Sometimes PETA is good for a laugh.... sometimes not....

[ShaneGR]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15516595/

So basically they go after celebs for wearing fur. But for some reason they also find it necessary to attack them if they're too skinny. Does it strike anyone else as odd to do the following:

#1: Criticize wearing fur.

#2: Criticize them for not eating enough, probably adding to the suffering of the same animals they're trying to protect. After all, if they need to put on some weight, wouldn't a nice juicy steak do the trick??

[Double T]

1. 'Nice juicy steak' is NOT on the menu IF you want to gain weight,.......

carbs will do the trick. I don't think one has anything to do with the other; 'skinny chicks' is a social illness created by our brilliant society.

[yellowcanine]

2. Kind of a cheap shot, no? I am not a fan of PETA but they aren't telling them to eat steak. In

fact, they would fatten up faster on potatoes and bread. Ever hear of the Adkin's Diet?

[unpossibles]

3. the Atkins diet is pretty bunk, imo

I lost a lot of weight when I became a vegetarian. Granted, I also stopped eating a lot of unhealthy crap in general. Most people I know who went on Atkins did not lose much weight, and usually picked it back up as soon as their metabolisms levelled off, and it's horrible for your heart from what I've heard.

I lost weight eating a lot of bread and pasta though because I was active. If you exercise, carbs are not inherently bad.

[yellowcanine]

4. My point was that PETA was not telling her to eat meat. And people will lose

weight if they simply eat more meat and eat less carbohydrates. Keeping it off is another matter of course. No one except the Adkin's crowd says it is a healthy way to lose weight.

[warrens]

22. Atkins works fine

Eventually, though, it creates problems if you aren't taking supplements. And really, it's hard to stay on a diet that excludes whole classes of food. We're omnivores, and we crave certain foods at certain times. The Atkins diet has a weird side effect...it creates a condition I've forgotten the name of with the main symptom of really bad BO.

As long as people stay on the diet, they lose weight. But the weight comes back when you end the diet, as is usually the case with all diets.

The best diet out there is simple. Eat whatever you want, but you have to cook from scratch. The reason we put on so much weight is that we have too many convenience foods. So you love ice cream? Get an ice cream maker. The work involved will keep consumption down.

I just interviewed Marion Nestle of NYU, the "radical" nutritionist. Her main advice, if you boil it down, is no snacks, no soft drinks, and cook from scratch. Our nation creates 3,900 calories worth of food per person per day. They have to SELL all those calories, so they pack them into every product you eat. Virtually all prepared foods are bolstered with fat, sugar and sweeteners. If you cook and eat raw foods, it would take all-day eating to gain significant weight.

[unpossibles]

85. I guess I should clarify

I too know people who have lost weight from Atkins, but as a sustained healthy diet, it is very poor indeed.

I do agree on the homemade from scratch meals, or at least using as many fresh ingredients as possible. One would be shocked at how many filler ingredients there are in many things that don't need them, and it's generally cheaper to eat simpler foods in my experience. And as far as raw foods go, I halfway agree - they are generally good for you and higher vitamin content, etc., but realistically there's nothing wrong with eating some cooked food too. Moderation and variety are more important than worrying about a strict ideology.

[tavalon]

149. Ketosis is the word you're looking for

but if the person doesn't drink enough water, they can land in ketoacidosis which, if it doesn't kill you, will do a number on your kidneys. You'll look fabulous hooked up to that dialysis machine. Amazingly, most humans are able to put up with the Adkins diet for quite a long time before getting sick. Thing is, it is a fad diet and like all fad diets, it won't work in the long term so I can't understand why a person would want to put their kidneys up for possible damage when learning a more balanced lifestyle (I hate the term diet) and exercise regimen, such as you can learn at Weight Watchers is sufficient for most. Now, if you want to be model skinny, the coke (not cola) and salad diet will do it and the only thing you have to worry about there is brain and heart problems which frankly will be followed by a number of other nasty organ failures.

Anyway, my perfect world would have people eating like the omnivores they are but in a very earth/spiritual centric way and we would all be just the right weight for our own personal bodies. There might be one or two size 0 folks out there but mostly women would be wearing size 5 - 15 and they would all be just the right sizes for different girl humans and similar sizes for men. We would all be in passable shape and some would have sculpted muscles but others just fit, whatever that looks like.

I personally never get on a scale. As long as my clothes fit, I'm fine and if they don't, I start looking at things that I should place more moderation upon. I don't count calories or collect cards or worry about carbs and protein any more than is necessary for a healthy diet. I've begun eliminating refined sugars and trans fats - these aren't things that I'll take out for a while and then put back in. I have become convinced that neither of those items is of use to a healthy body. I certainly pay a lot of attention to how food makes me feel and if I feel rundown after I eat it, I will not likely eat it much again. I'm one of the lucky folks who has a digestive disorder that requires that I be diligent with my food choices so this is pretty easy. I would recommend it. I did a hundred fad diets as a young woman and I never thought I looked as good as I do now that I don't really care how I look, just how I feel. Of course, looking at pictures from before, I was a hottie and was just too caught up in what society said I had to be to realize that I was just fine. Now, I look less like society wants me to (not young enough, etc) but now I take my okayness from inside myself and I am just fine. The lines and the crowsfeet are not weighing heavily on this middle aged woman's face and I won't be injecting any snake poison to decrease the lines - I earned them and they are precious.

I'll be taking my soapbox home now. Thanks. :)

[Katzenjammer]

152. "it's horrible for your heart from what I've heard."

Sorry, but you heard wrong. Atkins was a cardiologist who used the diet to keep his own heart healthy. It's been around at least 100 years (read the history here http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/chap1.htm ), and high protein/lo carb is the lifelong traditional diet of Eskimos. It used to be the lifelong diet of the Pima people, too. These days they are very obese and diabetic as a group because they no longer follow that diet and have a genetic difficulty with processing the modern US high-carb diet effectively.

[Raine]

5. Putting on weight can be done

other ways than eating animals.

[geomon666]

10. Yeah but what's the fun in that?

Sigh...I miss that turkey already.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. SINNER! BLASPHEMER! nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

160. I living proof of that

:D

[YOY]

6. PETA is to the left what the religious wackos are to the right

Yeah, they're nuts, but they're our nuts. I'm all for humane treatment of animals, but lets face it...nuts. Igrid Newkirk's brilliantly idiotic PR stunts (the whole holocost/African slavery comparision thing) proves it.

Yes, I will get flamed by the local PETA militia...then I'll eat a hamburger.

[Catchawave]

124. No flames here, and I'm a PETA member

Have you ever visited a CAFCO/Slaughterhouse?

[YOY]

137. Seen the video out by PETA

and still eating organic meat twice a week with gusto and no moral hang ups.

[Catchawave]

140. No, no I haven't, got link?

:hi:

[YOY]

148. I didn't mean an on-line video, but a video shown to me at a party when I was in undergrad

Sorry for the miscommunication.

It was an attempt at a gross-out and absolutely took the low road in pushing a point before jumping to ridiculous logical assumptions such as 'cows are our equals' (never stated but intoned) and that 'chicken eggs are aborted fowl fetuses' (definetely stated by a vegan friend on several occasions) or some such jumps of logic. It was 10 years ago, but I do remember a particular bit about veal calves in the video. Since I've never been to keen on veal (and I don't appreceate the tactic PETA used), it really didn't have any effect nor will it ever....sorry. :shrug:

I'll admit that some of what goes on in the slaughterhouses is unnecessary and inhumane. That's why there is free range products.

:shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

7. IMO, PETA is not good for anything

But then again I have some negative history with them

[dubykc]

8. I think PETA needs to not attack rich people coming out of posh...

Rodeo Drive furriers and cruise on up to Sturgis SD and attack the bikers for wearing leather.

[flvegan]

15. PETA activists/spokespersons have been at Sturgis. 2002, matter of fact.

Activists have also been at a number of other bike rally events, though none as large as Sturgis, that I know of.

[dubykc]

64. How many bikers got blood, either fake or real, thrown on them?

[flvegan]

72. I have to assume zero. I'd also have to ask

how many PETA employess are throwing paint or blood on people coming out of posh LA furriers?

PETA is an organization. Local activists may have, in the past done that. That's like suggesting 4 DUers getting arrested during the Miami protests is a DemocraticUnderground action.

[dubykc]

75. They represent the organization, I don't recall PETA denying their ...

representation.

[Matariki]

134. Ha! I've always asked that ame question.

Either it's easier to pick on old ladies or it's that small furry animals are cuter than cows? I suspect the former.

[Katzenjammer]

153. No, it's that cows are killed for meat not hide. Small furry animals are killed only for their fur

That's a big difference.

[Matariki]

155. you're right. that is a big difference.

[catnhatnh]

9. So, their idea of how to convince someone with a self-image problem...

who probably wears fur to enhance her self-image is to brutally insult her appearance, rather than appeal to her on an intellectual level.Frikken' brilliant!!

[Matariki]

135. Actually shaming a person for their 'fashion sense' who's overly concerned about self-image

probably is the approach the will work. as it apparently worked w/ paris hilton

[Fierce]

11. PETA hates women.

Or, at least, has deep-running contempt for them. If it's all about the animals, how come they don't go after all them leather-wearin' biker gangs too?

[geomon666]

12. Oh that'd be great.

PETA vs. The Hell's Angels, I'll take the Angels.

[Fierce]

13. I'd fire up the grill in celebration.

nt

[DrunkenMaster]

33. enjoy your prostate cancer!

When you can't get a hard-on because you've devasted your body with grilled meats and your prostate is filled with poison -- and yes, there is a direct, scientifically PROVEN connection between the two -- I hope you remember this post, genius.

[Fierce]

53. I can guarantee you I won't get prostate cancer.

Careful, you might put an eye out with those assumptions.

[Cobalt Violet]

151. Well there's always Mad Cow disease.

:hi:

[Fierce]

154. Mmm...unless you know who's making your beef.

Then it's a little different, I s'pose.

[nam78_two]

38. PETA is 80-90% female

Its one of the non-profits in this country that has a female in the top position...

Yeah...they "hate women" :eyes:
I don't agree with some of their campaigns but thats such an ignorant assessment of a non-profit that has done so much legitimate work in raising awareness on animal issues...

Tom Regan once said that the only AR issues that get press coverage are the silly or controversial ones...

[Fierce]

52. Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Any organization that attacks a woman for her looks certainly doesn't have her best interests at heart.

[Canuckistanian]

144. They're not attacking women "for their looks"

They're attacking certain women for their choice of how they want to acheive those "looks".

[Nikki Stone1]

55. Many "pro-life" groups are also staffed by women and have women in top positions

Just because women at the helm doesn't mean they aren't playing out internalized misogyny.

[Skip Intro]

14. There is no justification for wearing fur (as fashion)

I'm not talking about primitive cultures in remote areas that wear fur to survive, ok? I'm talking about women (and some men) who wear fur as a fashion statement of some sort. How the hell someone could walk around smiling and posing wearing the skin of an animal that was raised in horrible conditions and then mercilessly slaughtered is beyond me. It is murder. And thank God there is an organization that knows how to get the topic in the media, to further discussion.

I have no problem with PETA. More power to them.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. PETA also thinks there is "no excuse" for eating meat.

Sorry.. while there are some good, solid arguments against fur, PETA doesn't do reasonable animal rights supporters any favors with their things like comparing Kentucky Fried Chicken to Auschwitz.

[flvegan]

18. There are undeniably good, solid arguments

against eating meat, and PETA has made them. Problem with PETA oftentimes, is that they aim too high, overshooting the 7th grade mentality of the audience (as most journalism, advertising, etc aims for). PETA has, time and again, apologized for their campaigns that aren't grasped by the masses.

[geomon666]

19. Wait a minute.

Are you saying that anybody that doesn't 'get' PETA's message has a seventh grade mentality?

[flvegan]

20. Not in the least.

That would be like saying ANYbody that doesn't get a partiulcar newspiece or advertisement has less than a 7th grade mentality (which is what I think the conclusion you meant to jump to was). Naturally, that's not true.

[geomon666]

24. Alright

Was just a little bit confused by that sentence.

[flvegan]

31. Please see

Post #25 and you'll maybe get my meaning.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Right. We're so stupid we're offended when they compare our relatives who died in the camps

to Chickens served by KFC.

Look. Don't like meat? Don't want meat? Don't eat meat? Good for you.

And I acknowledge that, in many instances, it is good for you to reduce or eliminate some or all meat eating- for instance, I don't eat red meat anymore. But that should be up to individuals, and if PETA was really interested in improving conditions for the animals that INEVITABLY are going to be part of our food chain, they would SUPPORT things like free range and organic farming.

They don't, because like "pro-life" jihadists who are so wedded to their black-and-white certainty that a fertilized egg is a human being with rights, PETA is willing to sacrifice real-world improvements in our care and handling of animals to try to make a "point" satisfying to the college vegan crowd but virtually useless to everyone else: namely, that meat eating should be criminalized, and ALL animal ownership, use, husbandry or research is intrinsically immoral and must be stopped by any means necessary.

[flvegan]

30. Point proven.

As has been stated numerous times, that campaign wasn't about comparing chickens to people. It compared atrocity to atrocity, act to act. Don't attack me because you DON'T GET IT.

Your entire last statement, in regards to PETA, is so over the top and laughable, I can't begin to sum up the how and why in less than several paragraphs. However, if PETA is truly trying to simply "make a point satisfying to the college vegan crowd" then I can't imagine just how they've become such a huge organization.

[kiahzero]

36. You're the one that doesn't get it.

Claiming that there's even a degree of comparison between the Holocaust and factory farming is incredibly offensive to anyone who had family killed in that horror.

PETA's grown large for the same reasons the NRA has managed to - by appealing to relatively moderate people as cover for their extremist nonsense.

[flvegan]

40. You're just blinded

by the subjects of the atrocities. One is worse than the other (the acts) based upon those subjected to the acts. Kind of like two towers in NY falling is worse than napalming the shit out of a civ village of 3,000 in Iraq. Both atrocities, yes? To think one worse because of the innocent subjects is as right fucking wing as they come.

Equating PETA to the NRA is your opinion.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. You're still equating Jews with Chickens.

You think there is absolutely no moral difference between eating a turkey for thanksgiving and eating your next door neighbor? Between catching a fish on a hook and catching a Firefighter on one? Between killing a Laotian child with chemicals, and killing a cockroach with them?

Hey, at least you're consistent.

[flvegan]

45. No, you are projecting.

That's how you want to see it, which is fine by me. I made my statements, you don't see the points of them, you project (largely, I'd guess, from reading your other posts here, due to an inherent hatred of PETA and little more).

[kiahzero]

48. So you're not saying there's a moral equivalency.

So you can see how victims of the Holocaust and their families might feel offended by the comparison to something which you admit is less morally reprehensible.

[flvegan]

68. An immoral equivalency is what exists.

Again, it's the act and those that carry them out. They are devoid of morals and reprehensible.

Can I see how the a victim of the Holocaust (or family, loved one, etc) might be offended? Absolutely, but I think that they could be offended when we refer to other things as "concentration camps" or even compare Bush, et al to Hitler. Likely, and as has seemed to be the case, so much of the outrage comes because of the spin put on the initial campaign. Is was reported, not by PETA, but by the usual suspects that PETA was comparing Jews to animals. PETA compared living conditions and the actions to each other.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. You also can "understand" how the ad campaign could be offensive

but then feel the need to insult anyone who takes issue with it as having a "7th grade mentality"... you know, unable to grasp the finer points of logic in comparing Colonel Sanders to Eichmann.

I don't "hate" PETA. I really don't have time to worry about PETA all that much either way. My experiences with them--- and with hard core animal rights activists in general is-- I've found them to oftentimes have a very self-centered worldview, whereby the issues they care about are, in their minds, so morally urgent and paramount as to block out every other consideration- even rationality, courtesy, or common sense.

PETA seems to me to be overwhelmingly the playground of college students searching for a banner to hang zealotry and angry self-righteousness on, and bored celebrities who (on a planet where half the humans are dirt poor or starving) have nothing better to worry about than giving constitutional rights to their schnauzer.

[Dorian Gray]

101. Well..

One's worse, in THIS case, because it torture and suffering happened to PEOPLE rather than animals.

Hell, I'm all for the ethical and humane treatment of animals, but I find comparing the Holocaust to how farmed chickens are raised to be highly insulting to humanity.

[Cobalt Violet]

150. So you eat chicken in other words.

Point taken.

[Dorian Gray]

158. That wasn't my point...

but you knew that. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Right. It "compared" (as if such a thing were reasonable) atrocity to "atrocity". Factory farming to

the systematic murder of millions of Jews. Men, women, and children.

You still obviously think there's a moral equivalence between what the Nazis did and what Col. Sanders does- yet you stubbornly grouse that it "wasn't about comparing chickens to people".

Yeah... one of us doesn't get it, that's for fucking sure.

[flvegan]

42. Please see post 40

That way, I don't have to waste my time.

At least we agree that one of us doesn't get it.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. I'm already there. nt

[flvegan]

46. Almost.

Still have a ways to go.

[Nikki Stone1]

66. Good points, impeachdubya

nt

[nam78_two]

74. You raise some interesting points that I cannot argue with

PETA is willing to sacrifice real-world improvements in our care and handling of animals to try to make a "point" satisfying to the college vegan crowd but virtually useless to everyone else: namely, that meat eating should be criminalized, and ALL animal ownership, use, husbandry or research is intrinsically immoral and must be stopped by any means necessary.

There are cetain PETA activists I have met who do fit this criterion and I do see your point in that there are absolutists who will eschew incremental benefits to animals for "moral purity" and I don't really agree with that. I personally aim to eliminate most animal products from my life and think there is a need for some activists who aim for ideals inside movement.

But a movement as a whole turning down practical gains to achieve moral purity or superiority doesn't make sense and that is why being an *absolutist* is not a good thing often.

But, that applies to the anti-PETA sentiments too...all PETA activists are not the same. Everything they do is not equivalent...

Whether you are pro-animal rights or neutral, pro-PETA or anti there should be room for some grey area.

Else, whats the point in a debate? Certainly in PETA's case, while their is a vocal, somewhat extreme and absolutist minority, there are also a lot of people that genuinely want to achieve better standards for animals and make the world a somewhat better place.

I do think, dismissing all of them as nuts or militants reduces it to a simple black and white equation thats far from the truth.

(Btw I am sorry you were personally hurt by the "holocaust" campaign, which I agree was in bad taste.)

[Warren DeMontague]

105. I appreciate the apology. I have no doubt that there are PETA members who are fair-minded.

I lived with animal rights activists in college. Despite what I felt were some of their rhetorical excesses, they were good, good people.

The irony is, I agree about factory farming- I think it's bad for the animal, bad for the environment, bad for the consumer. I think improving the living conditions of animals raised for food or other purposes is a noble goal. My problem is that I am constantly seeing PETA getting bogged down in these black-and-white ideological "line in the sand" actions which strike me as working counter to the purpose of across the board improvements in farming, environmental protection, and the like.

I've got friends who are free-range, organic farmers. Good people. Take good care of their animals. But to PETA, at least to the folks running their PR department, they might as well be... well, the Nazi thing is beyond belabored, but you get the idea. Another recent experience with PETA in my area, there's a funky little town called Guerneville in Sonoma County- it's sort of a gay and lesbian mecca on the Russian River. A thrift store owned by a long-established member of the community in the town carried a couple of used furs at one point a couple years back. Second hand fur, mind you. Hell, maybe it was third or fourth hand. Now, look, I would never wear fur, I'm against fur- but the PETA reaction to this store selling second hand fur was downright frightening. They blustered into the town, made assorted threats at the owner, made a big nuisance of themselves downtown... The owner repeatedly said that if they had approached her in a reasonable fashion she would have worked with them- but (again) they did shit like calling her a "nazi" -and she's jewish- and pretty much sabotaged any chance of her listening to their arguments. Bottom line, the entire town was completely alienated by PETA's actions, and this is about as liberal a community as you're likely to find in this country.

Sadly, this is indicative of their approach to issues- with a sledgehammer. From what I've seen, I think they do a disservice to the broader cause of realistic animal rights activism, frankly.

[nam78_two]

118. Thanks for your thoughtful reply

I agree with a lot of what you say..
I think most of us on this thread and on DU in general agree more than we disagree really...

On AR I do have a problem with people who try to use AR as a way to express their own "moral superiority" and there are undoubtedly a few in the mix, but I do think they drown out a reasonable and thinking majority (who just really care about animals) just cause they are so vocal...

I remember having a long argument with a guy once who kept saying that a free range farm I knew was absolutely as bad as a CAFO nearby because the animal dies in the end anyway and he kept saying "I don't care-the only morally pure choice is neither". I kept trying to get to the point that it wasn't about him but the animal-if the animal suffers marginally less under one than the other, its important to THAT animal even if its not "morally pure"....didn't get too far :).


Activists of all brand would be better served if we stopped trying to feel superior to other people and just tried to do what was in everyone's best interest and is most humane etc.

[LeftyMom]

147. "Free range" is marketing bullshit that appeals to liberals who want to live guilt-free and still

eat the corpses of the tortured dead. Organic standards (watered down as they are) exist to provide minimal protection for human health and generally offer few if any benefits for the animal being exploited.

[Skip Intro]

23. Their methods raise awareness. Controversy is one way they do it.

I remember that comparison, and the discussion here. Bad idea on thier part, maybe, but it served the purpose. I think many people miss the point on PETA. The controversial ad campaigns are meant to grab media attention, thereby raising awareness of the torturous living conditions and senseless, cruel slaughter millions of thinking, feeling animials endure every day.

On the subject of eating meat, yeah, I know PETA is against that, period, but most of their campaigns, especially against the fast food giants, are focused on humane treatment of the animials to be killed and sold for our consumption. And they've had success with McDonalds and Wendys, to name two.

I have no problem with PETA and wish them well. I'd love to see them do something so outrageous that they are the top story on national news nationwide. Let joe-original-recipe know exactly the misery he supports when he buys that bucket.

[trotsky]

69. The campaigns certainly do grab attention.

Problem is, that attention is IMMEDIATELY directed into the thought "Man those liberal PETA freaks are whacked out to the extreme" rather than "Man those PETA people really do care about animals, perhaps I should take a closer look at what they're saying."

Let joe-original-recipe know exactly the misery he supports when he buys that bucket.

If "joe-original-recipe" actually cared what a chicken felt or thought, he wouldn't be buying that bucket in the first place.

[Skip Intro]

89. I doubt "please help us achieve humane treatment on factory farms and we'll give you a flower"

would be at all effective.

As I said, they create ad campaigns designed to grab media attention, and while some people would rather attack the messenger than focus on the message, the message stands little chance of even being discussed without some form of in your face "HEY LOOK WHATS HAPPENING" - imho.

Its a shame the message is sometimes blurred by the tactics, but when you realize the level of pain and suffering, the level of terror and brutality, the visciousness of the slaughter, I can give some leeway for a bit of overzealousness. And they've had successes, so I don't see their tactics as being unproductive.

And if joe-o-r knew the horrors involved with filling that bucket, he might just start to give a damn.

[trotsky]

98. But you're missing the point.

"Chicken Joe" really doesn't see animals as even being capable of experiencing pain - or that if they can, it doesn't register with them like it does with "intelligent" animals like humans. All the propaganda and campaigns in the world aren't going to raise his consciousness or even make him pause the next time he bites into a leg. It just seems to me that if you want a classic example of a marketing campaign that hurts your cause more than helps it, you should look at PETA.

[PVnRT]

166. I guess you feel the same about anti-choice protestors?

Hey, they're controversial and raise awareness, right?

[leftchick]

110. Yes indeed: "FUR IS NOT A FABRIC"

[Skip Intro]

132. right you are. beautiful pic. how could anybody....

?

[Skip Intro]

162. please ignore my reply above - didn't see that whole pic when I posted

was just checking out this thread again, and actually saw that that beautiful animal had been trapped, what a disgusting, heartless thing for someone to do. Makes my blood boil. I just had to clarify, when I said beautiful pic above, I hadn't seen the trap. I'd like to meet the f**king a**hole who laid that trap. I think I'd actually like to see him change places with that beautiful cat...there are some cruel sonsofabitches in this world.

[leftchick]

170. I totally agree

the people who kill animals for $$$ are fucking freaks and sub-human. :grr:

[Catchawave]

21. Attacking PETA is supporting RWnuts.

Please stop and do some homework :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Oh, bull. Not everyone on the "left" supports PETA.

A lot of us think they're full of shit.

[Catchawave]

121. Look up the people who are "paid" to attack them!

Google "animal rights" Sick lies out there. And they all donate to Republicans!

[Warren DeMontague]

141. Well, look at all the people who are doing it for free, here.

In my mind, the far gone PETA crowd has got the same, essential, mental quirk as extreme pro-lifers, namely, a black and white absolutist stance that is way out of whack with most people's values:

Killing of a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human being

a fertilized egg is a "baby"

Not only that, but they want to take THEIR moral convictions, ones that are NOT shared by the majority of the population, i.e. that animals deserve full "rights", meat eating should be criminalized (or, as you yourself say elsewhere in the thread, "people don't have the right to eat meat") etc. etc. and make those calls for the rest of the world.

Just like pro-lifers. They can't be satisfied with coming to their own moral conclusions on debatable issues like meat eating, etc. They want to impose their values (in one case, no non-procreative sex, in the other, veganism) on everyone else. Feh.

[Catchawave]

142. Did you mean to respond to me?

I'm a meat eater who supports PETA, probably your worse nightmare...:evilgrin: However, I get them, PETA is benign, but incredibly brilliant in attention grabbing PR.

It's the corporate monkeys who put out the bullshit you're concerned about. Google animal rights....I bet a website animalrights.net comes up.........those are FREAKS!

This concerns me, you post:

Killing of a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human being


a fertilized egg is a "baby"


Where did you get these quotes? Not that it matters, but your broad brush painting all animal protectionists as whackos is wingnut. So what if someone won't eat meat or diary because they feel that way, SO WHAT !

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Look around this thread. The folks defending the "KFC as Auschwitz" ads are making

that argument, essentially--- that you can draw a moral equivalence between the atrocities of Auschwitz and the "atrocities" involved in making fried chicken.

As for "a fertilized egg is a baby", that's the core principle of the "pro-life" movement. Getting that principle enshrined in the constitution is the holy grail for pro-lifers.

My point is, that both the pro-life movement and PETA have their agendas determined by people whose black and white stance on things like birth control and meat eating put them way out of the mainstream.

Lastly, neither PETA nor meat eating takes up close to enough of my mental energy to be my "worst nightmare". For all I know, you eat more meat than I do- I pretty much only eat free range poultry and sustainable fish these days. I'm in favor of compassion in the raising, care, treatment and use of animals. But I don't support PETA because I find their "attention grabbing" projects and ad campaigns offensive and counter productive.

[Nikki Stone1]

51. Sorry, Catchawave, but PETA seems dedicated to attacking female celebrities

See my post below to DrunkenMaster. PETA is not concerned about their misogyny, and I don't a damn about what PETA thinks.

[Beaverhausen]

61. Not that many male celebs wear fur

I'm sure if any did they would add them to the list.

[Dorian Gray]

102. Check out the rap world...

a lot of them do....


Male rap artists, that is.

[Beaverhausen]

125. well maybe PETA will use them in their next campaign

[Catchawave]

123. Hi Beav

:hi: Nice to see a friendly face here!

[Catchawave]

122. I care what PETA thinks.

www.peta.org

You'll be surpised :hi:

[Odin2005]

94. BULLSHIT!

This leftie is sick of being called a Nazi just because I like to eat a thick, jucy steak.

[Catchawave]

127. Who's calling you a Nazi ?

Hit the alert button :)

[Hobarticus]

99. False. Most mainstream people don't appreciate PETA's extremism

Using extremes is pretty typical of PETA's approach. It's almost, dare I say, right-wing nutjob-esque.

[Catchawave]

129. Pssst....

www.peta.org

Show me something extreme.

[Hobarticus]

156. Sending me a link to their website means nothing. Nice try.

You won't find anything on there that demonstrates their tactics of intimidation and grossly offensive demonstrations. Go to the White House website and find me a link that freely admits Dubya's war crimes, while you're at it.

Your position is indefensible. Their extreme tactics and methods have long been cataloged and discussed, even here on DU. Pretending that PETA's all cute n' cuddly is intellectually dishonest.

[Gormy Cuss]

100. How so?

If you've "done the homework," please share. I support some of the efforts of the organization and give it credit for raising awareness on animal welfare issues but I can't stand the endless series of tasteless PR pranks. The snarky Mr. Blackwell-like commentary on the "Worst Dressed list" would have been funny and effective with the harping on Ritchie and Olsen's thinness. The latter has a twin with anorexia, for Pete's sake. I wish that the copy writers had recognized that line before they crossed it.

I've heard the arguments that even bad press is better than no press but I wish that PETA would act like a mature, respected organization with a 25 year record of progress.

The 'living nativity' letters that were in the news earlier in the week are another case of good message, bad delivery. The Alaskan church said that they had never used live animals. I've yet to see any statement from PETA either showing evidence of their claim concerning that specific church or apologizing for erring in that instance. PETA sent the same letter to other churches -- there's been not one word in the press from those pastors denying it so perhaps PETA hit the mark. If PETA had bad info in the AK case, it would be smart to apologize and use the apology as an opportunity to call out the other churches that DO use animals in their living nativities.

[Catchawave]

130. CEO's lose sleep over being the object of

a PETA campaign. I think it's brilliant, I get them.

Are they perfect? No. The church letter is old news, it was a mistake based on "living nativity" including live animals. Corporate MSM ran with it to embarrass them, but ya know, it backfired. PETA did indeed apologize, but we never heard about that did we? This certainly brought awareness about the problem to the mainstream though...well, for those who cared about the animals and read the entire articles :)

[Gormy Cuss]

136. Glad to hear they apologized for that error.

I don't see it mentioned on the PETA site -- is it there? The press release on the AK church letter at their web site was date last week as I recall, and I didn't see a press release apologizing for it. It may be there in a different section of the website, it's true.

I'm sorry, but I thought their tactics were brilliant twenty years ago when they were a little upstart organization. Now it just feels like cheap and ineffective stunts to me because it raises less awareness than a projection of PETA as a bunch of nuts because the media ALWAYS gives space to the stunts and rarely anything else. The stunts enhance the marginalization. It's unfortunate because few will listen to the protests that PETA does do good work. CEOs should lose sleep over a negative PR campaign. That's where PETA can and should be focusing its PR campaigns, as a respected voice for AR. PETA is a large organization with a track record of accomplishments that should speak for themselves, but eyerolling is the first response I see when PETA is mentioned outside of a group of AR advocates, and most of my circle of friends are charitable donors to a wide variety of good causes but PETA isn't one of them.

on edit: forgot to thank you for answering my question. Thanks!

[Catchawave]

138. They acknowledged the mix-up in a press release...

and we know how the media picks and chooses press releases.

PETA's a media whore, and proudly admit it...I read years ago they learned PR technique from Rudy Guiliani and other smarmy politicians.

A technique that brings "attention" to helping the animals. Other animal protection orgs have benefited from this attention. By all means, keep supporting any organization you feel comfortable with. I donate to PETA because Outrageous and Bizzarro is an ATTENTION GETTER. They love to be controversial, it's publicity!

Please go to www.peta.org, sometimes I wish the DNC would. Great ideas to stir passionate compassion, whether to help animals...or humans :toast:

[nini]

113. I'm no rightwinger and fuck them to hell and back

Do your f'ing homework and don't assume anything.

[Catchawave]

131. I didn't call you a right winger

but if you buy the bad information, the right wing organizations win.

Unless you're a dog breeder, fur farmer, trophy hunter....your dues to those organizations buys Republican commercials.

Think profit from animals.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Why does PETA give a damn about what celebs WEIGH?

Or is PETA just a front for the bashing of women in the public eye? (And that's something I've wondered about for a long time.)

[Warren DeMontague]

28. As long as women insist on being part of that pesky human race

PETA is going to continue to bash them, because humans are the one animal they don't give a flying fuck about.

[geomon666]

29. Well said. n/t

[DrunkenMaster]

34. just a bit of a logical fallacy there

so attacking an idiotic celebrity is equal to an attack on all women and proves PETA hates humans? HILARIOUS.

[kiahzero]

37. Strawman. (n/t)

[Warren DeMontague]

41. No, my view regarding PETA's take on the human race has to do with everything they do.

And having spent more than a little time in my life hanging around assorted animal rights activists, I'm plenty familiar with it, TYVM.

[DrunkenMaster]

47. do you "have some gay friends" too?

Pretty funny stuff.

[nam78_two]

49. Heh heh heh

And on that subject Stephen Colbert still needs a "new black friend" :).

[Nikki Stone1]

50. DrunkenMaster, look at their pattern

In LA, PETA goes after female celebrities wearing minks. They feel thoroughly justified in throwing red paint (representing blood) on women wearing these minks, rather like the right wing anti-choice crowd feels comfortable calling women names as they walk into clinics (I've seen this, BTW) and getting in their faces with bloody fetus posters. The anti-choicers say they are protecting "life" and the PETA people also feel this way, protecting the "poor abused minks".

Interestingly, I have never heard of a well publicized campaign where PETA goes after male celebrities wearing leather boots and belts, or male hip hop artists wearing minks. I certainly haven't heard of PETA throwing red paint on men who might punch their lights out. Much easier to attack women, And much more cowardly.

This attack on diet :wtf: of a female celebrity is more of the same.

[nam78_two]

56. There is a huge difference between fur and leather

Most animals killed for fur are killed *only for their pelts*.....

Leather is mostly a by product in industries where animals are being killed for food anyway...Estimates put leather at about 10% of the net worth of say a cow. Whereas the fur is the only reason minks, raccoons, foxes and many even endangered species are killed.

As for PETA being "anti-female"-that is an interesting idea since from most of what I have seen, PETA is 80-90% female and a lot of the positions at the top are held by women :shrug:. Most of them are in fact strong feminists too (unlike pro-lifers). I seriously doubt that that fur-leather thing has to do with gender divides so much as the fact that in one case an animal is housed in misery and killed for NO reason other than "fashion".....

And PETA has gone after men who wear and promote fur too (e.g.: PDiddy).

[Nikki Stone1]

63. Really?

If you're killing an animal for food, why add insult to injury and wear its hide? Would it make it more acceptable to kill minks if we provided their meat to the species that eat it?

As far as endangered species are concerned, the same laws that apply to all other people, businesses and trades apply to the mink industry. No sense in singling them out unless the government does not go after them for violations the way it goes after other industries.

I find PETA's actions anti-female, as in throwing red paint on women's coats as they walk by, etc. When I see them doing the same to leather wearing guys or mink wearing hip hop artists, then I'll change my opinion. In the meantime, their actions are anti-female in the extreme. Regardless of their makeup.

[nam78_two]

67. Its the same reason

(regarding the first part of your post) that many more environmentally conscious cooks make a point of eating EVERY part of an animal. Its respecting the fact that something gave up its entire life for this.

The point is also to minimize animal suffering..I find some sophistry in some of your earlier arguments that have little bearing on reality :shrug:

I think that to use something purely as a luxury, when a creature had to give up its life is rather obscene. I think that whenever one uses a animal product, there should be some degree of repect/nod towards that fact that something suffered/died for this at the very least. And from that respect, I think can spring the minimization of the use of such products.

The truth is that, while I do what I can to eliminate the use of animal products in my life, I don't think human society as a whole is ever going to ever stop "using" animals..But, I would like it to be done as minimalistically and humanely as possible and I never buy the all or nothing argument (in which I have a difference with some PETA members as I have with you :))

[Nikki Stone1]

77. So eating an animal is more respectful than wearing one?

If I get your drift, you want every part of the animal used. So let's feed the mink meat to its natural predator, whatever animal that is. Then all parts of the animal are being used.

But I don't think that's your real issue. Your strongest language is reserved for the use of animals (or anything else) as a "luxury". And that I think is the core of your feeling on this issue. It's the idea that mink coats are luxuries-not necessities. It is this idea of senseless, wasteful luxury that allows PETA to be as abusive as it is of people, especially women, who wear minks as a luxury; that allows PETA to throw red paint on women wearing minks.

This reminds me a lot of the pro-lifers, some of whom, if you talk to them, are not as opposed to abortion in the case of rape as they are opposed to abortion "used as birth control" (translation, you don't NEED the abortion, you just want it.) It's the idea of abortion as a luxury, a way of avoiding the consequences of your actions, a way of not acknowledging life with reverence that seems to rile them up. For many conservatives I know, an abortion in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother is an understandable evil with some kind of necessity, but an abortion because the condom broke is an evil without necessity. (This is not true of all conservatives. Catholics I know will tell you it's murder no matter what.)

Along those same lines, some less extreme PETA members might have a grudging acceptance for mink coats in Siberia, where quite frankly, their warmth (unequaled by cloth) would have some justification; whereas they might still despise those wearing fur in LA, where, quite frankly, a mink is completely unnecessary and only stands as a marker of wealth and luxury.

I think THAT is what is common at the root of PETA and the "pro-life" crowd: they do not want to allow women to take luxuries of any kind. (There is not as much focus on men and luxury since men are allowed some self-satisfaction and some luxury taking. No one needs a huge plasma TV, but a guy can buy that for himself as a reward for his "hard work" and no one is going to fault him.)

The fact that both of these movements--saving animals, even the uncuddly ones, and saving fetuses--contain many women is just a testament to the fact that women have a lot of internalized misogyny and find it easier to turn on themselves than on the larger male society (that might hurt them). At some level, I believe that these women actually identify with the abused animals and fetuses, that they project their own feelings of helplessness onto these objects.


That being said, I think wearing a mink in LA is just silly, and I've never owned one. But I reserve my right to take a luxury,

[DrunkenMaster]

80. deal with the issue, please

Don't conflate one cause (PETA) with another (anti-abortion) and expect a reasonable debate. This is the same tactic used by the RWers when they defend Iraq -- it's just like WWII: did you want the Nazis to take over? Then why aren't you for the invasion or Iraq as well? You Neville Chamberlain, you!

There is plently of room for discussion of tactis -- i.e., whether or not throwing red paint is appropriate protest or assault -- without you attempting to load the debate with a false analogy. Debate PETA when discussing PETA and abortion when discussing abortion, please. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

83. There is a strong connection between the tactics and attitudes of PETA and the pro-life movement.

And there is a tendency of both to use women to chastise, to the point of abuse, other women.

No one is conflating issues. I am simply pointing out very salient similarities.

Reread the post, will you?

[nam78_two]

84. I don't do well on these reductio ad Hitlerum arguments /nt

[Nikki Stone1]

87. Cute, but wrong. This is a valid comparson.

Read the post before you start bringing the H-word into things. :)

[dubykc]

71. Many of the high -end leathers are from animals too young to be used for meat..

For instance calf-skin is from calves not even old enough to be used for veal, which is another issue of its own. Lamb skin the softest and most supple, and highest priced is also from lambs not old enough for meat. Goat kids are used for leather when they are too young to be meat as well.

And they are all raised in deplorable conditions.

[Nikki Stone1]

79. Thanks.

PETA should go after men wearing such leather if they want to be fair.

[kiahzero]

91. My leathers are tough cowskin.

They also happen to be one of the best materials for keeping my skin safe should I hit the asphalt on my motorcycle.

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

111. There are pro-lifers that CALL themselves "feminists", too.

The similarities between the two movements are legion.

Moral black and white absolutism, which they're looking to impose upon a populace that doesn't share their core assumptions, chief among them: A Chicken in a cage = a Jew in Auschwitz, A fertilized egg = a "baby".

[DrunkenMaster]

59. PETA confronts men in public often!

Including rappers like DMX, musicians like Michael Jackson, sports stars like Dennis Rodman, and the CEOs of organizations like Huntington Animal Labs.

The law needs to be respected, of course, and assault isn't a proper form of protest. Nicole Ritchie, however, has done more to damage the psyches of young women in theis country than a swimmingpool full of red paint thrown on celebrities ever could and I certainly don't believe that attempting to establish a causal link between eating disorders in young girls, the cult of celebrity and our total lack of regard for the other inhabitants of this planet is assault.

[Nikki Stone1]

65. PETA never threw red paint on Dennis Rodman, the way they did

at women wearing furs in LA.

Gee, Mr. Diddy, stop wearing fur please? Pretty please?

[DrunkenMaster]

76. didn't they get pretty confrontational with DMX

about his pit bull dog fighting thing? And I'm pretty sure DMX didn't just get away sith some spilled paint -- he went to jail.

By the way, PETA also takes the fur coats people give them and they take them to homeless shelters. In the words of Dan Matthews, one of their founders, "the homeless are the only people with an excuse to wear fur."

[Nikki Stone1]

81. PETA did not physically accost DMX

When he's dripping with red paint, let me know.


"the homeless are the only people with an excuse to wear fur."

{and Dan Matthews would be a woman? ;) }


Totally supports my argument in the response to you above. It's not about the life of the animal. It's about the audacity of taking a luxury.

Same dead minks; just don't have some "rich bitch" wearing them

[DrunkenMaster]

93. PETA confronts men regularly

Hell, they tracked down the CEO of Huntington Animal Labs along with the group SHAC (members of which are about to do serious time under the new "Animal Enterprise Act" law)and let him have it in public.

They also have thrown red paint on male fashion designers who create fur-based outfits:

MILAN (Reuters) - Five anti-fur protesters stormed Roberto Cavalli's flamboyant fashion show on Wednesday, unrolling posters saying "Cavalli = cruelty" on the catwalk before they were dragged away by security staff...."Cavalli is our target because he has described himself as an animal-lover but he has about every animal out there in his collection," PETA's Vice-President Dan Mathews told Reuters by phone. He was one of the protesters at the show....

***
4/22/2005
A grisly scene at Badgley Mischka show
Fur-loving fashionistas Mark Badgley and James Mischka were skinned alive yesterday at Bergdorf Goodman - metaphorically, anyway - when animal-rights zealots disrupted the "exclusive premiere" of their new clothing line.
***

Beckham hangs up his boots (the ones made out of baby kangaroos)
England captain to kick out his favourite footwear in protest at manufacturer's 'cruel practices'
By Tom Anderson
Published: 05 February 2006

He made the decision after being sent a graphic video by animal rights groups, which showed how baby kangaroos were pulled from their mother's pouch and beaten to death during the annual kangaroo "harvest", worth more than £13m a year to Australia. The film showed a mother kangaroo standing stock-still, ears pricked up for sounds of danger, as a four-wheel drive vehicle pulled up in the Outback, blinding the marsupial with searchlights.

A hired marksman then shoots the mother kangaroo before approaching the body and cutting a baby from the pouch. The baby kangaroo is beaten with a blunt instrument. Its mother is hung from a hook on the back of the truck before being taken for skinning. The skin is then taken to adidas factories in the developing world where it is turned into football boots, which are sold to thousands of fans in Britain for £100 a pair.

[Bake]

107. Confront, maybe. Accost physically? I doubt it.

Somebody like DMX just MIGHT bust a cap in their ass.

So IF they're scared to throw paint on a bad-ass black man, they damn well ought not throw paint on a skinny white girl.

Bake

[DrunkenMaster]

78. using celebrities to shame other celebrities

http://www.chronicmagazine.com/public.php?page_id=214&level=0

PINK CALLS BEYONCE OUT (11/14/06)

Singer Pink recently lashed out at Beyoncé for using fur as part of her latest fashion trend. The outspoken singer - who is constantly involved with PETA campaigns - is angry at the fashionable diva for dressing herself with real fur in public.

Pink is so angry that she called Beyonce a "b***h* and said she hopes the animal she's sporting over her body suddenly comes back to life and gnaws her skin.

"I only hope she gets bit on the a** by whatever animal she wears."

The feisty star also says celebrities like Beyonce don't stop to think about the wrong message they're sending out to the public.



She added, "Some of the practices are so cruel and as a celebrity you have a responsibility to think about the message you're sending out by wearing fur."

[Nikki Stone1]

86. A very shame-based movement.

Like the pro-life movement.

[Nikki Stone1]

90. And at this point, I have to go.

Nice chatting with y'all :)

[nam78_two]

92. Have a good one

Glad we could keep it civil and we didn't need to bring red paint into it :evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

96. bingo, PETA are a bunch of misanthropes

[DrunkenMaster]

32. How Stupid!

Why in the world should PETA think there may be a link between body/image issues for young girls and our social willingness to slaughter animals with electroshock to the genitals in order to look "good" while wearing them for fur? OBVIOUSLY these two issues have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another.

How STUPID can PETA be?

[nam78_two]

35. Whatever...

Focusing on PETA's shenanigans (which can be a littleoff sometimes) is a good way to ignore all real issues of animal abuse in this country....

[blondeatlast]

163. That's where the problem lies. PETA's bizarre "performance art" protests

distract from the real message.

I've known plenty of PETA members. Most of them were dedicated, worked hard, and stayed in the background spreading the word about animal cruelty. A precious few never did a damn thing until a major protest--one designed to get news coverage--were held. And damn if they didn't make up their faces and wear edgy outfits every time. And damn if they didn't get face time most of the time as well. That was the point, and it worked--for the individuals.

PETA has become the face of the animal-rights movement and that's a pity because they shock the average Joe who likes his veal parmigiana but isn't aware of the suffering of the veal calf.

The MSM has made them (read: animal rights groups) into a laughing stock and Newkirk doesn't do a thing to reverse it.

Animal rights groups need a new face--and Ingrid's isn't it.

[BoneDaddy]

54. I would like to see

PETA put their energy into something a little more relative. Sure it is a good cause to approach animals with love and compassion, but perhaps their time, energy and passion could be better used.

[chaska]

57. I don't get involved in these PETA discussions, except to say that I support them.

[Bake]

58. What's PETA's stand on pets?

My beloved babies, the Springer, the Lhasa, and her two puppies (Lhasa/Shi Tzu mix; we just call them Lhasa Shi's), oh, and the cat too, really want to know if they're being exploited by their evil human caretakers. They're not anxious to leave their comfortable life of luxury, being fed, groomed, lavished with attention and companionship, sleeping on the bed, having their every need seen to immediately. But they say that if they're being exploited, then by golly, they'll demand to be liberated immediately -- or maybe they'll wait until spring to be liberated, since it's cold outside.

What's PETA's stand on that?

The babies are waiting to hear.

Bake

[Beaverhausen]

60. PETA wants you to spay/neuter your pets

otherwise just love and care for them

[nam78_two]

62. ....

I doubt that any except the most extreme PETA members(who are sometimes a vocal minority) are going to say *every* single human being out there ill-treats *every* single animal out there...

The fact that some people are loving to their pets is tangential to the fact that our society as a whole is doing some pretty inhumane and horrific things to billions of animals every year...

Focusing on PETA isn't going to change that fact. A large number of factory farmed animals lead lives of abject misery and while PETA can be nutty, they do bring attention to this fact too.

[flvegan]

70. Cute.

PETA's stand on pets, as I understand, is that they're to be treated humanely and well cared for. Now, if you worked for PETA, for example, you'd likely be bringing your pets to work with you. As I understand it, they like having them around.

[trotsky]

73. Help with a quote, please.

“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, “Animal Rights 2002” convention, 6/30/02

Can you explain what is meant by "total animal liberation"?

[DrunkenMaster]

82. to begin with

it might start with no longer killing animals with electrocution to the genitals for luxury clothing items.

It might be defending the oceans before we strip them bare.

It might be stopping braindead country music stars from shooting captive animals and calling themselves "hunters".

It might just be realizing that we aren't the only animal on the planet and that every conscious being has rights. Not necessarily the same rights as humanity (you could argue this about animal experimentation: is it permissable to use lab rats for stem cell research that might save lives? Possibly, but that doesn't condone the millions of animals tortured every year by cosmetic companies like Procter and Gamble) but some kind of baseline right to exist that may help us form an ethical platform to halt the total destruction of the planet.

ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS -- THEY BELONG TO THEMSELVES.

[trotsky]

88. Yep, all those are noble causes and you will get few arguments.

But I asked what "total animal liberation" meant.

To me, that implies that one of your examples (rat stem cell research) would be prohibited. TOTAL means absolute. No use of animals for any human pleasure or enterprise. That is why I wanted clarification.

[DrunkenMaster]

95. from whom?

The speaker? PETA? One of the posters here? Is "total liberation" the official stance of PETA?

[YOY]

97. It's what Ingrid Newkirk said and she is the head and (co)founder of PETA

So I would have to say that it is an offical stance of PETA.

So kindly answer the question instead of dancing about. What does "Total Animal Liberation" mean? I myself and quite curious to know.

[pitohui]

103. they want to take away your right to eat meat and own pets

they got their toe in with the fur thing since most people don't wear fur, but the ultimate goal is that people should not be allowed to eat animal products, own pets, or manage animals in the national parks and other areas

for instance, several years ago, in order to try to save some habitat for several species of endangered hawaiian birds, nature conservancy, national wildlife federation, and several other respected orgs plus usa gov't decided it was time to eradicate the introduced wild pigs that are destroying the habitat for these birds

keep in mind, if the pigs were not destroyed (and feral pig is not an endangered species) several species of birds and an unknown number of plants would become extinct

i'm forgetting or blocking the gory details but the good folks at peta took the side of the PIGS and sent a box of blood to an official working on the feral pig eradication program

they are not on the side of "the" animals, they are only on the side of what they have decided are the "cute" animals

wild birds can go straight to hell, what matters to them is that feral cats and pigs run free

they are not nice people and they take the money of nice people under false pretenses

and they've never been shy to say, we should love animals, not eat them -- do not mistake them, their ultimate goal is take the meat off your plate

[Bake]

106. But wait, don't some animals eat other animals?

And if WE'RE animals too ("we're all animals on this planet," I think, was the quote), then shouldn't we have the same right to eat other animals that other animals have? Just because we're smarter, or have opposable thumbs, or some other advantage shouldn't mean we have to be vegans. Hell, stronger, faster animals eat weaker, slower animals every day.

I know there must be some logic in this somewhere ...

Bake

[Skip Intro]

108. Personally, I don't think humans have a "right" to eat animals -

From where does that right come? Because we deem ourselves "superior?"

Having said that, I'm much more focused on the humane treatment of animals, whether they be on factory farms or neighborhood strays. People who eat meat aren't going to stop, and I don't pass any judgement on them. But for animals to live a life of misery, subjected to cruel treatment and terrible living conditions, and then be slaughetered merciliessly - that's what's got to stop. I'd wager there's not a person on this board that would approve of the treatment of animals in most factory farms if they could see it firsthand.

[kiahzero]

109. I don't know

I'd wager that it comes from the same place that a lion has a "right" to eat a tasty gazelle.

Mmm... gazelle.

[nam78_two]

114. The lions don't factory-farm gazelles to the best of my knowledge though/nt

[kiahzero]

116. Strawman

We were talking about eating animals, not factory farming.

[nam78_two]

119. The thread is mostly about Animal rights as a whole

Its easy to pick bits and pieces of PETA nuttiness or logical fallacies that are easy to laugh at-but the larger point to debate is what about the large scale suffering and even consequences to humans of this sort of farming?

[nam78_two]

145. Not surprised that

thats a debate anti-PETA folks typically don't wanna get into :eyes:

Much easier to mock one group than to examine the larger issue they are championing...

[Skip Intro]

120. well, if it were a matter of life and death (the human's), but even then

philosophically, I'm not sure that even in that situation there is a "right" to take one life in order to sustain another. Frankly, I don't know, I'd like to know the reasoning behind that "right."

But the thing is, in the "civilized world," meat is not necessary for survival.

gazelle?

[YOY]

139. Well aware of that...they just won't come out and say it

Kind of an eating disorder really. Except that they're not eating something because it will make them fat, but because they view it as immoral.

They mean well, but as I have said in another post, are our wing's version of Religious nutcases.

[blondeatlast]

164. It "MIGHT" be. Please do clarify, because us average Josies who care about animal cruelty aren't

clear.

[nini]

112. FUCK PETA

Their methods suck ass. If they want to get a point across then they can do it without the bullying and intimidation they are known for. Their message gets lost in the shock tactics.

When my then 5 year old nephew was at UCLA medical center for a heart surgery, my poor sister had to walk through a protest by PETA at the hospital. They were barricaded the door and making it difficult for people to get in the hospital. They needed to make sure everyone saw their gross pictures and were screamed at for supporting a hospital that used procedures perfected on animals. It never crossed their narrow minds that people entering that hospital could have dying loved ones or being very ill themselves. They didn't give a damn about anything but their own hysterical attention whoring tactics.

That was about the closest I ever came to wanted to completely kick the shit out of people. My sister was a nervous wreck already because her child was going in for a life-threatening surgery and had to endure their fucking hysteria on the way into the hospital to be with him before he went to the O.R.

I will NEVER forgive those people for what they put her through in the name of animal protection. They should consider the mental state of the 'human' animals they try to bully once in a while.


Before anyone gets all in my face about them - I love animals and feel they need to be protected. But I have my limits with their shit.

God Dammit.. they piss me off - :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[kiahzero]

115. According to some, you just didn't "get it."

I agree with you, though.

[nini]

117. I don't care what people think that cannot grasp the whole picture

and reality.


Their ways are flawed in getting their points out there. They traumatized someone who was already going through hell. No matter how good they think their intentions are.. they are bullying and damaging. I have zero tolerance for them.



Give me Betty White and her animal work any day - PETA can go to hell.

[Catchawave]

126. That's what Karl Rove said too !

Only it killed humans in Bush's immoral war...and two terms as President.

Would love to see some sources to your pain, and I'm sure I can prove PETA didn't cause them.

[nini]

159. are you calling me a liar?

I said it was PETA. it was PETA.


I was able to read their signs and literature - as angry as I was, I still had the ability to read. :eyes:

[Skip Intro]

133. and, the deaths go on

right now, minute by minute...

I can understand the "extreme" ads and the urgency, given the situation.

[nini]

161. considering my nephew would be dead right now ..

if the technique used on him hadn't been perfect on goats.. I don't give a shit about their extremism.


If someone you loved was on the other end of a life saving procedure you may see things differently.

If we're talking about furs etc.. then hell yes - there's zero reason why that is justifiable. But in the situation of which I speak - they were wrong. You will NEVER convince me I am wrong on this one - my 22 year old nephew who is still alive is my fuel in this fight.

[PVnRT]

167. But don't you know?

We have MAGICAL COMPUTERS now that PERFECTLY model how the human body will react to medicines. We don't need testing on animals. Computers can do it force. Computers! Yay! :sarcasm:

Yes, I have actually been told on this board by PETA supporters that we should use computers to test new drugs. Brilliant!

[dubykc]

146. I too can embrace Betty White's animal work.

[Catchawave]

128. True n/t

[Hobarticus]

157. Hmmm....change UCLA medical center to a women's clinic...

...and change the PETA protesters to pro-lifers, and we'd call that an assault on basic civil rights and intimidation here at DU.

So, what's the difference? Just because it's PETA, they get a free pass? Not to me.

PETA's a bunch of attention-hungry extremists. Period. Anyone claiming to the contrary is being intellectually dishonest.

[blondeatlast]

165. Exactly. Their methods DETRACT from a legitimate message.

The issue bears the face of Ingrid Newkirk and her performance art groupies--not the thousands who work behind the scenes to expose the horrors of factory farming and fur slaughter.

If PETA had been at the forefront pushing for passage of AZ Proposition 204 (to prohibit veal cages, etc) it would have failed miserably. This is an agriculture state still. Fortunately they were pushed away from advocacy here and it passed.

[Hobarticus]

169. Remarkable what sane and reasonable people can accomplish...

A little honey goes a lot further than, say, smearing excrement and blood in someone's face.

It is unfortunate that the headlines detract from what those thousands behind the scenes trying to do. I think they have a point, just a poor way of putting their message before the public. There is such a thing as bad press.

[The Stranger]

168. I figured we were due about now for a PETA bashing thread.

Have at it, you "Progressives"! Down with ending animal cruelty! Down with preserving creation for our fellow animals! Down with the pointless massacre of millions of animals each year! Down with it all!