What aspect of PETA pisses you off the most?

[Fox242]

I know that there must be a plethora of PETA topics right now due to their most recent media stunt involving our favorite Italian plumber. However, I was wondering, what specific aspect or stance of PETA just pisses you off the most? This requires that you hate them in the first place.

For me personally, it's difficult to narrow down. Their campaigns are usualy stupid and/or offensive, with the "Holocaust on Your Plate" being particularly infamous. However, the campaings come and go. Their stance regarding the use of dogs is permanent and infuriating. The relationship between dogs and humans is as old as time and has been insturmental in the survival of our species. Dogs seem to have no end to their uses for us, but PETA would rather do away with them. They are actually against the use of bomb/drug sniffing dogs and seeing eye dogs. Those type of dogs save lives. Apparently PETA would rather their be unabated bomb/drug smuggling and blind people unable to get around the street. Fuck that, and fuck PETA.

 

[Loonyyy]

Personally, I'm glad they're out there. Whether or not all of their views are in line with mine, or their values align to mine, having an organisation who advocate the respect for animals is a good thing. Sure, I like seeing eye dogs and the like, but I can see the issues in training and caring for these dogs, especially EOD dogs (There's an interesting story in a book called SAS Sniper, an autobiography of an Australian serviceman, where an EOD dog, excited at his find of an IED, alerted his handler, then ran back and tried to dig it up, and was killed by the bomb). They keep the rest of us honest. Whether or not we need to do as they say, they perform a valuable service as the devil's advocate.

The example of Holocaust on your plate is actually a great example of people not understanding the organisation. It seems insensitive from most peoples point of view, but if you consider it from the point of view of someone who considers animals to be morally equal to humans, the analogy is perfect. It's a subjective issue. That's why the campaign was a bad idea, but not necessarily stupid. I could also point out that since drug dogs and bomb dogs are in danger, you think that the use of dogs rather than technological solutions (Which do exist, but are often more expensive) is an ethical decision, or that forcing a dog to guide a person until that person dies, is a perfect solution. Now, while I disagree with them that these things should be stopped, I do think it raises the question of what we can do instead. How can we do these things better?

 

[RheynbowDash]

PETA is nothing but a bunch of hippocrites and liars. No one actually listens to what they say anymore.
Here's a chart of their hippocracy:

Spoiler

 

[Neverhoodian]

Probably the fact that they support domestic terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation Front. It's one thing to be a hypocrite, but firebombing buildings and endangering fellow humans the sake of animals goes beyond the pale.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Personally, I'm glad they're out there. Whether or not all of their views are in line with mine, or their values align to mine, having an organisation who advocate the respect for animals is a good thing. Sure, I like seeing eye dogs and the like, but I can see the issues in training and caring for these dogs, especially EOD dogs (There's an interesting story in a book called SAS Sniper, an autobiography of an Australian serviceman, where an EOD dog, excited at his find of an IED, alerted his handler, then ran back and tried to dig it up, and was killed by the bomb). They keep the rest of us honest. Whether or not we need to do as they say, they perform a valuable service as the devil's advocate.

The example of Holocaust on your plate is actually a great example of people not understanding the organisation. It seems insensitive from most peoples point of view, but if you consider it from the point of view of someone who considers animals to be morally equal to humans, the analogy is perfect. It's a subjective issue. That's why the campaign was a bad idea, but not necessarily stupid. I could also point out that since drug dogs and bomb dogs are in danger, you think that the use of dogs rather than technological solutions (Which do exist, but are often more expensive) is an ethical decision, or that forcing a dog to guide a person until that person dies, is a perfect solution. Now, while I disagree with them that these things should be stopped, I do think it raises the question of what we can do instead. How can we do these things better?

Except... they aren't lobbying for treating animals decently. They're lobbying for animal RIGHTS. Which is insane. Because can you actually imagine animals voting? And besides, with the rights come responsibilities. If animals were "emancipated" as it were, then they'd end up in animal prison for not paying taxes; for shitting, pissing, and having sex in public; for attacking people and each other, and the list goes on and on.

There are other groups out there lobbying for treating animals decently... but PETA isn't one of them. Not by any means. You see... PETA actually euthanizes 2/3 of the animals it takes in, which indicates that they don't even bother trying to find a home for it... actually that's another point; they don't want anyone to have pets. Feel like a sucker yet?

Oh yeah, and some of their members both past, current, and present, have firebombed animal testing labs. Let's get one thing straight here, scientists who conduct animal testing have to conform to a strict set of ethics or they face being arrested and jailed for a very long time. Scientists conducting animal testing are supposed to do everything they can to minimize the pain and discomfort that the animals might feel as a result of the experiment. Granted, it isn't perfect and there are the occasional idiots... but the system works for the most part.

Finally, if anyone at PETA was serious about preventing animals from being tested on in labs... then every single member of PETA should be signing waivers and volunteering to be experimented on. We would learn MUCH more from human testing than animal testing. Oh and before I forget, one of the higher ups, Ingrid Nooker, uses insulin. That's right, she uses medicine made out of pigs. Can you say hypocrite?

 

[CD-R]

The fact that they kill animals mostly.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

 

[Soviet Steve]

For me it's their support for terrorism, with their animal genocide coming in a close second given their mission to promote animal rights.

I try to approach it rationally and say 'how can we ensure animals suffer as little as possible' seeing how that's what we are able to do for animals in return for food or research subjects. PETA serverely undermines that approach and makes me want to go out and break a cat's leg for the sadistic joy it'd provide, though naturally I would never do such a thing.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

That they need to shut up and have some bacon
But if you think about it, at least for farm animals, eating meat has made other species survive because if we didn't eat them, we would have killed them all off a long time ago.

Also, they need to grow brain cells.

 

[Athinira]

The massive amounts of hypocrisy.

 

[Lilani]

It pisses me off that they don't realize how ineffective they are. I mean, it's one thing to have extreme views, but to actually firmly believe that if your actions are extreme enough you'll suede the average person join you is ludicrous. They are clueless about the powers of subtlety. Their very actions are what discredit them the most--not their views. If they actually tried, they could sell their views to a few more people. But they refuse to change their strategy, so it's rather like watching a car accelerate while it's in neutral. It'll make a lot of noise, but it won't get anywhere anytime soon.

 

[midknight129]

Respecting animals is one thing; what PETA does is something else entirely. Even if they actually did what they claimed they stand for, their basic principal is fundamentally flawed. Animals aren't equal to humans; they are equitable to humans. Mere existence in today's society wouldn't be possible without the contributions domesticated animals made; we'd still be a hunter-gatherer society and be hunting animals in the wild. I respect all life. When I eat both meat and plants (remember, plants are alive too), I respect the contribution they make to my health and life. My immune system doesn't destroy pathogens out of hate or malice but out of a natural reaction to protect my life. PETA wants animals to be "free" but domesticated animals just can't survive now that they've been bred to rely on human interactions. Research has even shown that Dogs in particular have developed a psychological evolution because of long-standing connection with humans and they think and act more like us than we give them credit for. I don't expect my cat to function as a human, I expect her to function as herself (and, coincidentally, she's more human-like than most other cats I've seen). The only reason I prefer to refrain from eating meat is for nutritional reasons; I keep meat consumption to a minimum. I don't see a large insect and step on it simply to make it die as I've seen other people do because there's no practical purpose to it; but if I needed to eat it, I'd kill and eat an animal with all the respect it is due. PETA is no better than fanatical religious zealots like the radical Christian crusaders of ancient times and radical Muslim terrorists of modern times.

 

[Viral_Lola]

The ad campaigns and what they protest. They are terrible at what they do and they don?t help their cause. For an animals right group, they don?t really care about finding good homes for animals and with that amount of funding, they could do more but they don?t. Sorry but there are smaller groups are much more effective.

The massive amounts of hypocrisy.

Agreed.

 

[Loonyyy]

Except... they aren't lobbying for treating animals decently. They're lobbying for animal RIGHTS. Which is insane. Because can you actually imagine animals voting? And besides, with the rights come responsibilities. If animals were "emancipated" as it were, then they'd end up in animal prison for not paying taxes; for shitting, pissing, and having sex in public; for attacking people and each other, and the list goes on and on.

Let me guess... You saw the same Penn and Teller episode I did? Just a guess. I love that show. Animal Rights is what all of the groups go by. Not a single one that I know of is advocating animal voting, let alone PETA. That's insane, and its only you making that claim. That's the Strawman Fallacy. Freeing animals from mistreatment does not mean integrating them into society. That's simple. No-one claims that. Making up a point makes the argument worthless.

There are other groups out there lobbying for treating animals decently... but PETA isn't one of them. Not by any means. You see... PETA actually euthanizes 2/3 of the animals it takes in, which indicates that they don't even bother trying to find a home for it... actually that's another point; they don't want anyone to have pets. Feel like a sucker yet?

Nope. I realise that animals do sometimes need to be euthanised. That's obvious. Most animal shelters also do it. It's an unfortunate consequence of pet ownership: Some people aren't responsible enough to do so, and the animals suffer. The RSPCA (Royal Society For Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), in Australia, where I live, who run most of the animal shelters and animal control centers do the same. It's an unfortunate necessity. Many pets can not be found a home, and many of these will have to be put down. The part about pets is also factually wrong, just read their goddamn website already, http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/default2.aspx . It's the same message you see everywhere: A pet is not necessarily a good gift, spay and neuter, and adopt if you can. It's really easy to use secondary sources rather than a primary source, but doing so compromises the information. I don't feel like a sucker, and since you haven't a clue of understanding my mentality, morality, or cognitive process, I wouldn't presume to be writing so smugly.

Oh yeah, and some of their members both past, current, and present, have firebombed animal testing labs. Let's get one thing straight here, scientists who conduct animal testing have to conform to a strict set of ethics or they face being arrested and jailed for a very long time. Scientists conducting animal testing are supposed to do everything they can to minimize the pain and discomfort that the animals might feel as a result of the experiment. Granted, it isn't perfect and there are the occasional idiots... but the system works for the most part.

I agree. The firebombing of scientific laboratories is an atrocious act. Don't put it in terms of getting things straight, I never said that I thought that firebombing was a good thing. That's a monster strawman you've set up. PETA does not firebomb, but it is true that some members have done so. The organisation does not. However, it has previously had some ties to the ALF, the Animal Liberation Front. Yes, these guys are the firebombers. They're listed as a terrorist organisation by the department of homeland security in the US. They're bad dudes. PETA should probably not support them in any way. That's something I agree with. You're right on about that, and that's a significant dissonance I have with their position, which I never said I agreed with, though you seem to think I do, or I'm deluded, or SOMETHING. I also agree with animal testing for science and medicine: I value a human life more than an animal one. I'm a vegetarian, but if it took killing an animal to stay alive, then I'd do it. On a similar note, at all times in my life, before I stopped eating meat, and now, after; if it took killing a human to stay alive, I'd do it. Most people will do what they must to survive. I'll happily use animal tested medicine, and I understand the protocols involved with medical testing (Which coincidentally, include euthanization if the animal is suffering undue stress).

Finally, if anyone at PETA was serious about preventing animals from being tested on in labs... then every single member of PETA should be signing waivers and volunteering to be experimented on. We would learn MUCH more from human testing than animal testing. Oh and before I forget, one of the higher ups, Ingrid Nooker, uses insulin. That's right, she uses medicine made out of pigs. Can you say hypocrite?

This is crazy. Not wanting Animal testing does not necessitate self sacrifice. You seem to be using some crazy slippery slope logic here, and falsely using reductio ad absurdium. Yes, I'd say that using animal insulin if you disagree with animal testing is hypocritical. That doesn't make the organisation by default wrong. That's the perfect solution fallacy right there. Are you serious about something? How about not being murdered in your sleep by a burglar? If you're serious, join the police force. I'm sure, since you're on a gaming forum, that you don't like videogame censorship. That's a pretty good bet. If you were SERIOUS, you would become a chief justice of the supreme court so that you could stop legislature designed to restrict videogames. This argument doesn't make sense, and it's needless, because if you'll read on, there is plenty to hate.

Look, I don't like plenty of their activities: Everything they've done to do with video games is pointless, irrelevant, useless, counterproductive and stupid. The Mario Tanuki suit for instance, involves no animal torment whatsoever. It's a digital image. Likewise, digging at Super Meat Boy is stupid and pathetic. The thing with Battlefield 3? Ridiculous (Although, the moment they decided that I needed a quick time event for some intense human/rat combat was the moment I realised that the game might not be worth playing.... So I went off to fly Jets in multi ). They tend towards sanctimonity and preachiness. They have some serious transparency issues, such as the issue with the euthanisation. They have previously supported members of groups which commit crimes. There's a serious cognitive dissonance involved in utilizing modern medicine and opposing medical testing on animals. This would be why I'm not a member of PETA, and this would be why I don't have a PETA bumper sticker, or go around saying "Meat is Murder"-Herp DERP. But the tendency is to hate for pointless hyperbolic reasons: Look at my last paragraph here: Plenty to hate! If you hate the hypocrisy: It's there. Hate Sanctimonity, you dirty filthy omnivore (Joking, just joking, I really don't care what you choose to eat)? Then FIRE AWAY. Hate animal Euthanization, or think Animals should vote? Hate Away! Radical transparency advocate (Wikileaks philosophy)? This is a perfect example of an organisation which has little to no transparency. Hate involvement with terrorists? Wait, leave this one, hate the ALF for firebombing, hate the firebombers, but since I can't think of a single government off the top of my head that hasn't colluded with terrorists, then that's out... But we can still hate the ALF here, and that's close enough.

I don't necessarily like them, or their points of view. But their position does gain traction, and does contribute to greater respect being given to animals, especially those which are by necessity going to die for us. That's a valuable service, even if you despise the group and their motivations.

Funnily enough... this means I actually respond to the original post, by listing what about PETA pisses me off.

 

[Biodeamon]

that they're complete fucking hypocrits. Not only do they make human lives miserable so much that you can't poke a damn chicken and they go bonkers but they make animal lives miserable too with the conditions they house them in. They go to means that if somebody was not a licensed member of PETA they would be arrested for terrorism. And did you know that all of the animals that PETA captures (no i'm not going to "save" or even "take" becuase that would be too nice with the methods they use to obtain animals) they almsot always kill? yes, that's right they actually euthanize almost every animal they find. And lastly they are completely oversensitive...they sued battlefield three becuase a rat was killed in it's game. honestly.

 

[Bruenin]

PETA? They keep eating all the tasty animals and leave none for me

 

[Phlakes]

That people are giving them the attention they want. No matter how right you are or what you criticize, the best thing you can do is ignore them.

EDIT: It's actually a foolproof plan. They know that the internet will rage every time they release something. They're counting on it. And they're laughing every time you give them hits on their website, even if you're there to flame them.

 

[loudestmute]

Personally, I think of it as hypocritical to fight for animals to have human rights, while working to prevent animal rights to humans. They're allowed to hump legs without asking for consent, urinate on anything they want to possess for themselves, and maul anyone who happens to catch them on a bad day.

Me, I'm still on probation for the leg humping.

 

[FlaktheFox]

For me, it's their hypocrisy and their borderline immoral statements.

I'm quoting Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA in this following quote, and while it may or may not be word for word right, this is really what she said.

"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

In their minds, Animals lives > Human lives.

While I'm here, I might as well link to a VERY insightful episode of Penn & Teller's: Bullshit about PETA.