or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › PeTa
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:


post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
Does anybody here have any thoughts on PeTa?

I frequent some other boards, and this is a hot topic. Personally I don't know much about them, just what I've read other places. Anyone here have any opinions?
post #2 of 45
I have no idea what it even is?!!! I've never heard of it before? Anyone explain to thicky here?
post #3 of 45
Thread Starter 
If I knew more I'd explain it to you, but here's the link-

post #4 of 45
Thanks, I had a quick look, but nothing major so I won't comment too much...yet..ha ha ha...but I read the article about milk....all I can say is....Hmmmmm....personally I think its taking it a little too far....if people don't want to drink it, thats fine, but to call it "poisen"...just doesn't lay right with me!! I have not got a problem with vegatarians or vegans at all...but personally I couldn't do without diary products! Mmmmmmm cheese and crackers....
post #5 of 45
I know some about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; I wrote a paper in 9th grade about them. From what I recall on my research for the paper they are a huge organization that heavily focuses on anti-animal testing and research. I feel they are a positive organization with some "radical" tendencies. Not that I feel radical is negative. They are just very passionate about their issues and will do some very "loud" things to get their point across so people and lawmakers will take action. Some members have been known to break into labs and other facilities to rescue these animals. In the past, some members have lashed out at people wearing fur. They are also very graffic when presenting evidence in their support; I discovered this when doing my research (thank god I have a strong stomach). I dont feel that PETA is a negative organization. They have gotten some bad publicity due to some of their impulsive actions but they have done a lot of good. It's been a while since I've read anything on them so I'm going to take a look at the website.
post #6 of 45
Im all for stopping Animal Cruelty!! But I'll have to do a little more research on this particular group before I can comment seriously!...soo Im off now to have a peek....
post #7 of 45
Oh boy! My first post of the day will probably get flamed to no end!

I have very strong feelings regarding PETA. I will, however, attempt to control myself to some extent.

PETA, in and of itself, could have been a wonderful organization dedicated to the protection of animals, and the education of people. I personally believe they have gone well past the protection of animals to the 'worship' of them, though, and they are well out of hand now.

PETA also condones the actions of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) which is a sister organization to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Both organizations are basically terrorist organizations, in my opinion. Here in Colorado not too many years ago, the ELF and ALF burned down a restaraunt on Vail mountain to 'protest' not only building on the mountain, but the invasion of the Lynx's territory. This cost millions in damages, and however ironically, the destruction of more trees to re-build the restraunt! If the point was to save trees and Lynx, didn't they do the exact opposite? (Any Lynx in the area would have left perhaps permanently and not only were trees cut down once to build the restaraunt originally, but again to build it a second time.)

ELF members are the ones that set fire to an SUV dealership in Washington (or maybe it was Oregon? Hissy?), destroying quite a few vehicles. ALF members are the ones constantly ransacking medical research facilities. While neither organization IS PETA, PETA supports ALF.

It was a very upstanding member of PETA that was asked if a ship was sinking and he could only save a puppy or a baby, which would he choose? His answer? It depends on how smart the child is. (I have, of course, paraphrased this example. For the exact text I would have to find the site I read it at. I would be happy to do so for anyone interested.)

I just personally find them amazingly illogical, putting the 'rights' (real and or imagined) of animals ahead of people. I would be happy to post a few links supporting my opinion if anyone is interested.

I'm also thinking of starting my own organization: S-PETA ~ SANE People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Now... PLEASE don't flame me too bad!
post #8 of 45
As with any activist organization, the best intentions can get subverted by individual agendas. Without a great deal of knowledge backing me, I'll just proffer the opinion that I'm sure the bulk of PETA's work is noble and well-to-do, there's a fringe element that will always act/react radically. Whether these folks are REALLY a part of PETA or just individual actors who try to hide behind PETA is not known to me. Probably a mix of both.

Anyway, there you have the view from my soapbox...

post #9 of 45
Thread Starter 
I have to say that for what I have read, I agree 100% with your post.

No flaming here
post #10 of 45
Jin, I agree with you 100%!

I think PETA members have good hearts and I think their desire to protect animals in admirable and important.

However, I think that some of the tactics used are much more detrimental than helpful. I also believe that because of their fanatical and hystrionic tactics they make all of us who love animals and who believe animals should be protected look like a bunch of weirdo's!

Don't get me wrong...PETA has done some good things...like getting Burger King and McDonalds to stop using factory farm meat, but they have also hindered calm rational discussions of animal research and animal farming because of their radical fanaticism.

Okay...I've put on my flame-retardant cloak and have the fire extinguisher in my hand....I'm ready for the onslaught! Jin, you watch the front and I'll keep an eye on the rear!
post #11 of 45
You'll get no fireworks from me. It's a relief to see people not afraid to post. If you happen to get flamed, Jin, don't worry, I've got your back.

My feelings would probably be best summed up by the old axiom: Anything done to excess is no good.

It's like these radical fanatics who bomb abortion clinics. Tell me where you are preserving human life with this type of action.

post #12 of 45
Well, anyone who supports PETA should be aware that they want us to set our pets free, as pet ownership is akin to slavery.I for one, would wager a chihuahua wouldn't last too long in thw wild, but hey, what do I know- I don't support them so I'm an 'animal hater'. They actually made these ridiculous statements :

"In conclusion, I think it is speciesist to think that
the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a
greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured
that day and what they endure every day because they cannot
defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed
against them."

"6 million Jews died in Nazi Concentration camps, but 6 billion broiler chickens will die in slaughterhouses this year."

"An ants life deserves the same consideration as my sons"

"If one rat had to die to cure all disease, it wouldn't be worth it."

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I think that to support such lunacy you'd have to have a few marbles loose. Maybe they started out legitimatly, but they've turned into lunatics. I think its a much better choice to support Shelters in your immediate area or do volunteer work for the same than to send your money to PETA and contribute to their sick vision.

Just my 2 cents
post #13 of 45
Jin - I also agree. While I agree with the need to treat all animals ethically. However, I believe that at times the radical division of PETA doesn't treat humans ethically. I find extremism in any form disturbing.
post #14 of 45
I'm with Deb in her comparison to anti-abortion fanatics. They probably have a good message at it's root, but the tactics they use are over the top and interfere with people actually hearing their message. Also, I DON'T have a strong stomach, so I get grossed out by the graphic pictures. Somehow, they (PETA and the anti-abortion folks) think that because I turn my head away it means I'm not willing to "face the truth" about these things. I just don't do blood.

This probably won't be popular, but I'm in favor of limited and ethical animal testing, mostly because I think the alternatives are worse. Human testing? No testing at all, which would be equivalent to human testing without consent? But I do think current methods are cruel and do not provide information that we necessarily need.

For example, the infamous testing of cosmetics ingredients on live rabbits' eyes. There is an alternative test done on sections of sheep gut that yields the same information with much less suffering and far fewer animals (you can do a lot of tests on a few feet of sheep gut). Now you do have to kill the sheep, but I bet you could just buy the stuff from a slaughterhouse where they're killing food animals anyway.

I also don't know what's wrong with being a little speciesist. We do live with these other animals and we have a responsibility toward them, but it's not reciprocal. We ARE at the top of the food chain, because of our ability to make new and better tools (weapons) to stay there. We have bigger brains and the things we do have global impact. To reduce humanity to naked apes with guns, while it makes a point, is not a valid full-time perspective. There is something in human intelligence that is different from animal intelligence, and to treat humans as "just another animal" is disrespectful of that difference. Just as treating a lion as just another cat is disrespectul of the differences there.

Whew! Sorry, I'm ranting.

Thing is, PETA is a little radical for me. Fanatics in general don't appeal to me much. Now I'm glad they're out there and speaking their point of view and making the rest of us think and examine our actions, I just don't want to hang around with them on a regular basis. And I know some radicals who are really cool people, we just don't discuss their area of fanaticism.
post #15 of 45
I think that PETA goes to the extreme. Not that I am against them or anything, but they are a little radical. It seems they get involved in anything and everything.
post #16 of 45
I was trying to say same the same things you all were but I'm not as eloquent with words. It's really a shame that an organization that could do so much good has such radical factions.

I would never donate to PETA just because of the radicals that exist in the organization. It's almost as if they are hypocrites; on paper they can fight a good fight but look at the actions that are carried out in name of the fight!
post #17 of 45
I will have to go along with the rest of you folks here. PETA has become a refuge for the truly wierd and the gullible. Unfortunately,the media in their endless search for Shock News LOVES these idiots. It's sad how many otherwise worthwhile organizations can be taken over by the lunatic fringe. I'm worried that PETA is not that far away from bin Laden and his group of nuts. Re-read some of their pronouncements and compare the attitudes. Remember that nobody took bin Laden seriously here in NA until 9/11. Think about that and the size of PETA before you dismiss them or contribute to their "cause".

As for animal testing;I'm of the opinion that it remains because it's CHEAPER than developing computer models which would give the same information. It does bother me that the "scientists" involved can disassociate themselves from the suffering they cause. "For the Greater Good" has been the mantra of some of the most evil groups in history.
post #18 of 45
I agree that PETA may have started out with good intentions, but are now too extreme. I would never contribute a dime to their organization. I do not like the idea of painful testing of household and cosmetic testing on animals and was glad to learn of alternative ways to do this. Unfortunately, some medical testing is necessary. I try to buy only products that say on the label that they are not tested on animals. I know it's not much, but it makes me feel better and maybe it helps a little. St. Ives and Freeman skin and hair products do not test on animals and are very good, affordable products. I may never have tried them if I had not started checking labels after the big blow-up about testing hair spray by spraying it into rabbit's eyes a few years ago. They showed it on one of the news magazine shows and it made me sick. I would rather have dry skin, frizzy hair, and wrinkles than use products tested on animals!
post #19 of 45
Okay, here's my two cents.

I agree with most of you. PETA started out being a great group of people with the goal of stopping animal cruelty, saving the rain forests, banishing leghold traps, etc. They have since grown to astronomical proportions and have gotten way out of control when it comes to proving their point. I was bored at work one night and decided to log onto their website to see what it was all about. I was horrified! Not to mention the pictures were disgusting. I almost blew my lunch. They do not need to go to such extremes. It turns people off and makes them forget what the whole point was to begin with.
post #20 of 45
They had a really good idea in the beginning, then when they gained power, they lost focus and reason. They now resort to thriller tactics to make their point and I firmly believe that a lot of brainwashing goes on at their meetings. It amazes me what happens to sensible folks when it comes to discussing PETA. Here in Oregon, they are infamous for looting and burning research facilities and setting lab animals free. Not a good way to make a point.
post #21 of 45
Is the Sierra Club problematic? I only know them from the wonderful pictures on their cards and calendars.
post #22 of 45
I'm still ROTFLMAO over the idea of a "liberated" chihuahua trying to make it in the wild. Peta--yo queiro a clue.
post #23 of 45
PETA had a table set up and I went over. The girl walked up to me, looking all somber and stuff and asked me if I had animals. I told her I did, told her how many and she looked so horrified when I told her I had a horse! She told me I needed to let my horse roam freely in the land, as did his ancestors. I pointed out to her, that if I opened up my gate and let my horse "roam freely" about the land, he would get hit by a logging truck on the highway! She then said I needed to take him back to Nevada (I told her he was a Mustang) and I guess she figured that all Mustangs come from Nevada, and I told her that if I did that, he would be subjected to not being able to find food, he would be open prey to any idiot with a gun, or a rancher who saw him as a threat. She got a glazed look in her eye and wandered away to look for another idiot like her......sheeshh! LOL My horse is on 3 acres, he is well taken care of, wants for nothing except maybe another horse to interact with, and hopefully one day soon he will have that again.
post #24 of 45
Oh boy....I'm trying real hard to avoid topics where I could easily be flamed, but this one is one I have to speak out about.

I agree with Jin, totally. And to take it a step farther, I have a big problem with the models posing nude in support of not wearing furs. That sickens me. Even if I was against furs (which I am not) it would sicken me that they are trying to get their message across by posing nude,,,,give me a break!

Why am I not against furs, you ask??? Well, oh boy...here I go....

My husband is a trapper. And while I DO feel badly for the animals who get caught in these traps, it is 100% necessary.
In our area alone, the trappers have trapped 1,000's of coons...I know this for a fact, because I know how many my husband has gotten, and how many several of his friends, and fellow trappers have gotten.
If noone trapped these coon, the coon population would skyrocket....the farmers would have no chance whatsoever of producing a decent crop....the coons have to eat, you know...and they already destroy a certain portion, but it would be 10 times worse, not to mention, coons carry many diseases. And there would not even be enough food for all the coons and other small animals, if noone controled their population, they would continue to multiply, and thus, trust me on this...many, many coon would starve every year. Better to be caught in a trap, and die, than slowly starve to death, in my opinion. And, If the farmers crops are eaten by coons, that means no food for humans, and prices of corn and soybeans, etc, would skyrocket.
It is the same with many of the small animals, fox, etc, that he traps. It is no different than people hunting deer. Their population has to be kept under control. We have so many accidents here, from deer running out in front of cars, and if noone hunted any of them, the accidents would multiply rapidly!!!
Peta seems to think that human life is not nearly as important as animal life, or should be equal. Well, I'm sorry, that's just not the way God intended it to be, but that is just my opinion.
I'm all for people treating animals in a civilized way, and I hate the thought of some of these slaughter houses, where the animals are mistreated, that is horrid!!! But if it is done in the right way, then I am not against it. My brother raises cattle and pigs to butcher, but he treats them all very well.
I beleive God created some animals for pets, and some animals for food and clothing (fur coats for example)
If there was no other reason to kill some of these animals, except fpr their fur, then I would be totally against it, but when they need to be thinnned down for population control, then why not get the use of their fur??
I am sure I'm just asking for it, and I will not be in the majority here, but I am going to state my opinion nonetheless.
post #25 of 45
And let me just add, that I totally respect the opinion of my vegetarian friends, they have a right to their choices. Just recently my step-daughter Brooke, has decided not to ever eat pork or beef again, because of the way they are treated, and I respect her decision. It's not mine, but I beleive everyone has a right to be different, and feel differently about things.

One of my best friends is a big Peta supporter, and she can't stand to be in the same room with my husband because of what he does, and she and I have had several debates about it, but in the end, we agreed to disagree, because we are both good people, with a right to our opinions, and you don't have to always see eye to eye, to love someone.
post #26 of 45
Well put, Debby!
post #27 of 45
Debby - I agree with you.
post #28 of 45
Well said Debby, to a point. Don't get angry as this is only my opinion. I am not here to flame anyone.

While I personally don't believe in killing animals for fur (especially the ones that have become extinct or near extinction), the way I go about it is I wear cloth coats. My feeling is if you are against it, don't buy furs. PETA's way of voicing their opinions on this issue is to throw animal blood on models who are only doing their jobs. The old addage of "Don't shoot the messenger" is appropriate here. If an animal is raised for food, then yes, why not use the fur.

I have seen the way some of the farmers who raise animals (case in point - calfs for veal) treat their calfs and I think it's deplorable. Making a calf stand in a small compartment the size of a small dog house for hours on end just so their flesh will be tender I think is cruel. Do I chastize the farmers? No, because it is their way of making a living to feed their families. I just don't eat veal. That is MY way of not contributing to the inhumanity of it.

As far as leg hold traps are concerned, I am dead set against them. Why? Because too many other innocent animals get hurt in the process, be it someones pet cat, dog, whatever. I also believe that leg hold traps SHOULD be banned. There are other traps out there that can be used to serve the purpose without injuring innocent animals that happen to get caught in one of these traps. Look at the "Have a Heart" traps for instance, to trap feral cats. There must be something similar out there for other wildlife.

That's just my two cents.
post #29 of 45
I know a lot of people who hunt and fish, and I think that as long as they actually do it for a reason besides sport, that's okay. My father-in-law owns a fishing store and fishes quite a bit, but he always brings it home for food. He also owns several rifles and I know he's shot deer and turkey and antelope, but again it gets butchered for the table, not just to see if he is aim is good enough to get it. If you want to do that, go down to a range and use an inanimate target.

Once the animal is dead, I think it's only good stewardship to use as much of it as possible. Now I'm not much for decorating with antler heads or having lamps made out of the feet, but using the hide seems perfectly reasonable.

A friend of mine went to Russia for a few years, and she told me that everyone has a fur coat. Not as a fashion statement, but because it gets so cold that only a thick fur keeps you warm enough. So perhaps we are priviledged to even have this discussion? We live in a place where there are options and maybe there people who don't have the choice.

Controlling vermin is also different from sport hunting. Otherwise it's a public health issue. Just like that old gardening adage that a rose is a weed if it's in the wrong place, an animal is vermin if it overruns human habitation. The problem is to deal with overpopulation humanely and with as little "collateral damage" as possible. It's not an easy issue.
post #30 of 45
I don't know that much about PETA, but once they protested the Oscar Mayer Weiner Mobile being at the zoo in Knoxville, Tennessee, I then figured that they might have lost sight . of what they started out to do.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Cat Lounge
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › PeTa