Poll: Is it me, or does PETA seem like an inhuman group?

[Hectix777]

Now before everyone jumps me at once saying," How dare you, PETA is doing their best to, blah, blah ,blah," insert soapbox speech back there. I said INHUMAN not INHUMANE, big difference. Being inhuman is having characteristics or a lifestyle that does not generally coincide with what is expected of the species Homo Sapien while being inhumane is what the Nazis were to the Jewish people. So you may be starting to get an idea of what I mean by,"inhuman." Now I'd like to apologize now if their are members of PETA on this website if I do offend them, but I'd just like to express an idea and share my viewpoint.

Now, why do I think PETA is ,"inhuman?" Well they protest the stuff that proto humans did for food, clothing, maybe even weapons. I can appreciate what they're trying to do today in an era where industrialization is eating up a lot of green and humans haven't found a way to live alongside nature yet, and I can respect things like saving endangered species and other wildlife places. It's just the whole anti-fur and meat thing. Now in terms of Hindi and Buddhist faiths, I understand fully well why they eat vegetables and fruits (maybe even animal byproducts) but when it's not limited by religion, I don't know.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see PETA(not certain people of certain faiths) as an inhuman and slightly ironic group, anybody else think that?

 

[Vault Citizen]

Just one small thing, when you right what being inhumane is you just wrote inhuman again, it took me a moment to figure out the mistake and some may find it confusing so you might want to fix that.

Also I think that they want to change what is expected of the species Homo Sapien, you raise an interesting point however, whether or not we should be trying to fight what can be described as our inherent nature.

 

[RJ Dalton]

PETA's not doing it's best. The leader of the movement is a blatant hypocrite who is exploiting an issue and the people who don't have the presence of mind to examine it to make money. Look at the huge home that the ***** lives in. It's all paid for by funds given to her by PETA members and is totally tax free because PETA claims to be a non-profit organization.
That, by itself, would be bad enough, but rather than use those funds to find good homes for all the animals they claim to rescue, they euthanize on average 95% of the animals they take because it would cost money to find good homes and she'll be damned if she's going to spend money on anything other than a new boat or a diamond studded swimming pool.
PETA is evil and its members are misguided if they believe that the organization they support is actually devoted to a good cause.

Oh and because PETA is labeled as a non-profit organization, all their records are public. If you go looking, you can find the records that prove my point with ease.

 

[Arkynomicon]

Peta gets more animals killed then they save.

 

[Casual Shinji]

PETA is comprised entirely of nutjobs; that's as human as you can get!

 

[Hectix777]

Just one small thing, when you right what being inhumane is you just wrote inhuman again, it took me a moment to figure out the mistake and some may find it confusing so you might want to fix that.

Also I think that they want to change what is expected of the species Homo Sapien, you raise an interesting point however, whether or not we should be trying to fight what can be described as our inherent nature.

Saw it, thanks for the tip.

 

[liquidsolid]

I start off my argument noting that animals don't care about us (except maybe dogs) and no animal like a Bear would hesitate to kill a human if it weren't scared of us. In addition, animals also do not care about killing other animals for food. I see nothing wrong with the killing of animals for sustenance.

That being said, I'm not a fan of animal testing, do not approve of hunting for sport, and am absolutely against animal torture (which includes illegal activity such as dogfighting).

My views on PETA is that they are inhuman and try to ignore the relationship that humans (as an animal species itself) has had with other animals on the planet for our entire existence. They are extreme in their views and would put the lives of animals over the lives of self aware humans. Their tactics, like making a porn site with animal torture in it for 'awareness', are ineffective and paints them as a radical group on the fringe.

 

[Reishadowen]

Now I'd like to apologize now if their are members of PETA on this website if I do offend them, but I'd just like to express an idea and share my viewpoint.

If you want to have an opinion, you have to stand by it to a reasonable degree, instead of immediately apologizing right out of the starting gate just for having a d*mn opinion. F*ck people are so terribly horrified at the thought of offending someone these days. >,>

Also, hasn't PETA been put on the US Government's list of terrorist organizations, or organizations that have done terrorist-y things?

To the main point, they don't seem inhuman, they seem actually VERY human. Just incredibly stupid and narrow-visioned for the most part, which, let's face it, is a very human thing to do (unfortunately). Standing up for the down-trodden is one thing, but it doesn't necessarily give you carte blanche to break the d*mn law.

They seem to have a noble purpose, but they can't instill a positive change until they stop doing stupid crap like attacking random people just because they bought a fur coat or because, hey, I actually like a fricken burger or chicken sandwich sometimes.

That being said, I feel it rather obligatory at this point, to bring this up:

 

[Saulkar]

I condone eating meat, I condone wearing leather, I condone owning pets, I condone hunting for food, and I condone protecting endangered species. That is human nature and biology. What I dot not condone is animal testing, I do not condone animal torture, I do not condone the inhumane conditions that animals must endure in meat and product processing facilities, and I do not condone sports hunting. I feel that these views are far more realistic than those PETA nutjobs. There are individuals within PETA trying to make a realistic difference. Problem is as a whole they are doing more harm than good.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well of course their inhuman. They're interested in animals! Yuk yuk yuk!

Seriously though, I've seen statistics about how they kill more animals than they save. By alot. Like their kill to save ratio is well over half. Not to mention all the helpful organizations they boycott for using animal products or testing.

 

[Pscyon]

Can't say I'm too familiar with them since they're an exclusively American organization (I think?) but if they're protesting eating animals for food, then they are at the very least insane. Humans are omnivores; we are required to eat meat as well as veggies to be healthy. Yeah sure, you CAN get by without eating meat as there are other ways to get those proteins and whatnot but it's hardly convenient or natural. We COULD get by just wearing those IV thingies too, doesn't make it a great idea...

I do of course agree on their stance on animal cruelty; torture and misstreatment isn't acceptable towards anyone, human or animal. But most people probably do without going to their extremes.

 

[Bobic]

Now in terms of Hindi and Buddhist faiths, I understand fully well why they eat vegetables and fruits (maybe even animal byproducts) but when it's not limited by religion, I don't know.

Just out of curiosity, why is 'because this book tells me to' better reasoning than 'because animals feel pain and perhaps we should rise above all this animal cruelty malarky'?

And no, I'm not really defending PETA, they're a bunch of fools and I love me some kfc, I just don't like the thought that empathy is seen as 'inhuman' and I don't get why religion is given a free pass, especially when the reasoning behind that religion's choice was likely something to do with feeling empathy for animals. Or avoiding food poisoning, one of the two.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

As a vegan, anti-fur, animal rights activist (*flame shields up*), I kind of see PETA as the old crazy uncle of the animal rights movement. Their heart's in the right place, but they take everything too far, they can be quite dickish, and they say the worst things at the worst possible moment. I'd be happier if they went away, but I wouldn't look down on someone for donating to them, it's not like they're the ALF or anything.

If you're looking for a less crazy alternative, try ASPCA or Mercy for Animals.

And I'm not looking to debate with anyone, but the way I see it, if there are two products that are equally viable, and one of the products required killing an animal to make, you should go with the other product. That's my opinion at least, but I respect yours if you disagree.

 

[Rin Little]

They may not be inhuman, but some of the crap they pull is flat out stupid. And stupidity, unfortunately, is one of the key traits to being human. I don't condone animal cruelty and any time I see it I want to rip the person's throat out that's doing it, but I cannot be vegetarian or vegan. Meat is way too integrated into my diet for me to even try.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No no, I think they are all too human: arrogant, presumptuous, ignorant and really rather stupid.

 

[Furioso]

Anyone who has the audacity to say PETA is "doing their best" has not taken the time to actually research them, they actively promote violence, give big paychecks to anyone willing to firebomb animal research facilities, completely ignore any sort of science in their belief that animal testing cannot help humans, and over the past decade or so they have killed 86% of the animals they "rescued"

Edit: oh and this

 

[Hectix777]

I start off my argument noting that animals don't care about us (except maybe dogs) and no animal like a Bear would hesitate to kill a human if it weren't scared of us. In addition, animals also do not care about killing other animals for food. I see nothing wrong with the killing of animals for sustenance.

That being said, I'm not a fan of animal testing, do not approve of hunting for sport, and am absolutely against animal torture (which includes illegal activity such as dogfighting).

My views on PETA is that they are inhuman and try to ignore the relationship that humans (as an animal species itself) has had with other animals on the planet for our entire existence. They are extreme in their views and would put the lives of animals over the lives of self aware humans. Their tactics, like making a porn site with animal torture in it for 'awareness', are ineffective and paints them as a radical group on the fringe.

A lot if the times it sounds more like tactics made up by trolls.

 

[shilroc]

Two points...well, one point, and a side conversation that could be moved over to another thread I suppose.

I recently had the opportunity to work with two vegans who were previously employed with PETA. They described it as one of the worst work experiences they had ever had. Seen from the inside, they described a hypocritical, demoralizing, and all around nasty place to work. Pair that up with the extreme measures that PETA resorts to when demonstrating, you have an organization that does a LOT more damage than good, just in the negative appearance it gives to the animal rights movement.

I've noted a lot of people saying here that they are against "hunting for sport." I am just looking for some clarity here. Living in rural Colorado, hunting for meat is very much a part of the history of the area and a popular current activity. By law (in Colorado at least) you are required to take almost all of the animal with you after you kill it (pretty much everything except the internal organs, the neck, head, and ribs). I was wondering if this is considered "sport" hunting in the eyes of other posters.

I, as a hunter, am outraged when I see or hear about a bad hunting practice (al la killing an animal for the rack without taking the meat, parading the carcass around, or not tracking an animal that the hunter has wounded). Many other hunters that I have met feel the same. Many of these practices are outright illegal (again, at least in Colorado. I would assume it is similar in most states, but I don't know for certain without doing research).

So in summary, what is "sport hunting?" The killing of an animal for meat, or when an animal is killed only for a rack or some trophy to hang on the all?