as this on top of their priority list. Dead weight if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
PETA is bad bad news, always have been, always will be. I love animals, especially dogs and maybe a few other domestic animals. But I also enjoy eating meat, like cow meat, chicken meat, turkey meat and pork.

I suppose the animals that serve as meals for us get mistreated in some way, but they're getting killed to serve as food anyways. I certainly don't think it's right to force everyone to become a vegetarian or a vegan just to perserve animal life. It's not like we kill endangered species animals anyways, on the contrary we have a society that preserves them, which I think is law here in the US.

PETA will go as far as preserving animal life by sacrificing human life. In my book, this is a major no-no. Maybe I'm an asshole for thinking so, but human life is greater than animal life, being that humans are the superior animal species (and the only technologically advanced one). I'm not saying just randomly kill animals for fun, but preserving theirs and taking ours is awful, especially when it's thought up by other humans. And preserving animal life without taking human life will probably create an overpopulation crisis, to the point where it would be really crowded with humans and animals, but that doesn't mean we should kill off the humans instead.

I don't want to see animals get slaughtered, but they are mighty tasty, and I want that on my plate.
 
PETA is odd. I've felt this way since the whole Fur protest things were going on. That was PETA right? Throwing animal blood on people who wore it? It made me really sick for a couple of reasons. Let's see:

1. Where did that get the blood from? Sometimes it was just red paint, but I believe there were cases when it wasn't. So where did it come from PETA?

2. Why purpose does that serve? Throwing blood on someone doesn't bring the animal back to life and it certainly doesn't teach the person you did it too anything about what you think they did wrong (other than that should have bigger meaner security). The only purpose of it was to get attention. But even that attention wasn't used in the right way.

So in conclusion, I've sort of always looked on PETA in a negative light because they seem like the sort of group that just does what they do for attention whether than to actual help. Their actions rarely make sense, and let's face they haven't got very much done in any of the areas they claim to be for, so what purpose do they serve?

I don't know. Maybe someone who was a member could shed a different light on this and explain away.
 
Rydia said:
I am all for treating animals humanely and think that anyone who abuses a dog or cat needs to be arrested. I do not care for many of PETA's philosophy's though, especially when they called pets "human slaves" when most pets love their owners. Also they had some strange ideas such as selling human breast milk and calling fish sea kittens.
Click to expand...

I agree here, i mean I love animal, a lot and I would do anything to help them and I consider myself a very animal in tuned gal, considering I fight my parent to the death for their rights.

But when people compare having a animal companion to having a slave its not only insulting but stupid, especially since my animals would kill to be with me, I can't open the doors without the smothering me with love.

So yeah, PETA = bad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top