Thanks for saying that. I feel very strongly about animal rights, but I rarely vocalize how I feel (or even bring up my vegetarianism) because I'm afraid of reactions from people - like they will automatically assume I'm a PETA supporter and completely discredit everything I say because of that. Feeling compassion for the torture that many animals raised for food endure is easy...I think once you realize the magnitude, you are inspired to either boycott meat or purchase ethically-raised/hormone-free. But when we have crazy organizations that promote violence toward people to increase animal welfare, I find it very hard to support them, even when they manage to do good once in awhile. PETA is stupid. But I would hope that people don't demonize all animal rights activists because of one organization.
Heck no...as much as enjoy meat myself and occasional hunting, I would absolutely be respectful about this issue if we met. There is a distinction and I see that...
They claimed tossing a fish is unethical....So if you're coming back from drive to Wendys and toss a wrapped-up burger over to your cousin, is that disrespect to the cow who's life was lost to make the burger possible? If you swatted a mosquito before going in, would you want your neighbor knocking on your door reminding you of the inhumanity of it? Probably, cuz the slippery slope of that is...you tossing around and swatting the neighborhood children for sport. Somewhere in the middle of rational and bat sh** crazy is still plenty bad for a worldwide organization like that.
I'm not aware of the specific incidents you mention, so it's hard to comment, but from your description I still don't see anything wrong with your position. You are worried that they'll be telling you that swatting a mosquito is bad, but they just said they didn't like the President swatting a fly, so your fears have already been realized. The bottom line is that if they are against all unnecessarily poor treatment of animals (including insects), then that is a valid position. I personally don't care that much about animals to agree, but in none of the examples I've seen have they advocated putting animals above humans or otherwise crossed the line into territory that I would consider worthy of outrage.
Too true, myself included. That said, I've known some people who had their homes bombed by animal rights activists (one of them works on YEAST!), and PETA expressed sympathy with these activists. Probably most of us agree in absolutely minimizing animal suffering. In my meat-eating way, I'm now picky about where my meat comes from and how it's raised. By the way, to the poster who mentioned throwing a burger and disrespecting a cow... the average fast-food hamburger has parts of 500 cows. Reading the Omnivore's Dilemma was very informative for me, as I knew next to nothing about our food industry.
They don't just express sympathy, they actually donate money and resources to ALF and other domestic terrorist cells. I'd be fine with PETA if they were just the wacky and weird people they seem to be but I actually find them much more nefarious. I also love the fact that their VP is actually diabetic and is dependent on pig-derived insulin. Of course it's ok for her to benefit from animal testing, but anyone else is out of luck.
People are missing the point. This is perfect for PETA's objective, so long as you understand PETA's objective. It's certainly not ethical treatment of animals. It's really just attention for all of their attention-whoring supporters. That's why they always pick the most ridiculous cases to support, and why nudity is featured so prominently in their ads. It gets maximum exposure for their idiotic supporters for minimum cost. It doesn't do anything for animals, but anyone who pays attention knew that.
I see an organization that's basically fighting for the moral and legal equalization of animals to humans. That's a losing and easily forgettable battle, for a voiceless constituency; so they probably feel compelled to be as loud, shocking and strident as possible. To the extent that they incite debate and effect change, as they have with respect to animal testing, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
Heroic PETA Commandos Kill 49, Save Rabbit NORFOLK, VA—In what has been dubbed the most "devastating and brutal siege in the history of animal-rights activism," an elite, paramilitary squad of commandos from People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) attacked and killed 49 employees at Couture Cosmetics' Norfolk, VA, research facility while saving a rabbit during a daring midnight raid Monday. "Never in my life, not even during my tour of duty in Korea, have I seen such carnage," tearstruck Couture CEO Herman Frankel said, surveying the carnage. "My God, what will I tell the families of the victims of this massacre?" According to the handful of survivors of the raid, Couture workers were first immobilized by gunshot wounds to the knees before being shot execution-style in the back of the head. PETA officials assured that no animals were harmed during the destruction of the complex. The rabbit, a floppy-eared, speckled gray longhair with an adorable pink nose, was being used by Couture as part of an eyeshadow-allergy research project at the time of the rescue. ... For the rest of the story: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/heroic_peta_commandos_kill_49_save?utm_source=infocus
My understanding is that PETA is supposed to focus on the unethical treatment of animals rather than simply the killing. For example, don't they fight for more humane ways of killing chickens and cows and what not (implying they are OK with the actual killing)? If so, I'd be curious what exactly they think is the proper, humane way to kill a fly.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1g2AU3HiM5A&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1g2AU3HiM5A&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
https://fingerlakes1.com/2021/08/11...ilk-falls-due-to-its-tie-to-an-ugly-industry/ PETA asks to rename Buttermilk Falls due to its tie to an “ugly industry.” AUGUST 11, 2021 @ 10:11 AM FL1 News Have a tip for the newsroom, press release, local event listing or digital content to share? Send it here. Support our mission by visiting patreon.com/fl1 and becoming a monthly subscriber. PETA has written to the New York State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to say that Buttermilk Falls’ name is tied to an “ugly industry.” The organization pointed out a decline in dairy-milk sales and an increase in plant-milk sales, so they want to rename the park Plant Milk Falls State Park on August 22, World Plant Milk Day. Peta also said they would contribute for the cost of signage and provide vegan milk to visitors that day.
PETA dumps manure outside rival ASPCA’s NYC office — but hits snag over frigid temps https://nypost.com/2025/01/24/us-news/peta-dumped-manure-in-front-of-aspcas-nyc-office-building/ excerpt: more at the link
I'm in the food business. I fully support vegans/vegetarians. They are a huge niche in menu planning. And devoted to a personal cause. I love my meat but I love most vegetarian dishes. If I were a vegetarian I would have to be a pescatarian. I love my shrimp and scallops. You can keep the fish
I know. But I know lots of folks that practice pescatarianism. If that's a word. I guess it's a half way point.
