PETA for kids

[jedizero]

Sorry, being scientifically minded, and also a fan of (but not a particular believer in) Pen & Tellers show, I have to say that when I say evidence, I don't mean a youtube video of a show I know is awesomely funny but about as balanced as a chainsaw...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.294229-PETA-for-kids?page=5#11658421

I don't know how you managed to miss this giant fuckoff wall of text.

 

[Worgen]

I don't even trust regular vegetarians ( outside of religious ones) why should I care what these domestic terrorist say?

so you trust religious domestic terrorists then?

peta is the left wing equivalent of the nra, they are stupid but ultimately less harmful then the right wing version

THAT was quite the leap there, friend. When did he ever mention support of any religious or terrorist organization? YOU put that in wholesale. Also, an organization that believes in the freedom of self-defense is worse than an organization that supports eugenics as well as capital punishment or severe incarceration for people who "harm" animals?

well he said he doesnt trust vegetarians outside of ones that are vegetarian because of religious reasons then implied that vegetarians are religious terrorists so I was mostly poking fun at that since it seems like most terrorist type things are done by the faithful.

I never said peta wasnt crazy, I just said they were as crazy as the nra but their whats are much more unlikely to ever come true since the left isnt as stupid and blind as the right
peta wants total animal liberation (stupid and never gonna happen) the nra wants no gun restrictions at all (stupid but more likely to happen since people get their panties in a twist about waiting periods "Im mad now dammit")

 

[jedizero]

I never said peta wasnt crazy, I just said they were as crazy as the nra but their whats are much more unlikely to ever come true since the left isnt as stupid and blind as the right
peta wants total animal liberation (stupid and never gonna happen) the nra wants no gun restrictions at all (stupid but more likely to happen since people get their panties in a twist about waiting periods "Im mad now dammit")

This is not a political discussion. If you want to have a political discussion, make another topic.

 

[Worgen]

I never said peta wasnt crazy, I just said they were as crazy as the nra but their whats are much more unlikely to ever come true since the left isnt as stupid and blind as the right
peta wants total animal liberation (stupid and never gonna happen) the nra wants no gun restrictions at all (stupid but more likely to happen since people get their panties in a twist about waiting periods "Im mad now dammit")

This is not a political discussion. If you want to have a political discussion, make another topic.

then tell people to stop responding to my posts and Ill stop posting in this thread, really I would be happy if this thread would die, Im surprised its lasted this long

 

[Detective Prince]

I would never EVER let anyone see this...

 

[Qitz]

People Eating Tasty Animals.

Poorly Educated Teen Activist.

People Engaging in Terrorism for Animals.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong.

 

[Verlander]

Sorry, but I live in a very developed country. I also happen to be very poor. Living healthily without meat is not possible with my income, trust me, I've tried. I'm not in a special situation, there are many more like me. A lot of the "facts" that vegetarian sites throw around may be true (a load not so much), but they ignore the problems that we as a species would face without meat.

Eating a bit of everything in moderation is the key, not brainwashing children to stop eating animals. Maybe brainwashing them not to eat junk food would be a good start

Hm. I've never really been stressed for money, so I can't judge from personal experience. But since meat is generally one of the more expensive items on the menu, wouldn't you actually save money by substituting eggs or cheese for meat?

Not for the same nutritional value. I don't buy much red meat, as that is expensive, but depending on the season, poultry and fish are very cheap for what they give you. Anyway, I'm not against vegetarianism as a personal choice, just like I'm not against religion, but I don't think it should be pushed on other people

 

[Falconsgyre]

Not for the same nutritional value. I don't buy much red meat, as that is expensive, but depending on the season, poultry and fish are very cheap for what they give you. Anyway, I'm not against vegetarianism as a personal choice, just like I'm not against religion, but I don't think it should be pushed on other people

Well, strictly speaking, I didn't advocate vegetarianism, but my stance and underlying motive was pretty obvious. The problem is that for me, eating meat in an industrialized society is a moral issue, and it's one where the person I would be trying to persuade to be a vegetarian is not the victim. (To be more clear, my stance -or the abbreviated version, at least- is that the consumption of meat in a society where the main method of meat production is factory farming causes an unacceptable amount of animal suffering; if the only issue at stake is that meat tastes good, the ethical thing to do is to stop eating meat.) Unlike in the case of religion, where I would be telling you to change your mind because I think it would be better for you to believe what I do, my stance would be that you should change your behavior because you're victimizing others, which is an important difference. A more apt comparison, I think, would be to abortion and the difference between pro-life/pro-choice positions. At any rate, "correcting a perceived misconception" seems like a perfectly socially acceptable reason to post, and the issue we're discussing isn't "should you be a vegetarian," but "is it possible to be a vegetarian."

Since you seem pretty sure of yourself and use correct grammar and spelling, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the possibility that it might be not be possible to be a healthy vegetarian without a certain level of income. I don't like making factual claims without solid evidence to back me up, and I can't cite any sources to prove that you're wrong. But my personal opinion is still that you could probably pull it off if you tried with no impact to your health; calories are easy to come by, and the only essential nutrients from meat are also found in dairy products and eggs. Since you (probably) don't share my ethical convictions, you're unlikely to want to put in the effort.

 

[Blue2]

Could someone please bomb PETA up. I would but I don't live in the USA and having this idea just make me a terrorist.

 

[KeyMaster45]

like the mulsing issue in Australia...excuse me PETA we do that to sheep for a REASON (preventing fly strike) what you think we do it just for the lulz?

I didn't know what mulesing was so I googled it. I actually found an article that was against it which was quite even handed. (it came from Animals Australia) While my heart goes out to the sheep after this procedure is done I have to side with the farmers that if this is the best way of keeping away fly strike at the moment then there's no need to get up in arms about it. The sheep suffers for a few days and gets a bit tweaky around the farmer but considering the alternative of slow death by maggots I can stay my bleeding heart knowing it ultimately benefits the sheep.

Though I'm glad to see they're working to find a less painful alternative for the sheep. That is what animal rights groups should work for, and in this case are. Frankly I think the boycotting of Australian wool is a bit harsh and knee-jerky but it seems to have brought about the proper attention needed to make the progress.

 

[jedizero]

Wow, my bad, so I missed a giant block of someone posting linked articles written by someone I don't know using ridiculous language and unconfirmed sources to claim that an organisation does things that the organisation says it does. Fuck me, better call in the pissed-off-right-wing-reactionary-retaliation brigade to show that one or two things done by and organisation that disaproves of most of what you do may also be disapproved of. As for terrorising children with distressing images and ideas, come back to me when you've banned religion for those under 16.

Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?
You part of their group or something?

Meh, whatever. Seems more like you've made up your mind and God help anyone who tries to convince you otherwise.

 

[Ashcrexl]

well, anything is better than this:

http://whitemaleoppressor.com/tag/animal-activist/

so, overall, a step up i guess? though with peta, stumbling face-first into a pile of disused mattresses behind the local Target is still a step up.

 

[CarlMin]

Funny you should mention ASPCA. They've done exactly the same this thread criticized PETA for doing.

Here's ASPCA's website, ASPCA for Kids.

http://www.aspca.org/ASPCAKids.aspx

Personally, I've never heard anything negative about ASPCA. On the other hand, they don't have a $30 million budget like PETA. I don't think they take care about quite as many unwanted pets as PETA either.

the ASPCA is a non-profit organization.

Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA has gone on record saying that they could become no-kill shelters. Easily. It just would require them to become a non-profit organisation.

If I might quote a few other websites.

GUARDIANS WHO GAVE PETA THEIR PETS THOUGHT THEY WOULD GET ADOPTED
A former PETA employee told a reporter: "a teary-eyed man showed up at PETA headquarters one day with his beloved pet rabbit. The man had grown old and sick and was no longer able to care properly for his friend. He supplied a cage, bed, toys, and even vet records for this pet. He was assured by PETA workers that they would take "good care" of his rabbit and find him a home. The man left distraught but no doubt believing that his friend would be able to live out the rest of his life in a loving, compassionate home...PETA workers carried him to the 'death house' immediately and ended his life!" The employee said there are many similar examples. 1

Former director of Norfolk's SPCA, Dana Cheek, wrote "I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home...Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home."

From http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

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

On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. And during a 2007 criminal trial, a PETA manager (testifying under oath) confirmed the obvious -- that the group uses the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA rakes in nearly $30 million each year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

Newkirk is outspoken in her support of direct action, writing that no movement for social change has ever succeeded without what she calls the militarism component: "Thinkers may prepare revolutions," she wrote of the ALF in 2004, "but bandits must carry them out."[61]
? Not until black demonstrators resorted to violence did the national government work seriously for civil rights legislation ... In 1850 white abolitionists, having given up on peaceful means, began to encourage and engage in actions that disrupted plantation operations and liberated slaves. Was that all wrong?

?Ingrid Newkirk, 2004[61] ?
In 2004 The Observer described what it called a network of relationships between apparently unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic, writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA funds a number of activists and groups?some with links to militant groups, including the ALF, which the FBI has named as a domestic terrorist threat. American writer Don Liddick writes that PETA gave $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front in 2001?Newkirk said the donation was a mistake, and that the money had been intended for public education about destruction of habitat, but Liddick writes that it went to the legal defense of Craig Rosebraugh, an ELF spokesman. That same year, according to The Observer, PETA gave a $5,000 grant to American animal rights activist Josh Harper, an advocate of arson.[62]


PETA and ALF activist Rod Coronado are alleged to have substantial links.[63]
According to Liddick, PETA has substantial links with Native American ALF activist Rod Coronado. He alleges that two Federal Express packages were sent to an address in Bethesda, Maryland, before and after a 1992 fire at Michigan State University that Coronado was convicted of setting, reportedly as part of "Operation Bite Back," a series of ALF attacks on American animal testing facilities in the 1990s. The first package was picked up by a PETA employee, Maria Blanton, and the second intercepted by the authorities, who identified the handwriting as Coronado's. Liddick writes that the package contained documents removed from the university and a videotape of one of the perpetrators. When they searched Blanton's home, police found some of the paraphernalia of animal liberation raids, including code names for Coronado and Alex Pacheco?PETA's co-founder?burglary tools, two-way radios, and fake identification. Liddick also writes that PETA gave Coronado $45,000 for his legal bills and another $25,000 to his father.[63]
Newkirk is a strong supporter of direct action that removes animals from laboratories and other facilities?she told The Los Angeles Times in 1992 that when she hears of anyone walking into a lab and walking out with animals, her heart sings.[12] In an interview for Wikinews in 2007, she said she had been asked by other animal protection groups to condemn illegal acts. "And I won't do it, because it were my animal I'd be happy." But she added that she does not support arson. "I would rather that these buildings weren't standing, and so I think at some level I understand. I just don't like the idea of that, but maybe that's wishy-washy of me, because I don't want those buildings standing if they hurt anyone ... Why would you preserve [a building] just so someone can make a profit by continuing to hurt and kill individuals who feel every bit as much as we do?"[64]

As for the ASPCA for kids? There's a small difference. Y'see, the ASPCA Doesn't do shit like this.

http://www.slashfood.com/2009/08/07/peta-unhappy-meals-targeting-kids/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/08/peta-mcdonalds-unhappy-meal.html

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/16/unhappy-meal-food-activists-behead-ronald-mcdonald/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Peta_Comic_Book.gif

Firstly, you can't just copypaste a wall of text from different (obviously biased) websites and consider that a decent reply. Argument with your own words, please.

Secondly, your choice of sources is quiet lousy. I considered just ignoring websites with names like PETAkillsanimals because with a name like that, you can?t be particularly trustworthy. Besides, just like there are biased articles against PETA, in which the critics scrap up and collect all examples of hypocrisy from the 30 year old non-profit corporation they can find, there are also websites and organizations supporting PETA. And not some small protest website. We?re talking about, for example, the Humane Society of the United States.

I could reply by posting some text from PETA's website or some of their many supporters, but it wouldn't lead anywhere. Instead, let's focus on objective measurements and statistics. I did that in my last post, presenting some numbers I thought you would handle in your reply rather than just posting biased articles describing certain cases when PETA has displayed utmost indifference to the life of animals.

And these are just handpicked cases, written by groups that obviously want to bring down the organization. The first article writes about a man who lost his rabbit to some workers from PETA that obviously lied about the likelihood of his animal being adopted (which is of course is very low). The other article takes Ingrid's famous "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately" (which is taken out of context to begin with) and argues that is reason enough to blame PETA of being indifferent to their cause. - Of not caring about animals. Not only is that a gross accusation to cast at a company with 300 employees and more than 2 000 000 followers, it?s a stupid accusation to begin with. Besides, these articles almost made me laugh due to their burning subjectivity. I mean look at this "PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists." How can you even take that seriously?

But while we are one the subject of PETA's tendency to kill animals, let's quote some real experts:


?PETA and its allies argues that in order to maintain their no-kill status these facilities simply turn away animals that are unlikely to be adopted, often leaving them to fates worse than death. "No one hates it more than we do," says Nachminovitch. "But we would rather offer these animals a painless death than have them tortured, starved or sold for research." PETA isn't the only group to take that stance. "No-kill is a noble goal," says Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "But the sheer number of animals make it almost unachievable."

Instead of zero kills, PETA claims to be shooting for zero births. "Focusing on the animals that come into shelters is like emptying a river with a teaspoon," says Nachminovitch. "By investing in spay and neuter programs, which are where a lot of our resources go, we can stop unwanted births and prevent four times as much suffering."

/Newsweek

As you see, the problem is a bit more complex than you are making it out to be.

And with all these sources focusing on everything that PETA has done wrong, like Ingrids quote and the rabbit tragedy, why haven?t anyone mentioned any of the things that PETA has done that is good? Like saving millions of animals by convincing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop plans for painful, wasteful chemical tests? Undecovering cruel experiments funded by major beverage manufacturers, and then convincing POM Wonderful, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Twinings, and ITO EN to stop testing their products on animals? Stopping American plans to import thousands stray dogs for animal testing from Mexico?

Here?s a quite impressive list with 30 other examples:

http://features.peta.org/peta30/Media/PDF/30reasonstoCelebratePETA.pdf
Why are we talking how a furious owner had his pets killed by some PETA employees while completely ignoring the many examples of amazing triumphs and achievements this organization has managed?

Well, obviously because you are preposterously biased. I don?t agree with Ingrid. Quite frankly I?d love to see that old, confused poor lady resign. I don?t agree with their marketing and publicity stunts. And if this was any other argumentation I would be likely to be the one criticizing the organization.

But your simpleminded anti-PETA sentiment makes it impossible to do anything else than question you.

 

[jedizero]

But your simpleminded anti-PETA sentiment makes it impossible to do anything else than question you.

I just seem to be under the impression that PETA wants me to give up my pets and never ever have a pet again. Because pets are slaves, don't you know. Yup,

And wool clothes, of course. That's slavery as well.

And milking cows, and using dairy products. Slavery!

Eating eggs, well I'm stealing those eggs from a hard working loving mother hen aren't I?

All this according to PETA is true. And god help you if you actually *EAT* an animal.

PETA says that animal testing is un-ethical. They've said, blatantly, that if a cure for cancer was developed, even though it was 100% perfect, if it was tested on one single animal, they'd be against it.

They say that Diabetics shouldn't inject insulin because of the fact that it might have been developed via animal testing. My dad is Diabetic. So they're telling everyone that they wish my Dad was dead.

In addition to this, one of their founders is diabetic, and requires Insulin injections. She is given a pass. Why? "Because I'm saving the animals! I can't die, I'm more important than everyone else!"

Or I really don't see that a place showing kids an alternative yet valid view of reality as being brainwashing. I do however think of sunday school in that light. Believe or go to hell is vastly worse than letting kids know just how their food becomes food in out industrialised society...

I agree. Telling kids 'believe or go to hell' Is a rotten way to propagate said faith. Fortunately when I was in Sunday school, it was focused on how much God loves you and he wants to help you, and if you're scared, or worried, pray to him and he will help you'

Then again I'm not the best source of info on this. I'm agnostic, and do in general hate all organized religion.

If "brainwashing" is the only charge, then I'm afraid there are considerably worse offenders, and ones who traumatise kids with concepts without a shred of evidence.

So you're saying that just because there are other people who do it, we should ignore anybody else who does it and focus solely upon them?

I find nothing that was presented to me as reasoning and evidence to be particularly strong, relevant or shocking, and as such the idea that they have a website for kids doesn't make me reach for my shotgun...

And you are entitled to this opinion, good sir. I do not wish any ill intent upon you for feeling this way. And I apologize for before, my only excuse is that I had a migraine at the time of its writing, I meant no disrespect. Nor do I mean any disrespect here, we're all people here, the least we can do is treat each other as such, and not just as text on a screen.

 

[Verlander]

Not for the same nutritional value. I don't buy much red meat, as that is expensive, but depending on the season, poultry and fish are very cheap for what they give you. Anyway, I'm not against vegetarianism as a personal choice, just like I'm not against religion, but I don't think it should be pushed on other people

Well, strictly speaking, I didn't advocate vegetarianism, but my stance and underlying motive was pretty obvious. The problem is that for me, eating meat in an industrialized society is a moral issue, and it's one where the person I would be trying to persuade to be a vegetarian is not the victim. (To be more clear, my stance -or the abbreviated version, at least- is that the consumption of meat in a society where the main method of meat production is factory farming causes an unacceptable amount of animal suffering; if the only issue at stake is that meat tastes good, the ethical thing to do is to stop eating meat.) Unlike in the case of religion, where I would be telling you to change your mind because I think it would be better for you to believe what I do, my stance would be that you should change your behavior because you're victimizing others, which is an important difference. A more apt comparison, I think, would be to abortion and the difference between pro-life/pro-choice positions. At any rate, "correcting a perceived misconception" seems like a perfectly socially acceptable reason to post, and the issue we're discussing isn't "should you be a vegetarian," but "is it possible to be a vegetarian."

Since you seem pretty sure of yourself and use correct grammar and spelling, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the possibility that it might be not be possible to be a healthy vegetarian without a certain level of income. I don't like making factual claims without solid evidence to back me up, and I can't cite any sources to prove that you're wrong. But my personal opinion is still that you could probably pull it off if you tried with no impact to your health; calories are easy to come by, and the only essential nutrients from meat are also found in dairy products and eggs. Since you (probably) don't share my ethical convictions, you're unlikely to want to put in the effort.

It's not so much ethical convictions... well, look. I live in London, the only megacity in Europe, and one of the oldest in the world. Former industrial powerhouse, now financial powerhouse, yadda yadda yadda. This city consumes more food in a month than it would take the entire UK to produce in a year, Given the energy value ratio between meat and veg, you have a serious amount of farming to do to feed this place as it is, and London is far from the most heavily populated city in the world.

And it isn't just that. Many vegetarians have chosen that lifestyle as the meat industry is a heavy pollutant, but then they need things such as nuts to get the correct amount of proteins and fats... yet those have to be shipped in! The soya boom is destroying the Amazon at an unprecedented rate, and to get a healthy diet on just fruit and veg, you need to eat seasonal foods, out of season. Which, you guessed it, requires specific farming and more shipping.

I have no objection to the moral issue of not wanting to kill animals. I don't hunt, nor do I hurt flies or "vermin", but the idealistic view that everyone can be vegetarian in the western world is just wrong in my eyes. Our planet cannot sustain such a diet, and yes it is a problem that needs sorting. I don't see encouraging kids to give up meat as helping that problem in any way.

Anyway, we both have different opinions, and I respect yours. In an ideal world we could live of vegetation alone, but in my own opinion, I think it's selfish and potentially destructive to do so.

 

[Sylveria]

I don't even trust regular vegetarians ( outside of religious ones) why should I care what these domestic terrorist say?

so you trust religious domestic terrorists then?

peta is the left wing equivalent of the nra, they are stupid but ultimately less harmful then the right wing version

That's not really fair. PETA is an oppressive organization. They want to prevent you from owning a dog and eating a cow. The NRA attempts to protect and uphold the second amendment. Admittedly they often get a bit overzealous over it cause the right wing manipulates them for political heat, but they're trying to protect your freedoms, not take them away.

I'd rather see the NRA get their way, at least then when PETA protests or robs pet stores, the owners have something to shoot them with.