What’s Wrong with Peta?
Article Tools
-
20
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
A breakdown of everything wrong with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Animals are not ours to eat. Animals are not ours to wear. Animals are not ours to experiment on. Animals are not ours to use for entertainment. Animals are not ours to abuse in any way. This is the official slogan of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
PETA is an animal rights group that calls for “total animal liberation.” Total animal liberation. That means no milk, no meat, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets of any kind. I think that it should pointed out that PETA’s president uses a photo of herself hugging a chicken on sites that require her picture; maybe they should add “no using animals in cheesy photos to make yourself look good” to their definition of total animal liberation.
I wonder does anyone else think that their goals are a little extreme. I’m all for animal rights, I don’t think people should unnecessarily torture their pets, and they should be punished for that, but rightfully, an appropriate line has been drawn on what constitutes cruelty to animals and what doesn’t. PETA obviously doesn’t know where to draw their line.
The first line in their slogan is hypocritical to everything that they claim to stand for. Eating animals is not abuse. If all species are equal and should be afforded the same rights, why are other animals allowed to eat meat and it’s wrong for humans to be afforded that same luxury.
They say that humans have a choice, that there are meat alternatives like soy sausages. That’s an oxymoron; if it’s soy, it can’t be a sausage. There is no substitute for meat, if it didn’t have parents, it can’t be a substitute.
PETA also uses some very questionable methods to promote their values. At an animal rights convention in 2001, PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator, Bruce Friedrich, issued a statement saying that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows is a great way to bring about animal liberation.” It’s been reported that PETA has given thousands of dollars to other organizations such as Animal Liberation Front, which is known for using terrorism, and deemed a special threat by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
It may be hard to believe that an organization would openly promote vandalism and what is essentially terrorism but I personally signed up for a website that PETA uses to target young people, peta2.com. On this website, PETA offers awards and legal assistance to students who vandalize buildings and cause disruptions at school or other places in the name of animal rights; in 2000 and again 2002, PETA started a campaign encouraging students to drink beer instead of milk, claiming that milk caused a variety of health problems, from acne to cancer. Substituting beer for milk may be ok for students at Ole Miss but not for high school students. Their brainwashing of America’s youth starts much earlier than junior high and high school.
PETA uses colorfully illustrated pamphlets to target children as young as six years old. I came across two pamphlets that were really disturbing, one titled, “Your Daddy Kills Animals,” features a very graphic illustration of a man gutting a fish on the cover. A second similar pamphlet depicted a woman ramming a knife into a rabbit that is clearly still alive. Both pamphlets encourage children to disobey their parents by saying things like, “Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing.” They’ll go on to say something like, “Until your daddy learns it’s not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He’s so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next.”
Another common method PETA uses in an attempt to get their point across is naked or nearly women. Their posters often show completely nude women with a caption that says something along the lines of “I’d rather go naked that wear fur.” Now, I’m all for naked women, but it does seem a little wrong to exploit one group while you’re fighting for the rights of another.
They also use the aptly named “lettuce ladies,” women dressed in bikinis made of lettuce who pass out pamphlets to promote veganism. And in a parody of the Running of the Bulls, PETA activists also annually run naked through the streets of Pamplona, Spain.
By far the most disturbing campaigns PETA have launched have to be their campaigns which compare tragic human suffering to animals. Their KFC tortures chickens: Holocaust on Your Plate and Are Animals the New Slaves campaigns were horrendously insensitive. More offensive than Don Imus, Michael Richards, or any N-word using Ku Klux Klan member or Neo-Nazi could ever be. How insensitive does someone have to be to compare an animal whose only purpose for living was to make its way to a KFC box at the second window of the drive-thru, or an animal performing in the circus to the Holocaust where six million innocent people were killed and the millions of minorities that were snatched from their homes and forced to believe that they were inferior just because of their heritage.
PETA garnered a lot of national attention this summer during the Michael Vick dog fighting controversy, but I think they need to take a long look at themselves before protesting anything else. Michael Vick allegedly killed 8 dogs, PETA kills, they say euthanize to make it sound nice, 80 percent of the animals they receive, only a relatively small number are ever adopted. They reportedly “euthanized” over 14,000 animals from 1998 to 2005 alone. With their constant protesting, PETA had brought themselves back into the public eye where they can be exposed for what they really are, an organization more evil that dog fighting can ever be.
14 Comments
I liked the article, but felt that you invalidated your remarks by using the word ‘euphemize’ instead of ‘euthenize’. Euphemise is to refer to something. Euthenize is to kill something humanely.
I don’t consider a picture of a naked woman to be exploitation, it’s not even erotic (and absolutely not pornographic) if you can’t see breasts or genitals. Could as well be a naked guy.
peta kicks butt :]
Article gets a thumbs up. PETA goes way over the line with their ad campaigns, particularly the ones turning children against their parents. The first time I saw the covers for their pamphlets concerning the mother and father, I actually cried, and I’m sixteen. I lost all respect for PETA at that moment. I don’t know when it happened, but PETA has become less and less animal-loving and more and more human-hating.
Just a footnote: Your last paragraph didn’t make too much grammatical sense, but I still got the point =)
The actual act of eating meat is not abuse; however, animals are often abused in factor farms before being slaughtered. If you treated a dog the way chickens and pigs are treated in farms, it would definitely be “unnecessary torture.” It’s easy to ignore the cruelty that takes place, but it still happens. I think PETA’s point is that any being that can feel pain has the right not to feel pain. Most Americans do have the choice not to support this suffering.
As for ALF, it is important to note that, while they are considered “terrorists” by the FBI, they have a policy of nonviolence toward people and animals. In fact, the radical animal rights movement is not responsible for any human deaths.
I was not aware of the text of PETA’s campaigns aimed at children, but I guess PETA’s trying to reach a generation that has not yet been taught to distrust them.
I’m not sure how far PETA should go in the violence and sex area in order to attract attention, but I don’t think they’re ads are any worse than what’s in most media these days.
PETA’s use of euthanasia is supposedly only for animals that could never be companions or have such bad health conditions that death is merciful. In any case, properly performed euthanasia is humane and virtually painless — definitely less cruel than dogfighting. The number of animals that are humanely killed is not the fault of the people that do that job; it is the fault of an uncaring society.
PETA views non-humans as morally equal to humans because both feel pain, hunger, distress, and loneliness. According to that logic, slaughterhouses are not that different from Nazi concentration camps. The difference between humans and non-human animals, following PETA’s logic, is that, while carnivorous animals naturally eat meat, humans do have the choice to avoid it and remain healthy. You could argue that people naturally eat meat, as we have the proper teeth for it, but the same logic dictates that we should run naked in the woods and sleep in the bushes, because we do not “naturally” come with clothes and housing.
PETA’s opposition to pets does bother me. I don’t see the harm in humans and dogs or cats, etc. living together as companions with the human acting as a guardian. Then again, I can’t imagine treating my dogs as anything other than especially privileged family members. Considering that so many pets do not have happy lives, perhaps it would be better if we did not keep pets, though that is hard to imagine.
But look at PETA’s view of the cycle: dogs are raised (often) in puppy mills, sold to pet stores, sold to a human family; the human family neglects to sterilize the dog, leaves him or her chained outside and lonely; the dog runs away, lives a hard life of injuries and disease before being captured and killed — not necessarily in a humane manner. This is a negative scenario, but it does happen. On the other hand, a large number of people adopt a companion animal and treat him or her with kindness and respect, and the animal lives a happy life with his or her people.
It is a shame that so many humans are uncaring and cruel (intentionally or not), but there are still many people who love animals (these people may or may not be vegan/vegetarian) and try to make the world a better place for them. I think that, at least, a large number of PETA’s supporters fall into this category, though I do have some reservations about the organization itself.
Go PETP! http://www.angelfire.com/bug2/shellpics/
DO you want to see the TRUTH ?????.
Yes peta Kill animals just like most other shelters out there. BUT most other shelters dont have a 300 Million Dollar income.
Which is more important making some stupid add depicting women having sex with veggies, or saving some poor unwanted Pets.
Peta kill the Pets because it is cheaper than keeping them and finding homes for them.
See the TRUTH, Open your eyes and brain.
XXXXX PETA KILL ANIMALS every Day XXXXXX
People like this make me angry. You do not have a problem with PETA; you have a problem with the animal rights cause in general. And judging by this article, it clearly stems from a misunderstanding of the issues. Saying, “We should raise animals in nice buildings and then slaughter them for food” is NOT animal rights. It’s animal welfare, which is debatably not even a real cause. It’s not really in the animal’s interest at all to be prevented from their natural behaviors and killed without living out their full lifespan.
Semantics like, “We created the word sausage to describe an animal carcass” doesn’t change anything. You can be an obstinate jerk and say that unless your food involved death, you won’t eat it, but the fact remains that if you can replicate the taste, texture, and nutritional value of something, then it IS an alternative. But “humans have a choice” doesn’t refer to that at all. As you eloquently put it, meat is a luxury for us. We don’t need it to survive. Other animals do. Furthermore, most of us, if left to fend for ourselves, would be too physically and/or emotionally incompetent to kill an animal. So, no, it’s nothing like real omnivores and carnivores in the wild.
But some of your “facts” about PETA are wrong too:
They are not trying to eliminate pets. They are trying to eliminate commercial breeding (and spay and neuter as many animals as possible in the mean time). This does not come from a desire to “liberate” pets, but a desire to stop them from being killed in droves. In fact, a lot of people who work for PETA own pets; adopting animals saves them. They are also not trying to eliminate circuses, but only the circuses that involve animals. There are plenty of acts involving humans that are interesting. While these are arguably exploitive, these people made a choice. The animals don’t have one; instead they are unwillingly bullhooked to do unnatural tricks.
PETA does NOT fund the Animal Liberation Front. In fact, nobody funds it because it’s not an organization. It’s a coalition of individuals, and what they do really doesn’t require that much money. The biggest connection PETA has to it is writing about them; they are willing to collaborate with anyone in the cause. Also, both “terrorism” and “violence” need to involve some kind of personal harm, and one of the central aspects of the ALF is nonviolence towards all animals, human or not. The crazy people who blow up buildings and threaten families are not involved with the mainstream movement. And if the “vandalism” they help young people commit you’re referring to is posting stickers in public places (which is the most peta2 does), you really need to start watching current events and learning about the real problems in the world. But PETA would lose their 501(c)3 status if they did something illegal like that. I admire that you believe everything the government says, but you should consider thinking for yourself at least some of the time. And that Friedrich quote… totally sounds like a serious quote an organization representative would say in public, right? You, my friend, need to learn about sarcasm. I’ve read his books, so I probably have a better grasp on his thoughts than you do.
You think PETA is brainwashing the youth to drink beer? Nonsense; the alcohol industry has been doing that for centuries; they’re simply jumping on the bandwagon to get their message across. Maybe not morally sound, but understandable for any organization with such an unorthodox social message. The Dairy Council has done plenty of brainwashing by sending “nutritional information” to schools about healthy snacks like ice cream, and the “fact” that you should have dairy with every meal. If you’re so good at critical thinking, I have a couple of questions. Why are humans the only mammals (or any animals for that matter) who drink the milk of another species? Besides the fact that we’ve been doing it for as long as we can remember, what reason do any of us have to believe it is natural or good for us, when every study not funded by the industry has shown results to the contrary?
With the children, again, you should be more careful with the word “brainwashing.” A culture brainwashes children; an ad for a product brainwashes children. A social movement that is based on sound ethical and scientific considerations cannot “brainwash” someone. They are telling the truth. I understand why, in our culture where parents “own” their children, instilling personal values in them sounds shocking, but I also think it has to be done. I don’t want each new generation to grow up as dumb and callous as the last. However, I’m not sure what your sources are, but seeing as PETA doesn’t even say such emotionally charged things to adults, I seriously doubt they would say it to children. This is their kids website: http://www.petakids.com/ Quote about fish: “Imagine how scary it would be to be swimming along, minding your own business in the deep blue sea, when suddenly, you’re swallowed up by a huge net or impaled by a hook! Remember: Fish are friends, not food!” Hardly sounds as graphic and threatening as you made it out to be.
And I’m a woman and a feminist, and they have my blessing to “exploit” women who volunteer to be half naked for their cause. I’m not of the persuasion that we should be ashamed of our bodies because society tells us they are “obscene,” anyway, but dressing down outside on a hot day hardly makes you look odd, unless you’re promoting a cause of course.
If you don’t understand the connection with humans exploiting other humans and exploiting animals, you have obviously not been oppressed nor studied it in depth. Exploitation and oppression always run by the same excuses, “We’ve always done it this way.” “They aren’t as advanced, or intelligent, or powerful as we are.” (Which may be true or not, but is never an excuse for abuse and exploitation.) Plenty of people have been offended with these comparisons because they do not understand them. But plenty of people, including some people who are descendents of slaves or survivors of the Holocaust, for example, have praised it and opened their eyes to the issue. And this isn’t just PETA, it’s all the thinkers of the animal rights movement. There are plenty of books about it, if you wanted to consider it fully before you attacked it.
And they could care less about profit. While their budget is bigger than other animal rights organizations, it’s smaller than some other animal organizations and exponentially smaller than the vast majority of human ones. No matter what your opinions are, the amount of suffering involved with this issue makes it important, and it deserves a large scale organization to help it. Moreover, their executive director lives off a small stipend, while other organizations’ EDs take lavish salaries and no one ever complains… Weird.
Why don’t you blame organizations like the feminist peace organization “Code Pink for Peace” for showing half naked (and sometimes fully naked) women? Or, why don’t you blame the thousands of shelters across the United States who are forced to euthanize animals in similar numbers as PETA? Oh, that’s right, because you don’t disagree with their fundamental premise. Come on, if you had told the truth and examined the entire issue, this article would have been pitifully short.
I am an animal rights activist. I don’t even agree with everything they do, but I agree with their fundamental beliefs, and I recognize that they have done a lot for the movement as far as corporate and youth outreach goes. Anyone who is not an animal rights activist is just looking for an excuse to discredit the cause; you choose a monster and exploit it. Good job, hope it clears your conscience. Didn’t work for me…
People like this make me angry. You do not have a problem with PETA; you have a problem with the animal rights cause in general. And judging by this article, it clearly stems from a misunderstanding of the issues. Saying, \”We should raise animals in nice buildings and then slaughter them for food\” is NOT animal rights. It\’s animal welfare, which is debatably not even a real cause. It\’s not really in the animal\’s interest at all to be prevented from their natural behaviors and killed without living out their full lifespan.
Semantics like, \”We created the word sausage to describe an animal carcass\” doesn\’t change anything. You can be an obstinate jerk and say that unless your food involved death, you won\’t eat it, but the fact remains that if you can replicate the taste, texture, and nutritional value of something, then it IS an alternative. But \”humans have a choice\” doesn\’t refer to that at all. As you eloquently put it, meat is a luxury for us. We don\’t need it to survive. Other animals do. Furthermore, most of us, if left to fend for ourselves, would be too physically and/or emotionally incompetent to kill an animal. So, no, it\’s nothing like real omnivores and carnivores in the wild.
But some of your \”facts\” about PETA are wrong too:
They are not trying to eliminate pets. They are trying to eliminate commercial breeding (and spay and neuter as many animals as possible in the mean time). This does not come from a desire to \”liberate\” pets, but a desire to stop them from being killed in droves. In fact, a lot of people who work for PETA own pets; adopting animals saves them. They are also not trying to eliminate circuses, but only the circuses that involve animals. There are plenty of acts involving humans that are interesting. While these are arguably exploitive, these people made a choice. The animals don\’t have one; instead they are unwillingly bullhooked to do unnatural tricks.
PETA does NOT fund the Animal Liberation Front. In fact, nobody funds it because it\’s not an organization. It\’s a coalition of individuals, and what they do really doesn\’t require that much money. The biggest connection PETA has to it is writing about them; they are willing to collaborate with anyone in the cause. Also, both \”terrorism\” and \”violence\” need to involve some kind of personal harm, and one of the central aspects of the ALF is nonviolence towards all animals, human or not. The crazy people who blow up buildings and threaten families are not involved with the mainstream movement. And if the \”vandalism\” they help young people commit you\’re referring to is posting stickers in public places (which is the most peta2 does), you really need to start watching current events and learning about the real problems in the world. But PETA would lose their 501(c)3 status if they did something illegal like that. I admire that you believe everything the government says, but you should consider thinking for yourself at least some of the time. And that Friedrich quote… totally sounds like a serious quote an organization representative would say in public, right? You, my friend, need to learn about sarcasm. I\’ve read his books, so I probably have a better grasp on his thoughts than you do.
You think PETA is brainwashing the youth to drink beer? Nonsense; the alcohol industry has been doing that for centuries; they\’re simply jumping on the bandwagon to get their message across. Maybe not morally sound, but understandable for any organization with such an unorthodox social message. The Dairy Council has done plenty of brainwashing by sending \”nutritional information\” to schools about healthy snacks like ice cream, and the \”fact\” that you should have dairy with every meal. If you\’re so good at critical thinking, I have a couple of questions. Why are humans the only mammals (or any animals for that matter) who drink the milk of another species? Besides the fact that we\’ve been doing it for as long as we can remember, what reason do any of us have to believe it is natural or good for us, when every study not funded by the industry has shown results to the contrary?
With the children, again, you should be more careful with the word \”brainwashing.\” A culture brainwashes children; an ad for a product brainwashes children. A social movement that is based on sound ethical and scientific considerations cannot \”brainwash\” someone. They are telling the truth. I understand why, in our culture where parents \”own\” their children, instilling personal values in them sounds shocking, but I also think it has to be done. I don\’t want each new generation to grow up as dumb and callous as the last. However, I\’m not sure what your sources are, but seeing as PETA doesn\’t even say such emotionally charged things to adults, I seriously doubt they would say it to children. This is their kids website: http://www.petakids.com/ Quote about fish: \”Imagine how scary it would be to be swimming along, minding your own business in the deep blue sea, when suddenly, you’re swallowed up by a huge net or impaled by a hook! Remember: Fish are friends, not food!\” Hardly sounds as graphic and threatening as you made it out to be.
And I\’m a woman and a feminist, and they have my blessing to \”exploit\” women who volunteer to be half naked for their cause. I\’m not of the persuasion that we should be ashamed of our bodies because society tells us they are \”obscene,\” anyway, but dressing down outside on a hot day hardly makes you look odd, unless you\’re promoting a cause of course.
If you don\’t understand the connection with humans exploiting other humans and exploiting animals, you have obviously not been oppressed nor studied it in depth. Exploitation and oppression always run by the same excuses, \”We\’ve always done it this way.\” \”They aren\’t as advanced, or intelligent, or powerful as we are.\” (Which may be true or not, but is never an excuse for abuse and exploitation.) Plenty of people have been offended with these comparisons because they do not understand them. But plenty of people, including some people who are descendents of slaves or survivors of the Holocaust, for example, have praised it and opened their eyes to the issue. And this isn\’t just PETA, it\’s all the thinkers of the animal rights movement. There are plenty of books about it, if you wanted to consider it fully before you attacked it.
And they could care less about profit. While their budget is bigger than other animal rights organizations, it\’s smaller than some other animal organizations and exponentially smaller than the vast majority of human ones. No matter what your opinions are, the amount of suffering involved with this issue makes it important, and it deserves a large scale organization to help it. Moreover, their executive director lives off a small stipend, while other organizations\’ EDs take lavish salaries and no one ever complains… Weird.
Why don\’t you blame organizations like the feminist peace organization \”Code Pink for Peace\” for showing half naked (and sometimes fully naked) women? Or, why don\’t you blame the thousands of shelters across the United States who are forced to euthanize animals in similar numbers as PETA? Oh, that\’s right, because you don\’t disagree with their fundamental premise. Come on, if you had told the truth and examined the entire issue, this article would have been pitifully short.
I am an animal rights activist. I don\’t even agree with everything they do, but I agree with their fundamental beliefs, and I recognize that they have done a lot for the movement as far as corporate and youth outreach goes. Anyone who is not an animal rights activist is just looking for an excuse to discredit the cause; you choose a monster and exploit it. Good job, hope it clears your conscience. Didn\’t work for me…
^
Too long, did not read.
For Amanda:
http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf
Your proof.
Amanda = fail
I like Amanda. You people need to stop being damn stupid. Cruelty to animals is mostly what PETA is worried about.
I find your article to be completely arrogant as you obviously do not understand the workings of the organisation. I am a firm believer in PETA and yes I own pets and I do not believe that to be animal cruelty, they live in luxury baha but, I do believe that animals are not ours to eat. You stated that if animals can eat other animals, why cant we eat animals if we are all equal. If this is what you believe in, from now on you can eat meat but, I suggest you hunt for it with no weapons and then, you will be considered equal. Your ignorance has unjustified your opinion