PETA for kids

[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

No I don't .
And saying the NRA is more dangerous is an opinion (especially since they teach gun safety and don't demand you change your way of life for what they believe in, so in my opinion, saying the NRA is dangerous is unjustified in the case.)

well lets see, peta wants you to stop eating animals, the nra wants everyone to be able to buy assualt rifles, which one is potentially more deadly?

1. you can already buy assault rifles, and assault rifles (the ones owned by civilians legitimately) are almost NEVER used in a crime. same with most guns. (simple research and FBI statistics)
2. fighting for the right to have the option to own one is a lot different than making people changing their life style without option.
3. the NRA hasn't honestly done anything to be labeled as a dangerous/ extremist group. it's a legit organization that has had even members that where presidents. Just because you do not agree with the politics doesn't make them bad. After all, I fully disagree with a lot of liberal groups, but i don't hate them or make false accusations. PETA on the other hand, is known to be bat-shit crazy.

peta and the nra are both crazy, one just wants an end to animal testing and the other wants no limits on guns

 

[Jegsimmons]

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

No I don't .
And saying the NRA is more dangerous is an opinion (especially since they teach gun safety and don't demand you change your way of life for what they believe in, so in my opinion, saying the NRA is dangerous is unjustified in the case.)

well lets see, peta wants you to stop eating animals, the nra wants everyone to be able to buy assualt rifles, which one is potentially more deadly?

1. you can already buy assault rifles, and assault rifles (the ones owned by civilians legitimately) are almost NEVER used in a crime. same with most guns. (simple research and FBI statistics)
2. fighting for the right to have the option to own one is a lot different than making people changing their life style without option.
3. the NRA hasn't honestly done anything to be labeled as a dangerous/ extremist group. it's a legit organization that has had even members that where presidents. Just because you do not agree with the politics doesn't make them bad. After all, I fully disagree with a lot of liberal groups, but i don't hate them or make false accusations. PETA on the other hand, is known to be bat-shit crazy.

peta and the nra are both crazy, one just wants an end to animal testing and the other wants no limits on guns

.......yeah i'll compromise on that.

 

[Mazza35]

Their basic values aren't that bad, it's just the way they over react. I mean, do you really like seeing an animal caged up for your entertainment?

It's more then just "Caged animals" They're also against guide dogs for the blind.

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/01/10/guide-dogs-for-the-blind-peta-staffer-says-forget-it/

They're against fighting VIRTUAL animals in an MMO

http://kotaku.com/5201889/peta-protests-baby-seal-clubbing-in-world-of-warcraft

They're against killing FLIES

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/peta-says-no-more-flykilling-sends-obama-a-humane-fly-catcher-.html

They're against any and all form of Pets

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx

They're even against drinking milk, and say it's UNHEALTHY for you.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/cows-milk-a-cruel-and-unhealthy-product.aspx

Notice I said BASIC values (IE Don't hurt animals)
Some of there things just go way overboard.

 

[Falconsgyre]

You don't have to kill people to be a terrorist, since they teach people how to make bombs to kids, and support groups who BLOW UP research places to save animals from testing. Now no one is hurt but all the money went into that work is gone to prove their point through a violent means. That in a way is a form of terrorism, using violence to get your point across.

The terminological quibble is not important. We presumably both understand what the groups actually do, so whether or not you want to call it "terrorism" is irrelevant. The point I was trying to get across is that there is a world of difference in motivation and methods in eco-terrorism than in conventional terrorism. Treating eco-terrorists the same as conventional terrorists does not seem to be the right thing to do.

 

[xdom125x]

Using children to get your message across isn't going to win you any supporters PETA. It is like they want people to dislike them.

Sometimes I wonder if PETA was created for the sole purpose of making all vegetarians/ fans of animal rights look insane.


Also, here comes the obligatory acronym joke:

PETA:
People
Everybody
Thinks are
Annoying

 

[Falconsgyre]

In America, it seems like every organisation is out to brainwash first... it's like a race.

I don't like this, but if it wasn't this, then it'd be something else. I don't agree with the "stop eating them!" bit, dictating to small children what they can and cannot eat is very dodgy territory for me (when regarding perfectly healthy food that is).

Also, for a lot of people in the world, not eating meat just isn't possible, and that goes for America too.

PETA's information about vegetarianism/veganism was the most accurate part of their site, actually. If you live in an industrialized country, especially America, meat is not necessary for your survival anymore. You can get by without dairy products and eggs, too, though that complicates things a bit more and I've never personally tried it so I can't say too much more about that except quote websites. And while it's not true that meat is inherently unhealthy, as a culture, we do eat way more meat than is good for us.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Ah, yes, PETA. The organization that claims to be about protecting animals, but seems to be primarily concerned with shaming one particular species.

They may not blow anything up, but they do run "animal shelters" that kill more pets than they place. And I won't even go into their apparent grudge against predators, or their "artistic license" in regards to human anatomy.

I used to wish that they'd protest in our town. I would have made a point of wearing a coat with rabbit-fur trim, then saying something purposely unnerving if any of them whined at me. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the coat.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[CarlMin]

I have not said that ALL of them is a hypocrite, or terrorist, or sick bastard. I said it is rife with. Not comprised solely of. The minority in this case is sadly, the people who truly want to help animals that need to be helped.

Oh okay, not all PETA members are sick bastards, just the majority?

ASPCA. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

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.

Its harmful because the group all but supports and funds eco-terrorists. Its harmful because they say that they will save animals that they will adopt, but they take them into a van and kill them.

Yeah, I don't think they are putting down unwanted pets because they think it's fun. I don't agree with PETA and the Humane Society of the United States stance on euthanasia, but before you start describing PETA's overpopulated shelters as some sort of modern day death camps for animals, look at the statistics. Every year, shelters across America are flooded with unwanted animals. PETA has been trying to contact governors, pushing for laws to improve that situation, like dogs and cats to be sterilized unless their owners purchased an annual breeding permit. PETA has killed 17,000 in more than 10 years, since 1998. Now the rest of the shelters in your country kills 4 million animals EVERY YEAR; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy. That should give you some perspective before you start going after PETA.

So what I'm supposed to take out of this is that PETA is a group filled with callous lairs who claim to love animals in order to make money, but really spend all their time and precious resources on killing them off in the back of their vans after that they have adopted the poor pooches?

Because you saw it in an laughably biased episode of Bullshit?

I don't think so.

 

[Chaza]

They funny thing is that if humans didn't eat a lot of the animals we do then they would die out as there would be nothing to protect them.

Protect them from what though?

Natural predators. A lot of animals e.g. cows probably would have died out as they have little in the way of defense mechanisms.

But cows don't really have any predators apart from humans. Well at least not in england, so they wouldn't become extinct.

Although I see what you mean.

 

[jedizero]

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

 

[Verlander]

In America, it seems like every organisation is out to brainwash first... it's like a race.

I don't like this, but if it wasn't this, then it'd be something else. I don't agree with the "stop eating them!" bit, dictating to small children what they can and cannot eat is very dodgy territory for me (when regarding perfectly healthy food that is).

Also, for a lot of people in the world, not eating meat just isn't possible, and that goes for America too.

PETA's information about vegetarianism/veganism was the most accurate part of their site, actually. If you live in an industrialized country, especially America, meat is not necessary for your survival anymore. You can get by without dairy products and eggs, too, though that complicates things a bit more and I've never personally tried it so I can't say too much more about that except quote websites. And while it's not true that meat is inherently unhealthy, as a culture, we do eat way more meat than is good for us.

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

 

[Wintermoot]

unless your kid has some kind of brain damage (usually caused by dropping him/her a thousand time on the head followed by a big lobotomy.)
they aren't going to buy into this crap.
PETA should be ignored.

 

[Beliyal]

Yes, but they're not spreading it in kindergartens, schools and streets

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

Quoting from the article.

"McDonald's markets its food to children by packaging it in brightly colored boxes with toys," Lindsay Rajt, a spokeswoman for PETA, tells Slashfood. "But most kids really love animals, and if they knew that McDonald's suppliers were breaking the wings and legs of gentle animals like chickens, I think that you'd have to drag kids into McDonald's kicking and screaming."

I see. But I still wouldn't classify that as "brainwashing". They are targeting children, but so are everyone. It doesn't make it alright, mind you. But children are an easy target, in any case, and a lot of organizations, corporations and anyone trying to sell their product make their commercials or products themselves like children-magnets. Because, a parent won't refuse to buy something for a crying child!

Also, despite all their efforts, PETA's activities don't seem to make any significant progress, nor does it damage McDonald's work or make people lose their jobs, as far as I can see. Unless McDonald's bankrupts because of PETA's actions and kids die from not eating meat, I don't really see their actions as a threat. They are silly and intrusive, but I've seen worse. They do, however, bring animosity towards vegetarians and vegans in general, but that's also stereotyping all vegetarians and vegans as crazy PETA activists. The children targeting is bad in my opinion, but PETA is not the sole offender (and not the first or the last).

My point is, all of these problems (targeting children, spreading misinformation, sensationalism and aggressive way of spreading your beliefs) are a problem of the society as a whole, not of PETA alone. It won't go away if we only 'destroy' PETA. But, PETA is an easy target to point at and mock so, whenever they do something silly, everyone is pointing and mocking. And everyone is outraged at how can they make websites like that for our children. Well, the website is maybe going to turn a few kids into vegetarians or vegans. So? The means are maybe a bit immoral, but whose means aren't? I mean, I did always want a Happy Meal only because they offered a toy with it. And my parents spent significantly more money on that instead of just buying me a regular (bigger) hamburger for less money.

 

[theonlyblaze2]

IF it wasn't for PETA, I'd still be saying "fish eggs", without knowing the real term is "sea kitten babies".

They "officially" renamed fish as "sea kittens".

No they didn't! Nu-uh! (Googles this...)
Oh my god, they did! I am going to order sea kittens the next time I go to a fish restaurant.

 

[jedizero]

The children targeting is bad in my opinion, but PETA is not the sole offender (and not the first or the last).

I know that, but at the same time, there is a difference between 'targeting children' and 'handing them a package full of shocking and disgusting pictures of dead animals'.

A big, big, BIG, difference.

One targets a demographic. One simply attempts to traumatize children.

 

[Falconsgyre]

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?

 

[Nieroshai]

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?