PETA activist group or whacko brainwashing cult?

  • #1
totallyclueless
12
0
PETA...activist group or whacko brainwashing cult??

I recently responded to a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatmant of Animals) ad in a magazine, going to their website (www.peta2.com), being the naive fool that I am.
Well, I was really beleiveing all the stuff until my dad caught me watching this movie called "Free Me" about animal factory farms and he told me that from his business he knew all about PETA and that he thinks they're a bunch of whacko animal rights activists that value animal life over human life.

Well, DON'T BELEIVE the stuff that PETA says! They send out propaganda trying to recruit kids like me to go to their site and "donate" to them to "help save animals"

did you know that less than 1% of all their donations actually go to saving animals??
they've set fires and bombed places!
I can't believe I was so dumb to believe their overblown crap. :frown:

It's OK in my book to go vegetarian to support animal rights, but definitely NOT ok to set fires and bludgeon restaurant owners!

I even read one article where the PETA went into a middle school and handed out propaganda booklets and did a class about it, infact it was regular classroom curricular there!

I just think this is so weird. :confused:
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Evo
Mentor
23,925
3,264
totallyclueless said:
did you know that less than 1% of all their donations actually go to saving animals??
Please post your source.
 
  • #3
cronxeh
Gold Member
1,004
10
Do you have any sources of your allegations? Do you suppose PETA members get a kick out of snuff videos they make with special effects and fake blood? Do you suppose those videos are fake? What business is your father involved in?
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Evo said:
Please post your source.

Im surprised hwo any of the money could go to saving animals. Isnt PETA's cause really limited to raising awareness?
 
  • #5
pattylou
303
0
The anti-vivisectionists in England --- In my understanding ---- vaue animal life above human life. Death threats against researchers that use animal models are regular.

Brits can correct me.

The BBC "nature/issues" board regularly has anti-fox-hunting threads. There seems to be considerably more negative emotion against "cruelty" to animals than what i am used to, here in the US. PETA (is this strictly a US group?) may have some of this same sort of undertone?

That being said, I think PETA has had some occasional good impact on animal research. I recall a set of experiments where, due to PETA, rats (or mice or...) were cushioned from unecessary bruising (forget the details of the experiment) by padding the experimental set up. When a simple change can be made to make "sentient" creatures more compfortable... it seems like a good thing.
 
  • #6
hypatia
1,189
9
http://www.peta.org/feat/ar2001/numb.html [Broken]

This was from 2000. The IRS is currently looking into there tax exempt status{2005}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,828
53
First, I will make it clear that there are a lot of people who consider themselves supporters of PETA who have good hearts in the right places. However, the founders of PETA are not so reasonable, and tend to be somewhat hypocritical as well (recently defending their employees found illegally dumping dead animals into a store's dumpster when the animals were supposedly obtained from a shelter with the intent of adopting them out rather than killing them).

However, PETA by itself is not the worst of the problems, it is the organizations they provide some funding for that are now considered the highest domestic terrorism threat in the U.S. This was recently in the news. They're the ones that are bombing labs, following researchers home and beating them or threatening their families, sending razor blades in letters, releasing lab animals into the wild (where they undoubtedly are quickly gobbled up by predators...don't fool yourself into thinking this is "freedom" for those animals), etc. Those are organizations such as ALF (Animal Liberation Front), ELF (Earth Liberation Front), and...shoot...there's another big one and I can't recall their name. The third one started out British based, targetting one specific pharmaceutical company, and when the company moved their offices to the U.S., that group followed them to the U.S. That third one is the one that has physically harmed people intentionally, by beating employees of that company and threatening their homes and families. The other organizations resort more to property damage (though you never know when some unfortunate grad student will be working in the animal facility late at night when they decide to commit arson).
 
  • #8
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Why are htey looking into it? Everything sounds like its ok

Oh yah i remember when that ELF firebombed that car dealership. Peace and compassion my ass.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
ron damon
20
0
as much as I am against "terrorism", the frustration coming from a society that shows such indifference for fellow living creatures can make a person perform desperate acts to get attention to the issue... I for one believe PETA does a great job in prodding otherwise insensitive people into noticing the suffering innocent creatures endure as a result of our thoughtlessness. Please don't call their work "propaganda".
 
  • #10
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Ya konw, in some industries, animals are treated better then some humans are treated. All of their crap is worthless when they decide to bomb things and beat up people because they thus show that they are complete hypocrits. Humans are animals too but you still see them going around beating up people and setting fires and such.
 
  • #11
ron damon
20
0
I don't think PETA actually supports beating people up or planting bombs. Obviously that would be a very, VERY stupid tactic.
 
  • #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Ron_Damon said:
I don't think PETA actually supports beating people up or planting bombs. Obviously that would be a very, VERY stupid tactic.

Well actions speak louder then words but it could always be a few fringe idiots doing the attacks.
 
  • #13
ron damon
20
0
"fringe idiots" will always find an excuse for violence, be it animal rights, anti-globalization, anti-war (paradoxical as it may sound, anti-war people can be the most violent :smile:; I've seen them in action). You should take these issues and examine them irrespective of the attractiveness of their proponents (animal rights good, anti-globalization bad :biggrin:)
 
  • #14
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Yah i think some people just join causes to mess things up. Pretty pathetic lifestyle... but then again I feel anyone who meets up with other people to go protest things is a waste of oxygen :D

Then again thank god democracy doesn't count on people like me.
 
  • #15
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
From what I have read and heard, there seems to be a lot of misinformation in the first post of this thread. I suggest you read PETA's website to find out what they're really about.

...my dad ... told me ... he thinks they're a bunch of whacko animal rights activists that value animal life over human life.

Your dad is probably misinformed.

As far as I know, PETA regards animal life as on a par with human life, not above it. In particular, I think they regard the OWNERSHIP of one living thing by another as morally wrong - think slavery.

They send out propaganda trying to recruit kids like me to go to their site and "donate" to them to "help save animals"

Which particular parts of their "propaganda" are untrue? Please provide examples and references to back up your claims.

they've set fires and bombed places!

References?

It's OK in my book to go vegetarian to support animal rights, but definitely NOT ok to set fires and bludgeon restaurant owners!

I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that.

I even read one article where the PETA went into a middle school and handed out propaganda booklets and did a class about it, infact it was regular classroom curricular there!

Should be more of it.

Did you think about the animal which died the last time you munched into a juicy cheeseburger?
 
  • #16
Smurf
396
3
totallyclueless said:
I recently responded to a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatmant of Animals) ad in a magazine, going to their website (www.peta2.com), being the naive fool that I am.
Well, I was really beleiveing all the stuff until my dad caught me watching this movie called "Free Me" about animal factory farms and he told me that from his business he knew all about PETA and that he thinks they're a bunch of whacko animal rights activists that value animal life over human life.
I don't mean to insinuate, but it sounds like you took everything your dad said for granted and didn't even consider any alternatives.
 
  • #17
ron damon
20
0
Pengwuino said:
but then again I feel anyone who meets up with other people to go protest things is a waste of oxygen :D

but it makes people (specially young) feel very good about themselves. Joining a cause that does not affect them directly provides a sense of selflessness and righteousness... fighting for the good of the world, for the liberation and redemption of strangers... can make men and women feel like prophets. The problem comes when so much endorphins get in the way of quality reasoning.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
James R said:
From what I have read and heard, there seems to be a lot of misinformation in the first post of this thread. I suggest you read PETA's website to find out what they're really about.

As you do not live in the US, i can understand how you are confused. What a groups website says and what there members are ... well... convicted for... can be rather contradictory in nature.

For example, the ELF. There your basic "We love the environment, we hate people who pollute" group. Well a few years ago, a few ELF members fire-bombed a car dealership. Very non-violent and I am sure all the burning metal and rubber and chemicals and acids didnt do anything to the environment.

It is also true that PETA holds animal life above human life. If you'll research a particular incident in early 2003, PETA demanded Araffat stop using animals in his suicide attacks (not to stop the attacks... just stop animals) and said that animals shouldn't be involved in human wars.
 
  • #19
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,828
53
Pengwuino said:
Yah i think some people just join causes to mess things up. Pretty pathetic lifestyle... but then again I feel anyone who meets up with other people to go protest things is a waste of oxygen :D

Then again thank god democracy doesn't count on people like me.
It's good to be a bit idealistic when young. I think it prevents one from becoming too bitter from cynicism as they age and get more of a dose of reality. If someone really believes in a cause, then I think they should protest. I only throw my hands up and wonder about those who seem to join up with any protest just to stand around holding a sign and chanting without understanding what it is they are protesting.

I think most people believe in what is really best called animal welfare rather than animal rights. Some really do believe animals are in every way equal to humans, but I don't think that's a majority view. The problem is the majority don't realize there's a distinction. I'm a strong proponent of animal welfare, but I'd never send a dime to PETA because I'm not a proponent of animal rights (though when I was younger, I too made the mistake of donating to them without fully understanding what their goals were...I thought it was only about preventing abuse to animals). Animal welfare means we recognize that animals are used for food, for research, for fiber, for work, and are kept as pets, but we also recognize that every effort must be made to ensure those animals are as comfortable as we can possibly make them during the time they are under our care. It doesn't mean we won't slaughter them for food, but it means we won't overcrowd them and injure them while loading them onto trucks or running them into the slaughterhouse.
 
  • #20
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
James R said:
Did you think about the animal which died the last time you munched into a juicy cheeseburger?
Did you think much about the last salad that you took a bite out of, that was still alive while you chewed I might add?
 
  • #21
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
Pengwuino:

As you do not live in the US, i can understand how you are confused.

As you are obviously unaware of Australian culture, I can understand that you might underestimate how much Australians know about the US.

It is also true that PETA holds animal life above human life. If you'll research a particular incident in early 2003, PETA demanded Araffat stop using animals in his suicide attacks (not to stop the attacks... just stop animals) and said that animals shouldn't be involved in human wars.

I don't know how you draw the conclusion from that that PETA holds animal life above human life. It is simply saying that animals do not choose to participate in Arafat's (or anybody else's) war. They should not be forced into it. I doubt they were commenting on the morality of suicide attacks per se, since that is outside their particular area of concern and expertise.

The fact that humans are killed in wars does not making killing animals in wars ok. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you knew that, didn't you?
 
  • #22
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
TheStatutoryApe:

Did you think much about the last salad that you took a bite out of, that was still alive while you chewed I might add?

Was my lettuce a thinking, sentient being before it was killed?

See the difference?
 
  • #23
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
James R said:
TheStatutoryApe:



Was my lettuce a thinking, sentient being before it was killed?

See the difference?
So you are going to claim that one living thing is above another while arguing that we should see living things equally? Do you see the problem there?
 
  • #24
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
Moonbear:

In a sense, PETA is just taking the next logical moral step from animal welfare to animal rights. The problem is, most people aren't even open to the idea of animal welfare. As long as they get their steak, they aren't particularly concerned where it came from, or how the animal which provided it was treated. Most of the time, they don't even think about it. And hey! They like the taste, so that justifies the killing of animals, right?
 
  • #25
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
So you are going to claim that one living thing is above another while arguing that we should see living things equally? Do you see the problem there?

I didn't say we should see all living things as equal. In fact, I don't see anybody saying that. That is a strawman.
 
  • #26
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
James R said:
Moonbear:

In a sense, PETA is just taking the next logical moral step from animal welfare to animal rights. The problem is, most people aren't even open to the idea of animal welfare. As long as they get their steak, they aren't particularly concerned where it came from, or how the animal which provided it was treated. Most of the time, they don't even think about it. And hey! They like the taste, so that justifies the killing of animals, right?

So what exactly are people suppose to eat? And we have a hard enough time dealing with peoples rights around the world so we should divert our attention to animals rights?
 
  • #27
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
James R said:
I didn't say we should see all living things as equal. In fact, I don't see anybody saying that. That is a strawman.
Did you think about the animal which died the last time you munched into a juicy cheeseburger?
And hey! They like the taste, so that justifies the killing of animals, right?
Sounds to me like you have a problem with animals being killed for food. If I got the wrong impression then maybe you shoudl be more careful about your choice of words. And no you did not say ALL living things but why hold one above another? You seem to be backing up the idea that just because people look at animals as being lower then them doesn't mean we should be able to kill them for our purposes (perhaps you would say not even for food but I'll leave this open since you may or may not take exception). The logic to me has always seemed to break down. People who eat meat say that they are lesser than humans and so it's ok to kill them for food. People against this say that animals are not lower life forms so they should not be killed for food. But plants are lower life forms so we should be able to kill them for food/shelter/ect.
 
  • #28
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,828
53
James R said:
Moonbear:

In a sense, PETA is just taking the next logical moral step from animal welfare to animal rights. The problem is, most people aren't even open to the idea of animal welfare. As long as they get their steak, they aren't particularly concerned where it came from, or how the animal which provided it was treated. Most of the time, they don't even think about it. And hey! They like the taste, so that justifies the killing of animals, right?
I've posted here in other threads about how growing crops actually harms (kills) more animals than using animals themselves as food. Search on terms like "habitat loss." We are part of an ecosystem ourselves, and we have a role of omnivore. Converting enough wild lands to fields for crops would result in a huge loss of biodiversity, of both plant and animal species. If you are truly concerned about the killing of animals, then you must balance not just the death of domestic species, but that of wild species. You also must consider not just mammals and fowl, but all birds, amphibians, fish, reptiles, insects, arthropods, etc. They are all animals. There is no way we could produce enough crops to sustain the human population without insecticides, which not only kill the insects, but the birds that feed on them, and the fish where the water run-off winds up, etc. Basically, when you really look at the big picture of the entire ecosystem, it's a lot harder to justify a vegetarian lifestyle as being better for animals than an omnivorous lifestyle. As with everything, balance is important.
 
  • #29
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
James R said:
Pengwuino:

As you are obviously unaware of Australian culture, I can understand that you might underestimate how much Australians know about the US.

I don't know how you draw the conclusion from that that PETA holds animal life above human life. It is simply saying that animals do not choose to participate in Arafat's (or anybody else's) war. They should not be forced into it. I doubt they were commenting on the morality of suicide attacks per se, since that is outside their particular area of concern and expertise.

The fact that humans are killed in wars does not making killing animals in wars ok. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you knew that, didn't you?

As usual, blind nationalism is clouding your sense of logic. The US population knows more about what PETA does in the US because... obviously... we live here. Unless you read various American newspapers every morning and watch the tv wondering what's going on in America, i think its logical to say that your average american knows more about what's going on in America then the average Australian does about what's going on in America. Its simple logic, I am not saying anythinga bout australian culture or the people there and i do not see how in gods name you can be offended unless you take offense to people not holding up your own opinion above all other externalities.

PETA shows clear contempt for human life. They see people dieing in the middle east and there only course of action is "please don't hurt the animals". Now, i don't know what's more important, a donkey dieing, or a bomb going off and killing 20 or 30 innocent humans... but let's just say for some reason, ill give up a cow before i give up my neighbors. Does this mean i think animals should be electrified for fun? Maybe to some people! But to me, its just caring more about a few children dieing on a school bus then a few pigs on a farm. If we could somehow eliminate all cruelty to animals, thatd be great by itself. But if we have the choice of curing heart disease or stopping cruelty, i think ill choose the heart disease cure.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
hypatia
1,189
9
petafur1-thumb.jpg

the Peta book for small children
 
  • #31
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
Pengwuino:

So what exactly are people suppose to eat?

There are plenty of things to eat which aren't animals. I suppose you've heard of vegetables, for example.

And we have a hard enough time dealing with peoples rights around the world so we should divert our attention to animals rights?

Can't we look at both? Or can we only handle one thought at a time?


TheStatutoryApe:

Sounds to me like you have a problem with animals being killed for food. If I got the wrong impression then maybe you shoudl be more careful about your choice of words.

Sounds to me like you're a bit defensive about your meat eating ways. Tell me: how do you personally JUSTIFY killing animals for food?

You seem to be backing up the idea that just because people look at animals as being lower then them doesn't mean we should be able to kill them for our purposes (perhaps you would say not even for food but I'll leave this open since you may or may not take exception).

That's right. I don't think that just because some people see animals as being "lower" (as you put it) that they are therefore justified in killing them (for whatever purpose).

Slave owners used to see their slaves as "lower". Did that justify them treating the slaves harshly, or even keeping them as slaves in the first place?

People who eat meat say that they are lesser than humans and so it's ok to kill them for food.

What do YOU say?

People against this say that animals are not lower life forms so they should not be killed for food. But plants are lower life forms so we should be able to kill them for food/shelter/ect.

The argument is more subtle than that. It is not based on a heirarchical ranking of life forms.

Why not start by asking: "Can this thing I'm killing to eat feel pain?"

That might get you at least to first base, to start considering animal welfare.
 
  • #32
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
lol hypatia... Thats the problem with most animal "rights" activists. They think people gather up little kittens and rabbits and start hacking at them with knives and chainsaws and wear the fur. My godfather is a foremen at a dairy and when they kill the cows, its quick and painless (.22 to the head from rather close range). Some might see this as so cruel and blah blah blah... but if i was going to die, id want it quick and wouldn't want to see it coming. Whats the alternative? slowely chopping them up limb by limb or slowely electricuting them?
 
  • #33
Math Is Hard
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,611
36
Good heavens, hypatia! I have been a PETA supporter in the past but I have never seen anything like that. Makes me wonder if they've gone off the deep end. I always kept them very distinct in my mind from groups like ALF, but maybe there is more cross-over than I thought.
 
  • #34
James R
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
601
15
Moonbear:

I've posted here in other threads about how growing crops actually harms (kills) more animals than using animals themselves as food. Search on terms like "habitat loss." We are part of an ecosystem ourselves, and we have a role of omnivore. Converting enough wild lands to fields for crops would result in a huge loss of biodiversity, of both plant and animal species.

Here's the other side of that argument: Suppose you kill a cow to eat. For every pound of meat you get from the cow, the cow had to eat maybe 10 pounds of grass or other feed. If you ate the feed yourself, instead of second-hand, you'd SAVE cropland.

Have you looked into that?

There is no way we could produce enough crops to sustain the human population without insecticides, which not only kill the insects, but the birds that feed on them, and the fish where the water run-off winds up, etc.

Sorry, but my first impression is that this is just wrong. At the moment, we give over large areas of land for grazing of out meat animals. Those areas COULD be used for crops, and more efficiently.

At least you're trying to mount an argument, though, instead of giving the normal defensive response.
 
  • #35
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
James R said:
There are plenty of things to eat which aren't animals. I suppose you've heard of vegetables, for example.

Really... hmm... Is it because plants are not living things? (shhh, no one tell him, its a trap!)


James R said:
Can't we look at both? Or can we only handle one thought at a time?

We do but groups like PETA demand this front page news and demand only their voice be heard in schools and on the news and such. I mean look at how much we have gone through to better the life of animals that are soon to be used for food compared to how far we have gone into helping say, poverty.


James R said:
Sounds to me like you're a bit defensive about your meat eating ways. Tell me: how do you personally JUSTIFY killing animals for food?

Ever been eaten by a shark or a crocadile? Well, once you have been, then you can tell me that its unjustifiable to eat an animal. PS, this is rhetorical.
 

Suggested for: PETA activist group or whacko brainwashing cult?

Replies
1
Views
780
Replies
14
Views
722
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
451
Replies
9
Views
819
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
422
Replies
22
Views
547
Replies
80
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
482
Replies
10
Views
445
Top