What's Your View of PETA?

[Bonn1997]

What's Your View of PETA?

[Zomby Woof]

1. Um

Flames and tears. :cry:

And plenty of popcorn. :popcorn:

[TK421]

2. It is essential for making gyros n/t

[MajorChode]

13. My vote for the best answer goes here

[TK421]

51. Hey.....ever try making one with anything else?

pointless....totally pointless :D

[MajorChode]

53. That would be as sinful as putting syrup on grits

I wouldn't even consider it.

[pokerfan]

33. If we aren't supposed to eat animals why are they of meat?

Flippant answer, I know. :hide: My view is that PETA is a fundamentalist organization. No animals? Really? This is the Phylogenetic tree:



It's all life. You can't exist without destroying life. Your body is right now with every breath it draws is destroying living organisms. Death is part of life. Why are plants lesser than the other kingdoms? Why draw the line at animals or mammals?

I grew up on a wheat farm and my father taught me that life is life. Animal, plant, etc. It's all life. One no better than the other.

That said, I don't eat much meat. I think the world could more easily feed the teeming billions of humans if we all ate less meat (and don't get me started on biofuels.) But I am not going to start carrying a broom and gently sweeping the street before me lest I step on a bug, which is where their philosophical argument leads.

I have venison in the freezer and some fish in the fridge; I am a bad man. Having said that, I do think livestock should be treated more humanely than they are. I believe in spay and neuter. I find puppy mills abhorrent.

I'm a bigot, because I hold a higher regard for so-called "advanced" families such as cetaceans and other primates than I do for say, Escherichia coli. More gray matter = more value. Call it moral relativism.

[Bonn1997]

34. Even if you feel that way, you don't have to support the practices of the current meat industry.

The industry is a bunch of immoral, greedy corporations that inflict severe pain and suffering just to maximize profits. They're really no better than our nation's insurance agencies except that the former does harm to animals and the latter to humans.

[pokerfan]

36. I agree

Factory farms suck. I've raised livestock and I can assure you that they were not treated that way. Meat animals should be raised and slaughtered as humanely as possible.

But trust me, "mother nature" is even worse. Neither MN nor evolution care one whit about the suffering of any individual. I'm sure that the spider wasp's demise at the hands of the wasp and its offspring is excruciating as the larvae feed on its body saving the vital organs for their last meal.

Puppy farms are just as immoral in my opinion as is leaving your pets to reproduce at their will.

But trying to living without killing any animal... not possible. And even if you could, what about the plants? Is the animal kingdom superior to the plants and the other kingdoms?

[Bonn1997]

39. Glad you agree about factory farms. A few points about plants, though:

Veganism makes a distinction between whether the individual has the capacity to feel pain and suffer. There is no evidence that plants can feel pain and suffer although there is clear evidence that most animals can--possibly to a greater degree than humans actually due to their heightened sensory abilities. Vegans (like me) believe we have a moral duty to inflict as minimal suffering onto others as possible and believe that there's clear evidence that you can live at least as healthy a life if not a healthier one on a well-planned vegan diet. It's worth noting, though, that it takes fewer plants to support a vegan's than a omnivorous human's diet. (Think about how many plants just one cow needs to eat, for example.) You did raise a good (common) question, though. I had the same one initially before I started reading a lot about veganism and vegetarianism.

[Kali]

54. except that cows are perfectly adapted to eat the kinds of plants you CAN'T eat

cows make delicious, high quality protien out of inedible (to us) grasses and forbs. They are relatively easy to manage, can be used to rebuild and enhance soil conditions, and did I mention? Delicious.

[Bonn1997]

56. Not sure what your point is about cows eating plant we can't eat.

I think I'm missing something. My point was that you'll save more plants if you become a vegetarian. I didn't mean to imply that we eat the *same* plants as cows.

[Kali]

65. plants that have evolved with grazers don't need to be "saved"

in fact their health often depends on them being periodically eaten (and for most perennial grasses that certainly doesn't kill the plant anyway)

my point was that cows don't need to be in competition for human food, they make protein from material we cannot digest.

[Bonn1997]

68. I think you're going off topic from Pokerfan's point (which I was replying to).

He merely asked if plants have feelings and need to be saved and I pointed out going vegan or vegetarian would save more plants.

[Kali]

72. off topic?

uh this is a thread in the DU lounge, didn't know there was any requirement to stay "on topic" :rofl:

(and by the way the whole subthread is an "off topic" tangent to your OP)

[Bonn1997]

74. The difference is that usually when you choose to reply to someone's message it's because you have

something on the topic of that message you wanted to reply to. (Otherwise why did you pick that particular message to reply to?!)

I still haven't decided for sure but I'd probably say PETA does a lot of good for society but could benefit from some more common sense marketing strategies at times.

[pokerfan]

79. I asked if plants have feelings?

Where? :wtf:

[Bonn1997]

80. My mistake. Change "have feelings" to "are inferior" and leave everything else the same.

Unfortunately it won't let me edit. Nevertheless, this two word change doesn't relate to the fact that Kali was off of the topic of the very message he was replying to.

[TK421]

48. We're actually having deer burgers for dinner tonight

a friend of mine goes hunting....brought us back a ton of stuff ( including homemade deer jerky ). We picked up some stuff from the local Amish market to go along with it, too :toast:

[Bonn1997]

60. Well it's good that you won't be supporting the meat industry tonight!

[TK421]

63. I intend for the person who got me this meat to be publicly flogged

and spat upon....but that will be after the Eagles-Cowboys game on Sunday


edited to add: because that's how we get off in the Philadelphia area :sarcasm: on the misery of others

[AsahinaKimi]

3. Should be an inbetween option

I think some times they are dead on..other times.. they do stuff that is way off base.. Like most organizations.

[Bonn1997]

7. That is a good point.

[EndersDame]

4. They are ok but I give my $$ to people doing more direct work with animals

I know there needs to be education and media events but I prefer my dollars going directly to food in the bowls and knifes to balls (heh heh)

[Bonn1997]

5. What do you have in mind by more direct work with animals?

I give time and money to my local humane society. Just wondering what else you might have mind.

[EndersDame]

10. Yeah Humane Society Emancipet and SARA

Emancipet
http://www.emancipet.org/
Very cool organization that provides low cost/ free spay, neuter , vaccines , microchips and flea& heartworm prevention

SARA
In addition to being a nokill shelter they take in abused /special needs cats dogs and even livestock
http://www.sarasanctuary.org/newsite/content/general_info/about_sara.php

[Bonn1997]

14. Thanks; those look like great organizations

[Mojambo]

6. Mostly well meaning, but often complete nimrods. n/t

[Iggo]

8. Great.

[Fleshdancer]

9. I think their marketing people need to be replaced

Going for the "shock value" made sense when they were making a name for themselves, but most people know who they are now so it's time for a fresh, more sophisticated approach...something far less silly and insulting.

Instead of calling fish "sea kittens" or creating yet another ad campaign of airbrushed, naked d-list celebrities, try educating me. What's the end game? What would the world look like in a PETA controlled world? What are PETA's goals? What do they hope to accomplish in 2010? 2020? How can people get involved? Can anyone here who has never visited their website or Googled them answer just one of these questions? If not, then they're doing something wrong.

Now that we all know WHO they are, they can start spending their resources telling us exactly WHAT they do and why.

[charlie and algernon]

20. +1

yeah, that's a big FAIL for me too. It seems like they are a mile wide and an inch deep. Causing a ruckus and raising hell will only get you so far, if they ever hope to capture the attention of the public at large, they need to show some semblence of a legislative agenda. They need to show people that they actually want and, here's the big part, HAVE A PLAN to get something done. I'll say this about any major activist group, you can yell and scream outside of hearing rooms all you want, but eventually you'll have to sit down with a legislator and get legislation drafted and passed.

[Flaxbee]

11. I'm glad someone is out there raising a ruckus, but

I think they tend to go overboard, and might lose converts to the cause of animal rights by being so extreme.

Barbara Kingsolver in her essay Setting Free the Crabs in "Small Wonder" writes of a PETA problem: The Nature Conservancy, to preserve the last few hundred acres of Hawaiian rain forest, advocated the killing of feral pigs that were decimating the ferns, orchids, etc. that were a crucial part of the forest. The terrain made removal of the pigs difficult if not impossible. The Nature Conservancy argued that sparing a few dozen pigs would cost thousands of other animal and plant lives and lead to their extinction. (The pigs had also been brought over by humans in the first place and weren't native to Hawaii). However, PETA said no freaking way. No pig deaths.

Apparently a compromise was reached (I don't know what it was, BK didn't say in the essay) but PETA has a reputation for being very difficult.

However, I am glad there is someone who hollers and screams about the way we treat animals.

[Kali]

12. extremist fringe group

:popcorn:

[XemaSab]

32. How's that 20-foot-high border wall going?

:popcorn:

[Kali]

43. speaking of extremism that is a good example

I tried something new last month - took a Mexican shuttle van and crossed at Antelope Wells. That was kind of fun. The border there has those railroad cross pieces for a few miles that can be easily climbed but keep vehicles out.

For $50 picked up practically at my house and then delivered to the door of friends in Casas Grandes! Such a deal.

[name not needed]

15. Seems like they're more concerned with media exposure

than they are with animal rights.

[Danger Mouse]

16. I voted other.

I think they do a lot of good...they do undercover work that calls attention to conditions at farms that people wouldn't know about otherwise...and stuff like this gets people's attention and actually does some good for the animals.
However, they also do a lot of advertising and publicity stunts that I feel can be silly and counterproductive.

[Joe the Liberal]

17. Other, Indifferent. n/t

[flvegan]

18. Love 'em!

I don't agree with all their campaigns and tactics, mind you. However, as a vegan and animal rights activist, I appreciate how hard they work and how dedicated they are to their goals. They're consistent and they aren't wasteful with their donations. For being what many DUers to believe to be a bunch of lunatics, they get an awful lot done and to be honest, the dem party should be taking pages from their playbook.

Lastly, Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder who runs the place) is an open advocate of the liberation of animals. You don't often find that in the leadership of a big organization in this movement, and I appreciate that a great deal.

edited to add: I really can't not also mention how much fun the mere mention of PETA makes GD now and then.

[Danger Mouse]

19. Yeah, I pretty much feel the same as you...

some of their tactics are counter-productive, but they get stuff done where it really matters.

[flvegan]

28. I think they sometimes miss the target.

I think oftentimes it's counterproductive because folks don't "get" the message. Oftentimes because anything PETA does is the work of the devil. Or something.

[Maccagirl]

24. Ingrid Newkirk does more harm than good.

You think she'd learn what works and what doesn't by now-but that's not the case. PETA needs new leadership or it will never get a dime from me.
As an animal lover I'm distressed by the bone-headed PR. It's extremely counter-productive and I doubt the leadership's sincerity.

[flvegan]

26. You doubt the leadership's sincerity?

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

[jonnyblitz]

25. i love their tactics because they get assholes all wound up.

actually that is not the only reason, just an added bonus. that was my one of my first turn-offs here at DU , the way people sounded like a bunch of Dittoheads whenever PETA was brought up. I was so used to the street theater of ACT UP, QUEER NATION, and the LESBIAN AVENGERS back in the day I was jaded by the time I noticed PETA. Many here are bunch of milquetoast prissy fucks with a stick up their ass.

[flvegan]

27. I might have to

change my sigline to your last statement. Well said!!!

[jonnyblitz]

29. I find DEMS to be only a tad bit more evolved than the

republicans. this is what i have learned during my time here at DU thus far.

[Madrone]

21. I say -

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The few things I'm in disagreement with them on are surpassed by the amount of good they do and their total dedication.

[Dr. Strange]

22. We like her.

[flvegan]

23. I spy with my little eye, a perfect nipple so says this guy.

[Bonn1997]

42. WOW!

[LeftyMom]

30. I think they're entirely too moderate.

Seriesly.

[XemaSab]

31. They're the AR equivalent of the NRA

They're big and loud, they piss people off, and they accomplish quite a bit for their side. :)

[Bonn1997]

40. Good analogy although their impact and size probably are not at the level of the NRA unfortunately.

[flvegan]

52. Actually, they're probably fairly close in size.

The NRA has a few million members. Outnumbering PETA's membership in the States, but PETA has offices/members across Europe, Asia and India whereas the NRA is fairly limited to the US. I think.

[jobycom]

35. She's hot. nt

[cleveramerican]

37. overboard

I once had this landlady who was a huge PETA supporter,
She told me when she saw an ant in her kitchen she would never ever step on it,
She would capture it and take it outside and set it free.


I am sorry if it offends some, I step on them and don't think twice about it.

[Bonn1997]

41. Did she try to inflict her views on you? If not, that just sounds like a personal choice of hers

that ought to be respected. I actually try to do the same thing. My reasoning is that, if I don't need to kill the fly, why should I? That said, I think PETA's response when President Obama swatted a fly during an interview was a poor marketing decision (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S7m3mogl_s)

[cleveramerican]

47. she wanted me to understand, In a very courteous way....

I however thought about the effort involved in catching and freeing an ant at the same moment as cooking dinner and decided she was charmingly crazy.

[coyotespaw]

38. While I agree with a few of their points...

they have all the subtlety and brilliance of an anti-smoking advocate who lights smokers on fire. Screaming in people's ears does little to get a point across; unless the point that they're trying to get across is that they're goofballs that are only trying to get attention.

[mitchum]

44. It gives a certain segment of white people a seeming purpose in life

PETA: The Other White People

[Bonn1997]

50. There probably is some truth to that but...

I believe everyone has certain worldviews that give them a sense of purpose in life and helping animals is probably one of the most harmless if not more productive ones to have.

[Skip Intro]

83. WTF?

[BlueIris]

45. Mostly that second one. My cat sums it up quite nicely for me here:

http://pawsibledeniability.blogspot.com/2008/09/peta-does-something-weird-again.html

She's a wily one, my cat.

[NJmaverick]

46. Just my opinion

but I think their over the top views and tactics greatly undermine the animal rights causes. They make the movement look like a silly laughing stock.

As for my own view of animals, I think they should be treated humanely. However I don't think we should deny our nature and stop consuming meat.

[Bonn1997]

49. That's actually a common misunderstanding of human nature.

For example, according to the American Dietetic Association, mankind has subsisted on nearly all vegetarian sources for most of its history and our physiology is nothing like most carnivores or even omnivores. (Look at your dog's or cat's teeth and then look at yours!) If it was in our nature to eat cows, you'd think we wouldn't need so many human-made appliances to do it. What's natural, for example, about going to the grocery store, getting meat, putting it on the stove top in a pan, cooking it, and then eating it with a knife and fork? Eating vegetables grown out of the ground actually can be done much more "naturally." You can take many *but notably not all* of these unnatural components out if you do the hunting yourself.

I don't mean to be rude or harsh by any means. When I first started learning about how unnecessary and unhealthy eating animals was, it really changed my outlook though and I wish more people knew about it.

(I don't mean to imply that I approve of everything PETA does, though.)

[Kali]

55. um, no.

we have been eating meat for virtually ALL of our history. It is one of the identifying traits that make us human. From the beginning. Well over 2 MYA.

[Bonn1997]

57. Who's "we"? If you mean some humans--generally less healthy ones--I agree.

What's your source that all humans always have eaten meat? I at least gave one of my sources.

[Kali]

58. my source is my education

biology, ecology, human evolution, anthropology

but here are a couple quick google-provided and layman-friendly links for you:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

Your source is an out of context quote by an organization specialized in food and nutrition, not human evolution and you did not provide a link.

[Bonn1997]

59. All those sources prove is that *some* humans have eaten meat for a long time,

which I never disagreed with. Whether brain encephalization occurred specifically due to meat or just to an increase in protein intake is controversial. See this article in Science for a good discussion: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

If you go to the bottom of page 13 in the link below, you'll find a lot of the info. I mentioned earlier and some other good info. The whole article is worth reading, though.
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/pdf/animals.pdf?logged=true

Also,
http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

Anatomical differences between us and carnivores and most omnivores
http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Note also that one of your sources (ironically!) stated that he has no doubt that being a vegetarian is healthier. His statement is backed by research consistently. Even if you do feel eating meat has always been part of our human nature, why would sticking to our past nature be more important to you than being healthy?

[Kali]

64. ...some? what, do you think there were subspecies of homo sapeins vegans or something?

You can find many examples of comparative anatomy to verify our omnivory - and the explanations for those adaptations based on our hominid ancestry and physiology. Including some "new" work beautifully put together in the recent issue of Science featuring Ardipithecus.

You have linked to an article about one "controversial" (as described in the article itself) proposal (cooking as an evolutionary mechanism) that is out of the mainstream and not supported by much evidence (by the theorist's own admission). (and even if the theory becomes accepted it doesn't exclude the consumption of meat, in fact he talks about meat eating by other primates and the cooking of meat quite a lot - here are two links about the same guy/theory that are a little more recent: http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/invention-cooking-drove-evolution-human-species-new-book-argues and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolving-bigger-brains-th )

Again with a third party out of context quote which is apparently from a 20 year old position paper of an organization that's purpose is food and nutrition, not human evolution. In a paper about ethics and animal rights, not human evolution. Not to mention that a more recent position paper on the same subject does NOT include that statement. (at least on my first read) http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223%2897%2900314-3/fulltext

And two links from an advocacy/agenda based org, the first an hyperbolic and emotional opinion piece featuring an often used (by veg-based writers) quote from Richard Leakey that I am unable to find a context for - sure seems as if it would be connected to a discussion about tool use. The second an incomplete anatomical comparison that completely leaves out tool use and misrepresents other aspects of human adaptation/evolution/physiology. (see http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml for discussion about this. NOTE: this is also a somewhat biased, agenda-based link however it is in response specifically to the types of claims made by the table in question)


It is fairly well established that people in our modern society who undertake a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle tend to be "healthier". It has NOT been established that it is because of the absence of meat. Many suppose it is the actual attention to nutrition and health rather than the strict avoidance of meat as there are certainly plenty of healthy meat eaters.

"Even if you do feel eating meat has always been part of our human nature, why would sticking to our past nature be more important to you than being healthy?"

I don't FEEL, I accept the vast amount of scientific evidence for it. And where do you jump to the conclusion that "sticking to past nature" is "more important" to me than being healthy? I merely refuted your contention that humans haven't eaten meat for most of our "history". However there is plenty of info on meat being part of a perfectly healthy diet. (Note the concept "PART" - nobody is seriously advocating a carnivorous diet, anywhere - prehistorically, or present)

[Bonn1997]

69. "controversial," "out of mainstream," and "advocacy group" do not mean wrong

and commonly accepted doesn't mean correct. A lot of beliefs are mainstream just because they're psychologically easier whether it's a belief in God or a belief that we have fair elections in the US. You do raise a good point though about it not being clear that the absence of meat is what causes improved health. Experimental trials would be ideal but hard to get people to sign up for and comply with. The findings that you are (at least) as likely to be healthy and actually to thrive as a vegan and will save animal lives is enough to make the decision easy for me though.

[Kali]

71. they may not "mean wrong"

but in science (mind you - that is my basis for all of this subthread) there is a requirement of some level of verification, usually by published peer reviewed reports/papers etc. So when I use the term "generally accepted" and "mainstream" I am not talking about the widespread ignorance of FOX-watching US religious people, or even the mainstream population - I mean in the scientific community where the theorizing, research, and data analysis and conclusions (or "proof") actually occurs.

I suspect there is plenty of data on healthy eating of all styles. Probably the reason the ADA puts out position papers on how veg diets CAN BE healthy compared to a more (dare I say normal) diverse and inclusive HEALTHY omnivorous diet.

[Bonn1997]

75. Agreed and the article I cited on brain development was published in Science, which you probably

know is not merely a peer-reviewed journal but rather one of the most prestigious, respected peer-reviewed journals in the world.

[Kali]

78. it was a 10 year old article ABOUT Wrangham's work, not his actual paper

and since you may not have read my response to it, allow me to repeat:

You have linked to an article about one "controversial" (as described in the article itself) proposal (cooking as an evolutionary mechanism) that is out of the mainstream and not supported by much evidence (by the theorist's own admission). (and even if the theory becomes accepted it doesn't exclude the consumption of meat, in fact he talks about meat eating by other primates and the cooking of meat quite a lot - here are two links about the same guy/theory that are a little more recent: http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/invention-cooking-drove-evolution-human-species-new-book-argues and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolving-bigger-brains-th )

[Heidi]

61. PeTA's alright with me. More good than harm,

brilliant branding/marketing (can't deny that you know the brand and remember the messages, even if you don't understand or agree with them, can ya?). I don't agree with all of PeTA's shock marketing, but I understand the rationale and appreciate the organization's contribution to animal welfare and human education.

[Book Lover]

62. I support the same cause they do and I love that their actions get everyone's panties in a twist

PETA makes you a little squirmy and uncomfortable? Excellent!

[Ptah]

66. The only time I am aware of PETA is when there is a DU mention of them.

I can't remember the last time they were in the news (that I read or watch).

[Common Sense Party]

67. Buffoons, but mostly harmless.

Good for entertainment, but not good for much else. They don't change many minds; rather, they reinforce stereotypes.

[mwooldri]

70. Sorry but due to their actions...

... PETA to me does stand for People Eating Tasty Animals.

Too closely aligned with groups like ALF for my taste.

Mark.

[Zavulon]

73. Fucking whack jobs.

They're well-intentioned - but when they got on Obama's ass for killing a fly, they showed their true colors. You have to learn to pick your battles so as not to look like maniacal gasbags, and they suck at it.

They've always been a little off their rockers. The day Ingrid Newkirk basically told Arafat "Hey, kill as many Jews as you want, just don't use donkeys to strap bombs to anymore" told me all I needed to know about these guys.

[Bonn1997]

76. Agree 100% about picking battles wisely. I do personally believe you shouldn't kill a fly when you

don't have to. However, if I'd been advising them, I would have said that this ad will do more harm than good to the animal rights movement.

[Skip Intro]

77. Among other things, they know how to draw attention to animal welfare

They fight battles for animial welfare on legal fronts, organize boycotts, inform the public (great info on their website) and have had some big successes on those fronts, but it is their ability to keep the issue of ethical treatment of animals in the headlines, and a topic of conversation, that amazes me.

Kudos to PETA, and more power to them!

[InvisibleTouch]

81. They do a lot of good, but take some things too far.

I certainly don't agree with them on everything. Still, I'd rather see a group go "too far out" than have people do nothing at all.

[Bucky]

82. I love it, especially for a nice spread or quick bite. (pssst, it's spelled "pita")