PETA just plain suck...

Post Reply New Topic

I'm pretty sure a lot of you have already seen this, but i just couldn't stop laughing (and face-palming) when i read this

--EDIT--

ok so the freaking image is too large but just look at it on this site

http://lolpics.se/3548-petarded

According to PETA, these were animals that had feline AIDS, leukemia, Parvo, and for severely ill or dying pets. I think that this picture is misleading.

edit: grammar, missing 'that'

Too good to pass up...

*added to my collection of random infodump pics*

At best, they serve as an ersatz Human Society. But that doesn't make up for everything else. I think they are only tolerated because most people don't know (or care to know) about PETA and its philosophy.

I don't believe they have many true supporters. Sure, there are the few zealots who toss buckets of fake blood and try to derive nourishment from staring at the sun, but most people who send them money think of PETA as a lifestyle brand. It's kind of like the Ed Hardy of charities.

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta.htm read this...I couldn't keep my dinner down after reading it...

I don't have a lot of love for PETA; see the book "The Non-Profit Industrial Complex" which starts to address the problems with both PETA and Autism Speaks and other non-profit groups. But to claim they have "long-standing ties" to ALF and ELF is just plain ridiculous. Most people involved with ALF or ELF generally reject PETA as reformist and liberal, and then there's the issue of how ALF and ELF are organized: they aren't cohesive groups, with any sort of leadership or spokesperson.

I'm glad that you've posted that. That opened my eyes, yet it doesn't surprise me that an organization that hates autism, would also kill pets that they call undesirable.

I'm sorry I don't have a source ready to back this up--if someone else can post one, I'd appreciate it--but I have seen to financial breakdown of PETA and a couple of the other militant animal rights organizations and the people running these places are making money hand over fist. Talk about hypocrisy! But they know how to run an ad campaign and generate funds by playing on the heart strings of little old ladies with lots of cats, among others.

They've softened their mission statement considerably in the years since I first read them. They used to state that no one should keep pets, period, but now they say, "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed" and "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and 'set them free.'"

Whatever their true mission, I still think there are much more effective organizations out there whose primary concern is animal welfare. That's a key difference, actually, even if it doesn't seem that way at first glance--animal rights versus animal welfare. If animals have rights, then we can't "exploit" them for their meat, milk, labor, etc. But humans have been domesticating animals for millennia and the human-animal bond is very strong--is it at all realistic that people all over the world are going divorce themselves from animals just because we give them nominal "rights"? I don't think so. Animal welfare seems like a more attainable goal--responsible, respectful stewardship for those less powerful than ourselves. I'd much rather see resources spent on realistic aims that actually have a shot at improving conditions for animals.

I've always disliked PETA.

There is no way that I can agree with PETA! I did a lot of research on them for a paper when I was in High School and really, if they support a group of extremists that is wanted not just by the FBI, but also Scotland Yard amongst other agencies, they are no different from those extremists. It doesn't matter how prestine the woman presently in charge puts their relationship to the ALF- which for those who don't know are notorious for sending letters with razor blades that will cut the person opening the letter AND for blowing up labs known for animal testing WHILE those animals that they are supposedly trying to save are in them- they are no different from a group that is supporting terrorism. I am against cruelty to animals and love to eat certain meats, which is why if I see that something is used in animal testing, I won't get it. But, I can't support a group that is trying to force upon me what I should and shouldn't eat. I refuse to become a vegan just because of some overzealous bigots that go so far as to waste or ruin an industry for their political values.

To keep things in perspective, most animal shelters, at least in my area, euthanize far more animals than they adopt.

Why?

People refuse to spay and neuter their animals
breed them purposefully
and continue to buy from breeders and the pet stores they supply as opposed to adopting shelter animals.

A merciful death at the end of a needle is far preferable than being ripped apart in an dog fight or burned with chemicals in a lab.

Notwithstanding all that, if the basic claim of that poster is hypocrisy on the part of PETA, that might be a valid argument.

But it's far more hypocritical to claim moral outrage over humane euthanasia while you yourself eat the dead carcasses of tortured animals.