What is the story about the PETA hatred?

[malta blue]

I have recently read on another forum that PETA is telling kids that thier dads are killers because they go fishing, etc., and that they have this crazy agenda.

Does anyone know about this?

I always thought of PETA people as animal rights activists that may go a little further than I may on any given day, but not as complete nutjobs with some warped agenda as some have implied.

[IndianaJones]

1. lack of animal protein in their diet. nt.

[malta blue]

2. Quite possibly, but I don't consider LeftyMom nor flvegan

to be total nutjobs, so it can't be the only thing. :shrug:

[snooper2]

53. If Peta's ancestors from millions of years ago...

didn't eat red meat, they would still be swinging from tree to tree :rofl:



GOBAMA!

[hobbit709]

3. When you turn your cause into a religion and become fanatic about it

to the exclusion of anything else, you use the same tactics that other religious nutjobs use.

[malta blue]

4. but are the PETA folk really turning into nutjobs,

or is this a misrepresentation of what PETA is doing recently?

As I said in the OP, there are some claims of what PETA is doing but with no links to back it up....

[LostinVA]

7. Oftentimes, people will find some example of a random nutjob claiming to be part of PETA

And declare them the spokesperson for the whole organization.

[China_cat]

49. Links in my other post

directly to "peta comic books present"

[hobbit709]

8. Some of them are definitely fanatics-I've run into a few.

There are some you can have a rational discourse with and there are some that consider you the spawn of Satan if you don't agree 200%. Those are no different than any other fanatic-whether religious, political or whatever.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

70. They have always been out there

I donated to them many many years ago. They sent me a newsletter and I quit donating because they wanted zoo's abolished and all the animals set free. There was also a story by the woman who wrote the color purple, can't think of her name, who compared keeping horses to owning slaves. They never got another penny off me.
I'm still animal lover and 34 year vegetarian. Those idiots at PETA give us a bad name.

[Mutley]

97. Alice Walker is the author you're thinking of.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

163. Thank you

That's her. She lived near a place that kept a mare and the people who owned the mare put a stallion in the paddock to breed the mare, then removed the stallion. The 'splitting up of the family group' she compared to slavery.

[Mutley]

164. I don't know much about the social structure of horses

and whether the male plays a part in raising a baby, but if the male does play a part, it does seem cruel and unnatural to split up the family. I wouldn't compare it to slavery, though I do get the metaphor Walker was going for there, but I would say it's a rather presumptuous practice humans have of messing with the natural order of things.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

204. It's not a family structure but a herd thing

A domestic stallion can breed lots of mares in a year. He doesn't get to run in a herd with them because it would be impractical and dangerous.

Wild horses live in a herd, and a herd stallion will try to keep his mares in his band and they might try to leave or get stolen by another stallion. Huge fights happen between the stallions, some get injured so bad it leads to their deaths, because a crippled horse doesn't fair too well in the wild. Some foals will get killed by another band stallion grabbing then behind the neck and shaking them till they are dead. You can't have that sort of carry on in your paddock. It would make the dogs bark and upset the children.

I adopted a wild Mustang from the BLM in April and I'm about to adopt another wild boy. Their particular herd (Beaty's Butte herd in Southern Oregon) was rounded up last August because of a drought there. I'm not sure how many horses they re-released. The BLM (Bureau of Lumber and Mining lol) is part of the Department of Interior and a piece of shit from Idaho called Kempthorne runs it. He changes thing's to make things better for commercial interests. He wants to kill half of the wild horses!

The wild horses have to be managed so they don't eat themselves out of house and home, but killing them is out of the question as far as I'm concerned. The adoption program should continued, the unadoptable ones should be released into the wild after they have been spayed or gelded, and some should continue as is.

If you care about these animals and want to keep them from being slaughtered, either adopt like I do, get involved, write to the BLM and congress. They need us now because the Republicans want to kill them so their cattlemen buddies get more cheap grazing.

Remember a horse is not a slave but a willing partner.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

205. I have to add something to the above

Out West here, there are people with large acreages that do turn their stallions out with the mares. But your talking hundreds of acres. My Morgan geldings herd was raised for the first two years on 4500 acres. But even then all the mares weren't breed by the same stud because of inbreeding issues among other thing's. So even on 4500 acres, the stallions weren't running with their 'women and children'. You can't have your expensive stallions fucking about about like that.

Would you let dogs choose their bitches and roam the streets with them and the pups? Would you have a Tom cat come into your home and breed your cat because he has a crush on her? Then let him stick around to meet the kids and maybe make some more? Why spay and neuter pets if you worried about spoiling 'cosy' family units.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. a lot of their adds are sexist and some are just plain tacky

like the shark add after the shark attacks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. It seems to me that PETA is a rather loose knit group.

That hasn't got a very tight grasp on its message. So when the loony wing of the PETA organization does or says something really stupid, it looks bad for all of them.

[hobbit709]

9. You're right-some are rather loosely knit.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

155. Hmmm. Sounds like the Democratic Party ...

loose knit, no tight grasp on message, loony wings.

Yep, that's us!

:hi:

[TZ]

10. Some of the fringe memebers of PETA

associate themselves with truely scary people like ALF..I have scientist friends who have had they lives disrupted and threatened by these people.
Medical researchers in general do not like or trust PETA. I am one of them. They have no clue about what I do, yet feel free to talk about my job like they are EXPERTS.
I love animals but..I HATE PETA.

[malta blue]

12. thanks....

I was reading some really off the wall garbage....

:hi:

[LostinVA]

15. I don't agree with being threatened by PETA, but I do agree with them on animal research

I also think that there's no way animal researchers can love animals. How can somebody who loves animals, commit horrible physical/psychological abuse on an animal?

[TZ]

19. I don't work with animals directly myself

But most animal work is closely scrutinized and the animals well treated. They are NOT routinely tortured or have physical or psychological abuse..And alot of them actually are healthier than their wild brethren because they are SOO well treated. No..we aren't cold nazi researchers..we do care about our test subjects, but we also realize the realities. Would you rather we give experimental drugs to children and adults?

Almost all the animal researchers I know have TONS of pets as well. Many will adopt animals from the lab that are not needed.
Please don't broad brush us. Just like PETA, you have jumped to all sorts of conclusions about this field.

[LostinVA]

24. Yes -- because animal lovers do this

Nope, that would never cause any physical/psychological harm to our closest relatives.

[TZ]

33. Nice BROAD BRUSH

Have you been to OUR animal facilities. NO. Do you know the researchers that do this NO. DO I yes.
Are there bad researchers yes. Are they the majority no.
Your example is as valid as saying because some priests are pedophiles ALL are pedophiles.
Some white people are KKK members. Does that mean all white people are bigots?
Geezus..this is exactly why even non animal researchers despise PETA because much like the anti-abortion idiots they think that ONLY THEY ARE MORAL..and nobody in the field could possibly be moral..Oh and of course they all KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW about the field even though they've never been in a typical lab setting.
Christ on a crutch. Sometimes I wonder about people in this party.
Suffering of humans..okay!..suffering of animals waaaay more important than curing god awful diseases.
Enough. Like any true believer you are not interested in facts.

[LostinVA]

35. I never said I supported suffering of humans

Chill.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. You said you were against medical research.

Which is it?

[PVnRT]

34. What medical research is being performed in those pictures?

Frankly, they look like pictures from the set of a movie.

[flvegan]

41. Google "Stephen Lisberger" and monkey experiments

UCSF animal researcher. He's a pip.

[PVnRT]

46. The guy who made Tron? That movie is the definition of awesome!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Lisberger












:hide:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. And PETA does this.

:shrug:

[flvegan]

79. So you're against humane euthanasia?

Or you'd rather they took a bullet from a redneck, or the gas chamber? Because that was the alternative for the animals PETA takes.

Yes, PETA is a last chance shelter organization, and most animals they take are humanely euthanized. It's pathetic that you have issue with that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. You're against science?

I think using an animal for science is a better alternative then euthanizing an animal because you can't find anybody to feed and shelter it, don't you?

[flvegan]

82. You're suggesting

taking unwanted animals and donating them for vivisection, a la pound seizure? Rather than humane euthansia they should endure vivisection?

Most reputable labs insist on strictly controlled breeding for their beagles, mongrels, etc and have little interest in taking in 5 million extra dogs and cats each year "for science".

Oh, and on edit: as usual, you failed to answer the question.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. No.

I'm saying humanely euthanize unwanted animals. Buy animals from properly controled suppliers for science.

"Oh, and on edit: as usual, you failed to answer the question."

So did you?

:shrug:

The difference is, I really am not against humane euthanasia.

[flvegan]

84. And

you've stopped making sense.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. If that's what you've got to tell yourself...

be my guest.

[deucemagnet]

51. I can back you up on this.

While I was working on my doctoral dissertation, I worked in a building that had a surprisingly large animal facility. It had mice, rats, rabbits, pigs, sheep, turkeys, and probably a few other animals I've failed to mention at one time or another. I worked on a SCID mouse project in that facility. Everything was subject to very high levels of scrutiny. I had to get training to obtain a certification to work in the facility, and I had to submit the details of my project to an oversight board for approval. The animals were all very well treated, and I never saw anything even approaching the horrific stories and pictures PETA spreads. In fact, one of my friends at the time was an animal control officer for a nearby town, and the stories of abuse he told me made me cringe. Ironically, the animal facility treated its animals much better than some people in nearby communities.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. excellent post.

[dropkickpa]

39. Bullshit.

I love animals, and most of the people I work with do too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Thanks for the example.

How can somebody who hates animal research use products developed thanks to animal research?

[Critters2]

102. Thank you. It needs to be said. nt

[Kali]

69. Not just the fringe membership, the foundation and leadership is pretty wacko too.

[China_cat]

88. It's not just fringe members

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2339 Read the whole thing, but this exerpt is telling.

There's more yet. After we noted that PETA's Bruce Friedrich "stood up in front of a public audience and advocated people going out and blowing up restaurants and blowing up medical laboratories," PETA's rep retorted: "That's not what he said. What Bruce said was that he wished some places would burn down, that are hideously abusing animals." Just to keep the record clear, here are Friedrich's actual words:

If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows ... I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.

http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_rodney1.cfm (from Peta's own financial report)

$45,200 to the defense fund of ALF arsonist Rodney Coronado (convicted by the way and later given a job by Peta when he got out of jail.

http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_rodney2.cfm

And then a $25,000 'loan' to Coronado's father. (Again from Peta's own financial records)

People 'associated' with Peta have no access to their bank accounts.

[davsand]

11. PETA is kinda like the Dems or any other "organization."

Membership runs the gamut of folks. Some are sane, others are just plain nuts.


I got a bit put off PETA when some of them started saying that companion animals are mistreated because they are not roaming free. I have a hard time accepting that somehow my indoor cat is somehow an abused animal because he's not outside being feral and scrounging for food. I have a hard time understanding how a dog living in a family-as part of that family-is somehow being mistreated since it isn't roaming free with all the other feral dogs.

I do not hold PETA the organization in contempt, only some of the wackaloons. You have to figure I am not terribly thrilled with the fundies and the extreme left as well--so PETA is not being singled out. I am an equal opportunity offender.

I give money to the Humane Society and I am just fine with that.



Laura

[malta blue]

14. see that is the story I have been hearing....

That PETA would consider my dog to be "abused" :rofl:

[davsand]

18. Yeah, all I have to do is look at the average lifespan for ferals.

You can refute it pretty easily, I think.


Frankly, I WANT to come back as a DU cat, if you really think about it. Eat, sleep, and poop is about all you have to do--as long as you pose for a "cute" pic one time in your life. Playing and cuddling is optional.


:evilgrin:



Laura

[pokerfan]

47. We have a 100,000 year old symbiotic relationship with dogs

That is not going away anytime soon. I believe in Spay/neuter/rescue and humane treatment in general, not tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Critters2]

127. And PETA agrees with you. You'd know this if you'd visit the PETA site. nt

[quakerboy]

147. I went to Peta.org

And now I am skeeved out a bit, because I found out about Flexpetz.com. I do not know how to think about this. Good or bad, I can see potential either way. But mostly, what the hell?

[pokerfan]

184. Thank you for that kind comment

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.

<...>

This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.

Sounds to me like they're more or less resigned to the very existence of pet ownership. An organization whose very existence depends upon donations can always have motives that differ from their stated ones. Boogle PETA cofounder Ingrid Newkirk.

I choose to support the ASPCA instead.

[Critters2]

149. Is there something wrong with your web browser, that you're unable to look up peta.org? nt

[Pierre.Suave]

16. "wackaloons"

:rofl:

That is my new favorite word.

[davsand]

20. A holdover term from my early days at the Salon boards.

Sums it up nicely, I think!


:hi:


Laura

[Critters2]

104. Can you document PETA saying this? I'm a PETA member, and have never found this in any PETA lit.

Yet, I keep hearing it repeated as a PETA position. The stuff I get from PETA endorses spay/neuter, keeping cats inside, not buying from pet stores, wacky extremist stuff like that. Do you suppose they've decided I'm not cool enough to know what's really going on?

Wouldn't be the first time.

[davsand]

177. This is the kind of rhetoric that ads to PETA's image of being "anti-pets."

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

"Animal Rights Uncompromised: PETA on 'Pets'

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. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to..." (bold added by me for emphasis!)


I was careful to say that I do not feel PETA as a whole (meaning the entire membership) is anti-pet. I do think that it creeps a lot of otherwise sympathetic people out when they see or hear portions of statements like the one above. Taken in context it is fairly mainstream animal rights stuff--spay/neuter, avoid breeders and adopt when you can. Taken in isolation it sounds f**king nuts to somebody like me that spends a lot of time adoring and catering to the resident critters at Chateau Sand.

YMMV.


Laura

[kat_kringle]

13. and don't forget this little number:

[malta blue]

17. so what is the point of that?

That is pretty out there, and I could see a kid getting really worked up over that.

[kat_kringle]

21. oh, totally

it just seems like peta wants to reach the children over the parents heads.

i mean, if i was seven and got this? i would never see my mom the same again, she would now be a sociopahtic killer that hates Thumper and stabs him repeatedly. wtf?

otherwise, i don't know. from a research paper i did on animal rights, vs animal testing, some of the stuff i found out about peta was a little disturbing.

sigh...

**Edited to add some schtuff

[malta blue]

23. when I was 8, I went outside on my grandfather's farm

and found him butchering the bunny that I had been playing with earlier.

It was for dinner. I chose not to eat it, and I have NEVER tried rabbit because I was traumatized by that incident (apparently I yelled at him that God was going to punish him for killing one of his creatures). I opted for eggs instead.

[kat_kringle]

45. oh, no

:(

i think what you yelled was incredible. animals, animal testing, meat eating...it's a touchy subject, eh? i have had a tough period with how i stand on animal rights, and probably always will.

i am happy though that i'm not a red meat eater anymore (which is also good from a health standpoint), and i primarily just eat fish.

i think someday that might be opted out of my diet. i mean, yea animals eat each other, but we don't need to to survive. you know?

[Bake]

60. Eggs are a no-no.

I know for a fact that PETA employees are expected to be vegan (at least at work). No eggs or dairy. No leather clothing (belts, shoes, etc.). Basically, nothing that comes from animals, directly or indirectly.

Bake

[Iggo]

22. I recently read somewhere blah blah blah....

Is this true?

'Cause if it is, then blah, blah, blah...

Remember people, this is how the rumor that Obama eats children got started.

[malta blue]

25. ummm

thanks? :shrug:

[Iggo]

42. Any time, pal.

:hi:

[DarkTirade]

128. Wait... that was just a rumor?

:shrug:

[Midlodemocrat]

26. I think their hearts are truly in the right place with treating animals

in a humane manner, but their tactics turn people off. Then, of course, comes the insinuation that all members are nutbags.

[malta blue]

32. Lately all I have been hearing is "don't trust PETA, they are

all whackjobs," etc., but without anything to back it up.

Thanks Midlo :loveya:

check your PM

[stuntcat]

90. (me too)

I admit I'm a total nutbag, but I believe if everyone had to witness daily what went into the production of their dindin then it would drive them a little mad too. if they have any concern for animals as conscious beings.
PETA' done very little to offend me and if I was braver I'd be an extremist too. Sticking up for voiceless critters earns my respect for sure :D

even though I guess they're not perfect!

[one mean sheath]

27. my problem with PETA

stems primarily from my experience with a lot of its members/followers/herds/what have you. and actually most of the problems i've had as of late have been from the peta2 campaign - where a lot of the "yr mommy is a murderer because she feeds you chicken" with pictures of a housewife chopping off a chicken's head type shit comes from.
i'm also very unabashed about my love of meat (mind you, NOT factory farming. there is a difference), and that's become a problem in certain discussions.

[malta blue]

29. Point taken and thank you.

I have recently heard of these tactics and I don't agree with them at all.

No reason to traumatize a kid like that.

:hi:

[flvegan]

28. Here's my take on it:

There are a few different kinds of PETA "haters"

1. The type that wants to hate them. Offended or off-put by one or two campaigns, they decide to hate the organization and the goals of same. Sort of like hating the Democrats and the party because they did indeed (many of them, anyway) vote to go to "war" in Iraq;

2. The type that can't tell between the organization and member/supporters. They remember the days of (to borrow a term from this thread) whackaloons throwing paint on fur, etc. PETA didn't throw paint. Member/supporters might. Sort of like hating Christianity because some of God's almighty morons bomb an abortion clinic;

3. The type that can't stand veg*ism and/or animal rights. These are the idiots that pop up with the same stupid, incorrect issues with a diet/lifestyle choice or get pissed because they like the circus and don't care about elephants getting bashed with baseball bats;

4. The type that thinks PETA is going to take away their "rights" to have pets, eat meat, etc. Okay, PETA is pretty effective but Zeus they ain't, and taking away rights isn't their game;

5. The type that's had a bad experience or twelve with activists on a PETA (or other AR) campaign. Yeah, I've met some real assholes in my days on the protest lines, but they're fairly few and far between in my experience.

Like I said, that's my take on it. YMMV.

[malta blue]

30. Thank you so much for your position on PETA flvegan.

I respect your opinions on this issue greatly.

:hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

36. Excellent analysis.

:thumbsup:

[Kali]

87. then there are those of us who think that legal rights are reserved for humans only

and find the tactics and lies by peta operatives to be dishonest and destructive.

Extremism is always dangerous.

[Chan790]

92. I have to call...

the credibility and POV of anybody who suggests that the best way to discipline a dog for nipping is to beat it with a newspaper spurious.

Because reinforcing negative behavior with violence is ever effective. (No.) I am no fan of some in the AR community for the same reason.

Be careful who you call an extremist and a liar, dishonest and destructive...someone (:hi:) here might take that as a personal attack on a fellow DUer if you haven't got the evidence to back up your claims as verifiably-true against that specific person.

Sincerely,

Chan790
Occasional PeTA donor
Eco-leftist, conservationist, and anti-poaching "operative"

[Kali]

101. Beat it with a newspaper?

A)I suggested to smack it with a rolled up newspaper (because it is soft and makes a noise - although I did not explain that - I thought it would be self evident - see B) AND TO EXPRESS DISAPPROVAL. Never made a claim as to value (best or not, just effective) Never suggested beating. I also suggested observation of how a bitch disciplines her pups. Is a rolled up newspaper violence and grabbing a muzzle not? Interesting. What about when that bitch or other dominant canine bites rowdy pups?

B) Have you ever tried to hit yourself with a rolled up newspaper? Did you have to go to the emergency room from the vicious violence? How about someone grabbing your face to make you shut up or stop some other annoying behavior?

C) I said "I find the tactics and lies by peta operatives to be dishonest and destructive. Extremism is always dangerous." Excuse me for not using the qualifier "some". (or most?) I could probably show extremism and dishonesty in at least one DUer, but that isn't where I was going with my comment, and besides it would probably be against the rules. Do you find extremism to be the most effective and positive way to effect change?:hi:

[Chan790]

111. ...

Let's start with the last one first. I'm feeling less than energetic...so I'm just going to quote Margaret Mead to answer your questions since they are as a old and tired as most of the anti-animal arguments I encounter.

c.) "It may be necessary temporarily to accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good." - Margaret Mead

a & b.) "It is an open question whether any behavior based on fear of punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly." - Margaret Mead

[Kali]

114. an expert at dog training if there ever was one!

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[flvegan]

116. I'm your huckleberry.

I'm kind of an expert at it, and I have a number of friends that are behaviorists, vets, trainers, etc and not a single one of them would approve of any sort of newspaper "whacking" regardless of how soft or firm.

[Kali]

119. and I've raised a few pups. So what?

Raising dogs is kind of like kids. Everybody is an expert. I suggest you actually ask your friends - but please make some attempt to keep your language neutral so that you will get a real answer not a confirmation of your bias.

[flvegan]

123. I've never asked

they've been forthright with that information. Positive reinforcement is the only way to train. That, that there comes from a trainer of champions.

And, as the rehabber of former fighters, bait dogs and the lot, I think my cred stands.

[Critters2]

122. The beagle has a rally obedience title--just the one, she is a beagle after all--

and she knows of two uses for newpapers. Reading and peeing. I don't use the newspaper as a weapon.

[Kali]

129. well, hell give it a try - might stop the eating of cat shit.

[Critters2]

130. Being a religious pacifist, I think I'll pass.

Thanks for your concern.

[Chan790]

162. hahahaha!

(The plebs can be so quaintly amusing sometimes.)

I'm far more interested in training your dog's human. Margaret Mead, Anthropologist and Social Behaviorist, eo ipso an expert at human training if there ever was one.

[flvegan]

95. No, I covered that one.

Read them again.

[Kali]

103. you covered fear of peta taking a person's rights, I said I object

to the concept of animals having rights. An important difference.

[flvegan]

106. Reread #3.

[Kali]

112. ah, pardon.

there it is indeed. linked to some things I don't necessarily agree with and labeling the disagreement as hatred, but yes it is there.

[Sheets of Easter]

31. Like any group with a social/political agenda,

the squeaky wheels get the proverbial grease. Same applies with PETA. I applaud their stance against unnecessary testing on animals, and how they speak out on the deplorable conditions of factory farming (as well as their stance against animal cruelty in general), but like any group, the fringe speak up loudest.

I see it here on DU as well.

[PVnRT]

37. I fucking HATE flatbread

No, wait, I don't. I love tortillas!

[malta blue]

38. ...

:spray:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thank you for bringing some levity to this discussion.

[Orsino]

40. PETA opposes the keeping of companion animals...

...putting them directly opposed to DU, the Internet's official source of kitty pics for the last several years running.

[old mark]

63. Then they must be wrong...

My companion dog craves air conditioning and lots of sleep on my bed.

He is a 110 lb Doberman/Great Dane and sleeps whereever he likes.

mark

[Alexander]

78. That's my big problem with PETA.

The idea that I'm mistreating my cats because I don't set them loose in the Sonoran Desert is idiotic.

[Critters2]

105. Can you document where PETA has officially called for freeing companion animals? Thanks! nt

[quakerboy]

150. Really?

How come they sell pet food bowls then?

http://www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp?number=CA166




In the mean time, I also found the following:

http://www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp?number=AT375

I really question the efficacy of this. I have some hunters in the family. Never could get into it myself. But they are respectful people in the main. If you are posted no hunting, they would not hunt on your property. But that sign would just piss them off.

[Orsino]

156. Not really, apparently.

That used to be a stance in their literature, IIRC, but according to this page, they now only oppose pet mills.

I agree with that.

[datasuspect]

43. they get along good with gyros and tatziki sauce

[DarkTirade]

44. The problem is much the same as with any group that has a set of beliefs...

the people who are the loudest, and the ones most determined to climb to leadership ranks, are those with the strongest beliefs... which means that group of people will also have the most number of people who are so into their beliefs that reality starts to become secondary to their belief system. So the nuts rise to the top.

I'd wager that 90 to 98% of people who are involved with or donate to PETA are normal intelligent people... it's just that 10 to 2% that are absolutely fucking NUTS.

[China_cat]

48. That's just one:

http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf

Here's another

http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf

Then there was the promotion where they were forcing kids to take 'buckets of blood' at KFC's and schools near KFC's in 2004

http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-174709.html

And recently, through deception and harassment (protesters standing outside the walls and yelling epithets every day for months) they managed to close down the egg production of a local MONASTERY...the enterprise that has supplied more than 60% of the monks' income for more than 50 years.

Add in the 'it's more healthy to drink beer than milk' campaign and their effort to buy off MADD who objected (offered them $500 and web link)

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/herman/040300.htm (6th paragraph for the details of the buy off offer)

[malta blue]

55. See, I knew DUers would be able to help me sort

through this.

thanks :hi:

[flvegan]

67. Wait...you're DEFENDING Mepkin Abbey?

Unless you're talking about another monastery, Mepkin Abbey DESERVED whatever they got.

Deception and harassment, my ass.

[China_cat]

72. What do you call editing the video to take out

any explanations the monks tried to give? Including the name and phone number of the veterinarian that services the abbey?

What do you call coming to the abbey as a 'retreatant' instead of being honest with the monks? They would have let him see whatever he wanted and talked to him if he'd been honest...just like they did after they found out who he really was and what his 'mission' was for being there?

And yes, harassment. Constant, daily, yelling and screaming outside the abbey to the point where the monks were disturbed at their meditations and religious duties, not to mention their work in the gardens and the bake shop. They had to stop taking retreatants and we couldn't even take our Catholic Girl Scouts from the nearby camp to the abbey for mass.

Peta can be very proud of itself that they have probably managed to close the abbey since it can no longer support itself.

You've never been there. I have. Why is it that your critical thinking skills are very good until it comes to something Peta tells you? Then whatever they say is gospel (unless what they are saying goes against what you think they should be saying...like Newkirk's call to destroy all pit bulls as a breed) and doesn't need any investigation.

The fact is that while Peta may call for the ethical treatment of animals, they wouldn't know ethics if they got bit in the ass by them.

[flvegan]

73. One question:

were the animals there abused? Was this little more than a typical battery cage operation?

Sorry, I'm never going to be upset when a battery operation goes under. Don't care who owns them. I've been to enough of them to absolutely, unflinchingly have that mindset.

As for me believing PETA as gospel, that's your opinion.

[China_cat]

74. Single cages, no stacks, good ventilation

clean operation, vet on call 24/7, feed grown and ground by the monks...no commercial feed. (Organic, too, using composted chicken manure on the gardens. One of income factions from the chickens, btw) Yes, the poults were debeaked...before they ever got to the abbey. I'm sure if they'd been asked, the monks would have made arrangements for them not to be done.

Yes, people not working in the operation were ASKED not to enter the barns...for health reasons. On both sides, to protect visitors as well as the birds. But tours of the abbey have always included the permission to view the operation from the outside, through the windows. Having grown up mostly upwind of a chicken farm, I know what they can smell like and the abbey's didn't even come close to that. They might not have been free range (by the TRUE definition of free range, not what the government considers it to be) but they certainly weren't mistreated.

Lots of developers would love to have that land. They may get their chance. Too bad for those of us who...even though not religious, let alone Catholic...like to have a lovely, quiet place for rest and reflection.

If the monks were the monsters Peta has made them out to be, why would they have allowed the 'mole' to stay when they found out who and what he was? To openly go ahead and video anything he wanted, even in places where visitors were asked to stay out of? Why would they have given him free access to every member of their community for interviews?

As for you believing everything Peta says is gospel...go back and read some of your own apologetics for their tactics, including calling unequivical statements made by them "taken out of context". It's my opinion because it's what I see.

[flvegan]

75. So

slightly better conditioned battery cages, yes? And forced molting?

And again, opinion. Most of the idiotic quotes tossed around this place trying to make PETA look/sound bad are indeed out of context. I'm the first one to say something PETA does is stupid if I think it is. Knowing several folks that work there/used to work there gives me a little more insight.

[China_cat]

91. We used to force molt our chickens.

And they WERE free range. If you didn't they weren't even fit for the pot. Keep them in the coop during the winter and cut down their feed. You can't convince me that there's anything wrong with that. Unless you want to keep replacing your stock every year, you do it.

Having the chicken farm down the road gave us a real good idea of how NOT to raise them. They were hatched in an abandoned one room school house, allowed to semi-mature on the hillside and caged in the barn when they started to lay. A dark, dirty, barn with no ventilation, wire cages 3 to 5 high and a place you had to wear a breather mask to enter because the amonia fumes were so dangerous.

By contrast, the monks' operation was absolutely beautiful.

[flvegan]

94. Are these

pictures from Mepkin Abbey? You've been there, so you could tell me.





Yes, beautiful indeed. If these were puppies, which people give a shit about, there would be an outrage.

So again, these animals were abused. The level of abuse may not meet some of the much more extreme battery farms, but it's still abuse. If you make a living or your P&L depends on animal abuse (or people abuse, for that matter), I won't shed a tear if your business goes bust. I hope that now out of the egg business, Mepkin Abbey can stay afloat and prosper without some form of intensive animal operation.

[China_cat]

152. No, those are not pictures of Mepkin Abbey's egg production.

I've been trying to see if there's any archives of ACTUAL pictures that they used to have on the abbey website but have taken down due to the attempts to hack their site.

[Critters2]

109. There was nothing "beautiful" about Mepkin Abbey. nt

[China_cat]

151. I don't know how people can say that who've never been there.

[Critters2]

118. They weren't in single cages, and they were stacked. The video is very clear.

Here's what the Pope himself says about raising chickens as the monks were doing:

"Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible."
Benedict XVI

[Kali]

132. hmm didn't something come out about the credibility of that video?

Like parts were spliced from some other location?

[Critters2]

133. Not that I know of. I'm sure you can document that....

or can you?

Why didn't the monks take it to court? Instead, they got out of the chicken-torturing business. I think that speaks volumes.

But I'll wait for you to post your source.

[Kali]

137. I think it was in one of your sources, actually

Wikipedia - so yeah that might be suspect. Not that peta has ever manipulated videos or anything.

[Kali]

138. ...

"Furthering the controversy, it was discovered shortly after the release of the video that many scenes shown in the video such as those of dead chickens of the floor, were actually shot at a separate facility rather than at Mepkin Abbey." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mepkin_Abbey

How the hell should I know why they didn't take the assholes to court? Maybe the same reason they decided to quit what they have been doing for 40 years. The harassment was interfering with their lives and it was the fastest way to make it stop. Maybe what peta did was strictly legal, if not ethical. Personally I would have fought, but then I'm not a religious pacifist.

[Critters2]

134. Here's the story from the National Catholic Reporter. No mention of fraudulent video.

That seems odd, doesn't it? Unless, of course, the video wasn't fraudulent.

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/011108/011108l.htm

[flvegan]

135. Check post #94.

Quite legit.

[Kali]

139. a couple still shots prove a video is legit?

I see what look like pretty healthy chickens there. I personally prefer to see them wandering out loose, but I know they also don't mind crowding if they are in good health, have enough to eat, and are similar size and age (mine have always roosted at night all in a bunch, no matter the freedom or weather) but those look clean and healthy to me.

[Critters2]

142. They don't mind? LOL!! You asked them?!

I may never stop laughing! Thanks for that!

[Kali]

143. did YOU ask them if they were UNhappy?

good night :hi:

[Critters2]

144. I try to do unto others as I would want done to me....

I'd rather not be locked in a tiny cage with three to five of my closest friends, unable to move, and peeing and pooping on peers beneath me. But that's me.

It's called empathy. Or even compassion.

[Kali]

183. you probably wouldn't want to sleep ten in huddle on a tree branch or a perch in a coop

and spend your day scratching through horse and cow shit either but that is something chickens love to do. Having sympathy/empathy is not silly but comparing yourself to an animals' adaptability is. Chickens have different needs than humans.

[flvegan]

145. So 4 in a cage is okay?

How much space do they get 4 in a cage 24/7?

Seems they can't even spread their wings, and those floors look pretty rough on them.

Didn't you say before that this wasn't the practice here?

[Kali]

181. Is 4 in a cage ok? I said I prefer to let them wander loose, so no it isn't ok for me.

On the other hand as someone who has been around them, I don't have a huge problem with those particular shots, as I said - they look fairly healthy. Not the way I raise them, but then I lose a lot to predation. And I don't make my living from them.

And now we have some evidence that those aren't even pix of the operation under discussion.

Oh wait this monestary wasn't the subject either. It was peta. As usual, peta supporters show up proclaiming how mainstream the orginisation is, to throw out a few of the worst examples of "abuse" they can manufacture, and once again upon scrutiny the examples are not what they appear and finally the original topic, "why the hatred for peta?" gets illustrated.

[Critters2]

141. Here's the video. In the undercover portions, chickens in battery cages are clearly visible,

and a monk is heard endorsing forced molting, as well as leaving suffering chickens to be dealt with "eventually".

http://www.goveg.com/mepkinabbey.asp


There were 35,000 chickens in three buildings. That easily qualfies as a factory farm, and here's what the best known member of the Cistercian order, thus a brother to those torturing chickens at Mepkin, had to say about factory farming:


“Since factory farming exerts a violent and unnatural force upon the living organisms of animals and birds in order to increase production and profits; since it involves callous and cruel exploitation of life, with implicit contempt for nature, I must join in the protest being uttered against it. It does not seem that these methods have any really justifiable purpose, except to increase the quantity of production at the expense of quality—if that can be called a justifiable purpose.”
— Thomas Merton (1915-1968)

[China_cat]

153. Like almost all of it was filmed elsewhere.

[China_cat]

154. The video you are referring to was taken elsewhere.

Not at the abbey. Even Wikipedia carries a reference to the fact of the creative editing and the FACT that big portions were taped at another farm.

One picture left. Of the candling operation...which was in the barn and off to the right. Kind of hard to see that the building material isn't even close to the supposed pictures of a steel building.

[Kali]

178. You keep saying that and you have actually been there,

but you know, a video from the likes of peta HAS to be the truth.

This whole thread is the perfect illustration of why people have "hatred" for peta. Peta and a lot of people who are attracted to/associated with them are fanatics, believe whatever they are fed, and have an attitude of arrogant superiority that often defeats their stated goals.

[Kali]

180. you didn't answer the question

[flvegan]

188. Don't have to.

Proved my point. Animals were abused, they shut down their operation. Hoo fucking rah.

[Critters2]

108. PETA wasn't the only group that denounced the animal suffering at Mepkin Abbey.

We Christian Vegetarians were also disgusted and appalled at the animal cruelty. The monks at Mepkin brought their problems on themselves and need to take responsibility.

[VenusRising]

50. They shouldn't be saying anything to anyone about companion animals.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

PETA's Dirty Secret

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through December 2007, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed over 19,200 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals." That's more than five defenseless creatures every day. PETA has a walk-in freezer to store the dead bodies, and contracts with a Virginia Beach company to cremate them.

Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during the last five years. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

Also....

Your kids - PETA's pawns - http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=156

[malta blue]

54. Thank you for the information.

:hi:

[flvegan]

68. That "information" is bullshit propaganda.

People should research their info before the regurgitate it online suggesting they're "helping".

[Critters2]

110. This is propaganda from a website funded by the restaurant lobby.

It exists to protect the "right" to mistreat animals in factory farms. Hardly an objective source.

[Kali]

140. so is it false information?

sure the source has an agenda (sort of like peta itself) but is the information incorrect?

[Critters2]

146. Here's info on CCF from The Center for the Media and Democracy,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom


But what I really like is this quote from the New York Times:


The Story Behind a New York Billboard and the Interests It Serves'
The New York Times
by Verlyn Kinkenborg
July 24, 2005

"he language of the Center for Consumer Freedom is as Orwellian as it is possible to get. Its basic linguistic strategy could have been taken directly from George Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language,' still the most important single essay on how to lie without seeming to. It would hardly work for C.C.F. simply to tell the truth—to say to consumers, on behalf of the food and beverage industries, 'Activists and watchdog groups are trying to stop us from selling you anything we want to sell you.' Much better to say, 'These groups are trying to prevent you from buying anything you want to buy.' Then it becomes a matter of sustaining freedom, protecting individual rights and keeping the prairie of consumer choices unfenced. ...

"Is it hypocritical for C.C.F. to attack PETA? Since its basic rhetorical strategy is hypocritical, the answer is almost certainly yes."

[VenusRising]

174. Frankly, I was more interested in the PDF from the State of Virginia contained on the site.

:shrug:

[Critters2]

148. The Center for Consumer Freedom

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200612220003

Among other interesting facts:
Berman contributed $5,500 to Republican political candidates and $1,000 to the Republican National Committee between 2000 and 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

It's odd to see how often a Repug like Berman is quoted here on DU.

[Kali]

186. but was the information correct?

[Iris]

52. I pretty much started ignoring them when they used Holocaust footage in their ads and

compared the extermination of millions of Jews to eating meat.

[malta blue]

56. are you SERIES!!11!

:wtf:

They are on my ignore list now too.
:nuke:

[Iris]

96. Yes. Sadly. A new low.

[Critters2]

113. PETA wasn't the first to make this comparison.

The best known was Holocaust survivor Isaac Bashevis Singer. I figure Holocaust survivors have more right than I--or you--to decide what does and does not compare to the suffering of Holocaust victims.

From Wikipedia:

"Jewish author Isaac Bashevis Singer, who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1978, made the comparison in several of his stories, including Enemies, A Love Story, The Penitent, and The Letter Writer. In The Letter Writer the protagonist says: 'In relation to them (animals), all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.'<5> In The Penitent the protagonist says 'when it comes to animals, every man is a Nazi.'<6>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust

[flvegan]

117. And

THAT one is in the upper decks.

You're on tonight!

[Critters2]

120. Ah, I do what little I can. There seemed to be a dearth of truth around here tonight.

I felt the need to add a little.

[Iris]

173. an opinion is now a dearth of truth?

[Kali]

125. Your link also mentions some significant oppostion to making the comparison

"The comparison is regarded as controversial, and has been criticized by organizations that campaign against antisemitism, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.<2>

The ADL argues that the increasing use of Holocaust imagery by animal rights activists is a "disturbing development."<3> Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights argues that, although there is "connective tissue" between animal suffering and the Holocaust, they "fall into different historical frameworks, and comparison between them aborts the ... force of anti-Semitism."<4>"

Abraham Foxman, chairman of the ADL, said the exhibition, was "outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights ... The effort by Peta to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent." <11> Stuart Bender, legal counsel for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, wrote to PETA asking them to "cease and desist this reprehensible misuse of Holocaust materials." <2>

[Critters2]

126. Again, "the effort by PETA" was based on the writings of a Holocaust survivor.

That non-Holocaust survivors find it offensive means little to me. They lack the credentials to decide what is and what is not an appropriate comparison.

[PVnRT]

158. LOL

So, then, once all of the Holocaust survivors are dead, no one can be offended my misuse of the "Holocaust" label? Please. That's as idiotic as saying that a white person can't be offended by the word "nigger."

Besides, if non-Holocaust survivors "lack the credentials to make an appropriate comparison," what credentials does PETA have to run with it? I mean, since non-survivors shouldn't have an opinion and all.

[Iris]

170. Exactly. I really don't get the no right to an opinion unless you've experienced something attitude

around here. If I haven't experienced something, than people can take that into consideration when they hear my opinion. Other than that, why should we bother with art, literature, music, drama if the only way to get understanding of something is to personally experience? Why bother to even try to examine the human condition?

[Critters2]

201. The "Eternal Treblinka" campaign was quoting a survivor. nt

[Iris]

168. I have the right to decide what I think is offensive.

And I thought this was offensive. I certainly respect where Singer is coming from, but I still don't agree.

[Blue_Tires]

57. i have volunteered for them from time to time

Over the past couple of years, and have found them to be nothing but good, committed people (i'm not a member or even vegetarian, but i am trying to go veg)...Yes, they are prone to sometimes cheap or sensationalist stunts, but I wish that more liberal groups had their single-minded shrewd determination...

[Dr. Strange]

58. I think they operate on the "no such thing as bad publicity" plan.

They occasionally do some totally whacked-out crap that gets tons of attention, and even if it makes them look bad, they focus on the fact that attention has been drawn to their cause.

[billyoc]

59. I support their right to express their views, but if they get between me and my steaks,

I'm just going to eat *them* instead. :hi:

[crimsonblue]

61. every well-intentioned group or organization

becomes controlled by zealots at some point. The corruptable, crazy, and idealogically irrational many times seem to rise to the top.

[DarkTirade]

64. The corruptable, crazy and ideologically irrational have a tendancy to rise to the top.

Because they're the ones who work for the top positions.

[crimsonblue]

65. true...

many more rational and realistic people get either burned out or get drawn ever more into increasingly bizarre and extreme idealogies. When you have a group of policy makers that all share the exact view, it is harder to prevent craziness.

[China_cat]

89. Peta started out controlled by zealots

Ingrid Newkirk...enough said.

[Deja Q]

66. Dunno, but I think People Eating Tasty Animals are hardly evil killers.

Well, maybe Jeffrey Dahmer was...

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

71. Some people want the waves without the storm.

PETA is every effective at getting their message out, and even the people who self righteously condemn PETA for being too extreme are at least talking about their issues.

What other animal rights group have you been talking about lately? Can't think of one? That's because being safe and using conventional tactics doesn't get recognition anymore.

[DarkTirade]

99. ... by that logic, that would imply that Bush is doing a great job because everyone knows about him.

That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.

[Radical Activist]

176. No, because Bush's goal isn't to get people talking.

PETA's goal is education and awareness and they succeed at that.
Thousands of advocacy groups on all issues are completely unknown to 99% of the population but PETA is a household name. That's impressive, no matter what you think of their agenda. Condemn their tactics all you want, but they work.

[DarkTirade]

190. People are talking, but they're not talking about the facts. They're talking about the fringe.

The crazies. The hyperbole. They're actively DISTRACTING people from the real issues they're trying to espouse.

[Radical Activist]

191. Today's fringe is tomorrow's mainstream.

It has always been so.

[DarkTirade]

192. ... and you completely missed my point.

[Radical Activist]

193. Oh I got your point. It just wasn't a good one.

They move the debate and they're good at it. Their outrageous tactics get people talking and learning and then those individuals will move into the issues you think are more important. But go right ahead if you think you can attract more attention and get press coverage with a somber discussion about how cruel and unsustainable our current agricultural system is. Many people have tried and they don't get half the press coverage of a naked girl wrapped in plastic.

[DarkTirade]

194. So pointing out that the whole world thinks that they're a bunch of nutjobs

and they end up getting far less support for the things they care about because of it is a bad point?

... ooookay then. Mental note: Never try to have a rational discussion with this guy. The term 'exercise in futility' comes to mind.

Maybe you didn't notice, but people who are actually interested in doing constructive things for animal rights have had to go up and down this thread and correct all the wrong assumptions others have made about groups like PETA because all the general public knows is that they're a bunch of animal rights activists and some of them have crazy ideas. They don't know their actual ideas. They don't know what they're fighting for or against. That's all 99% of the public knows. That kind of sensationalism may be good for the organization's pocketbooks, but it is NOT good for what the organization is trying to accomplish.

[Radical Activist]

195. Yeah. You really don't seem to understand that being talked about is better than being ignored.

Groups who are ignored are irrelevant and PETA is talked about more than 95% of the groups out there. Would they get more support for their cause if no one knew who they were? What would that accomplish? Would they be more effective if they passed a nice petition and held group discussion at Universities? ha! The fact that many people don't like what PETA has to say is beside the point. You don't have to fight hard for causes that everyone already agrees with.

People thought the abolitionists were nutjobs for many years. The same for civil rights activists in the 1920's, peace advocates, environmentalists, suffragettes and so on. Being unpopular and condemned as "extremist" is how all social movements begin.

[Kali]

197. It is also how cults self destruct.

Everybody thinks their agenda is good an pure. Some are, some arent. Many are irrelevant.

[Radical Activist]

199. WTF?

Where did that come from? Getting press coverage is how cults self destruct?

I don't agree with everything PETA says either but I can still make a reasoned judgement that some of their tactics work. You should try doing the same.

[Kali]

202. "Being unpopular and condemned as "extremist" is how all social movements begin."

I don't disagree with your point but it also applies to cults.

[PVnRT]

159. One could make the same argument about pro-life groups

[Radical Activist]

175. Yes.

And some of their tactics have been very successful.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

86. Complete nut jobs.

I can't believe you haven't heard this before.
Duckie

[Vidar]

93. You're making too much sense. Darn, another witch-buning spoiled.

[Mutley]

98. My only real issue with PETA

is that some of their more extreme tactics have lead people to believe that all animal rights activists are nutjobs. I think they've done just as much to hurt the cause as they have to help it.

There is an organization near me that captures, neuters/spays, releases and feeds feral cats. That's it -- that's all they do. My neighbor calls them "those crazy PETA people" and refuses to donate to them. It makes me wonder how many animals in this country don't get the help they need because of PETA's negative image.

[mitchum]

100. Well, when you combine zealotry, deception and corruption...

then end result is usually not very pretty

[Critters2]

107. Here is what PETA says about companion animals:

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

I think this quote is particularly apropos:

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and 'set them free.' What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

I'm constantly amazed at the number of DUers who are unable to perform a simple google.

[flvegan]

115. Heads may well explode

after reading that.

It's always funny to read the anti-companion animal set and their misappropriation of words. Especially considering the sheer number of companion animals that are found in their headquarters each day, going in with their respective people to spend the day while their human counterparts work.

[Critters2]

121. What MOST IRRITATES ME is that this information is so readily available,

and people refuse to do the minimal research involved to learn the truth.

JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT, PEOPLE!!!


There. I feel better now.

[flvegan]

124. Yeah, but

it's easier to regurgitate the Center For Consumer Freedom's talking points (kind of like Freepers do with Drudge, etc) then to actually do some legwork.

See above for proof of that.

[BarenakedLady]

165. People would rather believe what they want

as long as it backs up their need to hate.

[Mutley]

167. I believe that notion comes from Ingrid Newkirk,

One of the founders of PETA:

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV." -The Chicago Daily Herald, 1990 March 1

"I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance." -The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223


(Yeah, no links, but the sources are there to be checked if anyone chose to do so. The internet is not the only reliable source of information out there. In fact, it is considered one of the least reliable sources of information out there.)

I'm not saying everyone who was ever involved with PETA feels this way, but when one of its founders says things like this, I understand where the misconception may come from. I used to donate to PETA on a regular basis, and I even attended a PETA rally in D.C. when I was in high school. I respect what PETA's overall goal is. But I'm just not the biggest fan of how they, or some of their followers, go about certain things. And I don't like the face that PETA puts on animal rights activism as a whole.

[Swede]

131. Because of stuff like this.

[Fox Mulder]

136. I'm a PETA supporter.

It's a shame that so many people don't really understand what PETA does.

[LynneSin]

171. I think PETA does alot of good

but needs to better promote themselves and knock off some of the over-zealous attitude.

[Zavulon]

157. From what I've seen, it's a case of good-intentioned people going way too far.

The final straw for me was many years ago, when a PETA bigwig wrote to Yasser Arafat. Although these weren't even close to what the actual words were, the letter came across as "kill as many Jews as you want, but please stop strapping bombs to those poor donkeys." I wish I had a copy, but the one thing I can tell you is that after I read that letter all of my previous thoughts about PETA being well-intentioned nutjobs were solidified.

[PVnRT]

160. I imagine that was an isolated case of one supreme idiot writing a letter

[Zavulon]

161. The problem was that

if memory serves, the supreme idiot was PETA's head honcho. Can't remember her full name, but I'll never forget her first name - Ingrid. At the time, my boss's name was Ingrid and both Ingrids seemed equally unstable.

Anyway, this was not a rank-and-file idiot. This idiot was as high up the food chain as PETA had.

[nels25]

166. This is just to good to pass up

bumper sticker seen on more than on car (numerous vehicles in fact).

PETA=People Eating Tasty Animals!


Sorry like I said I just could not resist the temptation>

:spank: Spanking myself.

[pokerfan]

179. If we aren't supposed to eat animals, how come they're made of meat?

:hide:

[Iris]

182. well, I suppose the same could be said for humans!

[pokerfan]

185. One of the world's leading religions

is based upon the ritualistic cannibalism of their creator.

[Iris]

187. lol! Had to think about that one for a second!

[pokerfan]

189. Look, it's really quite simple

The universe was created by an all-powerful all-knowing being who came down to us in the form of a cosmic jewish zombie (who was his own father) and who can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

It makes perfect sense!

[Kali]

198. stealing!

:thumbsup:

[pokerfan]

200. how do you think I got it?

I did name it "Xtianity in a nuts hell" when it came time to save it to my drive.

[AlienGirl]

203. Wow, NO ONE here has EVER heard anything that witty before!

:yourock:
:eyes:

[LynneSin]

169. When Peta once compared the eating of Chicken to the Holocaust I decided

that PETA was nothing more than a radical organization that would push it's agenda to such extreme measure that it would alienated people like me who use to respect their cause.

[Blue-Jay]

172. No hate from me. I don't even *think* about them.

[cobalt1999]

196. When they started campaigning toward children.

Basically saying your parents are murderers if they eat meat.

They would have my support if the only solution to factory farming wasn't going veg, or worse, vegan.

There are evils in the way meat is produced in this country. That doesn't mean we should give up eating meat though and trying to convince children will generate a lot of hostility.