Debate:PETA: Crazy or Good?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by Storytellershrink.

Well. Is PETA, in it's current and former days, doing more to help animal rights or hurt them. Or are they just nutty as squirrel poo? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 23:52, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Crazy

• Animal rights is a serious issue, and having the movement co-opted by its extremists is near-fatal to the good ideas that normal animal rights people hold. AAVS is carrying the torch for the normal people out there, and PETA is dragging animal rights through the mud.-caius (pirate) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Just wondering, is it PETA or Ingrid Newkirk? Because she is thoroughly insane, I am certain. But is PETA bad, or is she making it bad? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 00:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

• Yep, crazy, but I really can't figure out if they were always that way. Yes, Newkirk is undoubtedly insane in and of herself, but she's also co-founder of PETA. I just can't imagine that she's been slowly injecting her crazy into the group she founded; it seems much more likely that it's the bedrock of PETA. Then again, I can't understand why many of the folks who support PETA would actually support its current incarnation (for example, pet owners, who could be considered to be using pets for "entertainment"). While I can't be sure of it's past, I think it's pretty obvious it's that its current state is "off the deep end." For example, though I know it was meant specifically to cause a stir, the absolutely disgusting "Holocaust on your plate" exhibition/campaign (mentioned in the Penn & Teller: Bullshit episode on PETA) pretty much exemplifies their current extremism and weird doublethinkiness, considering their policy on euthanasia. What's worse is, like Ames said, there are a lot of reasonable groups out there trying to campaign for the humane treatment of animals (groups that quite a few of my friends actually work for) who have to actively try to distance themselves from PETA, which often A) doesn't work or B) confuses people who aren't aware of PETA's extremist policies/actions. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems it's just gone insane and detrimental to animal rights since Pacheco resigned as head of it, even he, a huge animal rights supporter hated where she was taking it. The documentary "I am an Animal", specifically the bit at the end, really showed how messed up she is. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 16:36, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

• I find Newkirk nuts definitely, and PETA as well. Just way too extremist, such as their Holocaust usage as mentioned before. --S 22:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
• The problem with PETA is that they take something that is good, which is humane treatment of animals, and turn it into a damned circus (pun halfway intended). They only serve to make celebrities feel good about themselves and alienate the middle. Most people, upon seeing a PETA ad, want to go get a rare steak out of pure spite. Tactics like destroying a person's fur coat (although I'm not sure that PETA specifically does this) is just counterproductive because the owner will just want to buy more fur out of, again, spite. Corry^Talk 23:02, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

PETA is not an advocate of humane treatment, they're in favor of animal liberation. Very different. See below.--Tom Moore^{fiat Justitia ruat coelum} 23:25, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

As for some of their tactics, they once ruined hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Jean-Paul Gautea (sp) furs, they have staged protests where several men and women roll around in paint as "blood", gotten naked and gotten on a grill, the infamous holocaust = chickens thing, they sent one informant into Butterball, and have euthanized thousands of animals and saved about 6. But Newkirk herself is a whole nother bag. Just google what she wrote in her will. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Now where did I put that Boeing..} 00:50, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

• I'll admit that some PETA members are nutjobs; there are fundies in every political position. I support animal rights myself and as a whole, I think their cause is just. Deftera 22:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• I believe that PETA's cause is just. However, their goals seem childish; their methods, outright deranged. These acts serve only to tarnish the good name of the movement. I cannot in good faith support such behavior. 74.249.148.166 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• humans are animals. animals eat other animals. Humans are animals. Animals kill. Humans are animals. Animals are violent, sometimes even brutal for "fun". Humans can choose not to inflict unnecessary pain onto others including animals, and that would be good. PETA takes what might be good, and turns it into an obsession and in fact, does some horribly sick things in the name of their obsession. Killing chickens, even horribly treated chickens will never, ever be the same as killing 1/2 (?) an entire population of people, simply because you hate their religion (Or something... never sure motivations of Hitler). These people are obsessed, they are irrational, and they cannot prioritize.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 21:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Crazy. Humans>beasts.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think that animal rights activists are truly crazy in most cases. all technological advances medical and otherwise, have been because of testing on animals. if you look at the facts, animals who are bred for this should be treated HUMANELY. these 'activists' hurt animals more than they're saving. by trying to get rid of hunting, your suddenly having people who have to go out and buy the meat they cant go out and shoot, thus making it so cattle farms need more. or medical testing, 25,000 people have been saved since the introduction of the pig valves to human hearts. by doing this, we have saved children worldwide. instead of focusing on beats, which are deserving of welfare, focus on human beings, like Africa, who suffer more than the worst animal abuse in most cases.

Not as crazy as...

In Britain a few years ago, a PETA representative was on the radio to debate the ethics of angling. Her argument was that it was cruel to the fish because, as vertebrates, they have complex nervous systems and so could feel pain. The counter-argument was that the PETA woman was a) an American and b) a woman, and that therefore fish do not have feelings. Totnesmartin 04:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Jack Thompson. he tried to ban a video game because players could supposedly create a character in his image and kill him.--Thanatos 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

and

Andrew Schlafly

Philosophy

If you believe in the same philosophical values as they do, then I think they have been uncompromisingly helpful. If you disagree with some elements, then you're going to think they're crazy. Only a few people (including me) will I think agree with their values but disagree with their practices. So this is first a philosophical question: how do you define animal rights?

Most PETA advocates are your generic "animals are cute and death is bad" animal rights activists, it seems to me. They are devoid of any real rational backing for their beliefs. But most of the policymakers are very well-supported with Singer's views on animal rights, which are very well-thought-out and rational.

Forgive my clumsy summations, but it mostly goes along these lines:

1. Intelligence cannot ethically be our guideline for considering the suffering of a creature, otherwise the mentally retarded could ethically be harnessed to plows. Similarly, current IQ tests without exception favor white urbanites, but this does not mean that their suffering is more important to prevent than a rural black.
2. Accordingly, we must attempt to prevent as much suffering as we possibly can.
3. In the modern world, only a few remote tribes are in the position of needing to eat meat or use animals for entertainment. The rest of the world considers this a convenience or a pleasure.
4. Accordingly, it is not ethical to raise animals in suffering and then kill them for food or clothing, nor is it permissible to cause them suffering for entertainment. Doing these things increases their suffering and supports it, which in the absence of real need cannot possibly be justified.

PETA generally acts according to this philosophical model, which is sound inasmuch as I can see. Is there anyone besides me who agrees with the above philosophy but still thinks PETA are morons?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:25, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Where does Pamela Anderson Lee fit in? I think their tactics are self defeating. Corry^Talk 23:42, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

She fits in the "animals are cute and death is bad" slot, along with most other celebrity advocates, I think.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:45, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

What about actions such as releasing infected animals from lab cages into an urban center; or releasing minks from a mink farm into non-native countryside? Even if what is being done is unethical, the direct consequences of these actions should be considered more unethical.Researcher 09:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)

• I admit that some PETA members are nutjobs, there are some in every political postition. As a whole though I think their cause is just.

Public relations nightmare

I am very in favor of treating animals with care and a degree of respect. They should live as normal a life as possible , and be as happy and unconcerned as possible for their lives, however long that is. I like the idea my grandfather had , that a cow that reached the end of her milking life was put out to pasture and allowed to live with the others until she died of old age. I dont agree with using bunnies to test makeup, use people instead. For medical research though if a few hundred rats need to die horribly to cure or even treat a disease then , sorry ratty but you go. People need to eat , and animals that we eat are often tasty, so sorry , live well, die happy, I respect you with every tasty bite. Peta take the thing to extremes though. Fish are NOT sea kitties, and fur for clothing is a good idea. Farm animals for fur and move on. I keep hoping that they will get bitten by the infectious rodent they are releasing from a lab or even shredded by a pack of minks. I really dont mind when some women from Peta parade around naked in protests, but please , not the old fatties :( - ok thats sexist but so what ? Peta mainly seems ruled by the crazies. Hamster (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it is a protest, would you rather we throw rocks? Hmmm let me see what I can do for you. Alicia Silverstone will be satisfactory, yes?

Rats are more aware of somethings than a 2 year old human (although most pets are).

Rats love kitties

...and they are delicious. But I agree that some medical research may justify rat suffering IF there is no better use of the funding. (Nobody tell Hamster that many people look better with makeup and without face/eyeball cancer.) Although there seem to be a lot of innocent people in prison (due to misidentification or bad laws), "criminals" should be able to lessen their punishment (I don't mean releasing violent criminals) by being the objects of vivisection.

We vote with our dollars not our words (seldom do we have the opportunity to vote with our vote, and these measures are often misleading). If you don't want to know how evil are your purchases, they will make sure you can't.

I say, let groups like PETA maintain webcams in factory farms and other places where animals are collaterally tortured, and put these images next to the respective advertisements of succulent meats and luxurient leathers.

Unicow (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that after 50 years at least of cosmetics testing that their chemists would have a good idea of what humans can tolerate so dripping it into bunny eyes seems a waste of a good bunny. Farms are farms , some good , some bad , people vote with their money by purchasing stuff from said farms. I dont have a problem with testing on 2 year old humans if that was your suggestion. There are places still that I can buy a 15 year old virgin and noone expects to get her back, infants are much cheaper. Rat on a stick is good eating but you need a meaty rat, nice and plump, preferably grain fed. 19:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet they are still testing them. The choice is buying things that have substances that were ever tested on animals, and buying things that were never tested on animals. I'll put in a plug for Midsummer's Night Cream from Trader Joes. Says it is made without animal by-products or animal testing, it smells like plants not fragrance, and you could add water and make 3-6 bottles of regular lotion (but you have to cut the bottles open to get it all because it is so thick).

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was suggesting testing on innocent humans. I think there may be unforeseen consequences of legalizing painful tests on innocent and non-consenting humans. Babies grow up so if you don't kill them they might be a little angry if they find out. Babies are just another defenseless "minority" and there are plenty of groupings where we are defenseless minorities. Maybe not if you have the means to purchase all your own law enforcement, but there is always someone bigger who is itching for a justification to confiscate your assets, be they minors, property, or what have you. Abortion is similar but different because it is asking a lot of someone to continue a pregnancy they want to end. Ideally abortion should be painless for the aborted IMO. Unicow (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Babies, fetuses, embryos, insects, plants, mushrooms. Which of them can sense pain? Which can suffer? Why are you so sure? How come that creatures that aren't cute, fluffy, useful or otherwise sympathetic are of so little concern to animal rights activists? You have all the answers, I only have questions; you've got to be so much smarter than I. --84.151.220.115 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Research vs Om nom nom nom

I've often seen it said that people disagree with animal testing but agree with eating meat. They either see that as the best "compromise" or that's the more acceptable moral situation. We're naturally omnivorous creatures, but not naturally using medicines and cosmetics. Well, that's a bit odd despite the bullshitting with the naturalistic fallacy. Because let's face it, there are alternatives to eating meat; the key word is omniviorous after all. Yet there aren't alternatives to animal testing - ignore the people who say there is, there really isn't a substitute for in vivo research. Just look up how open heart surgery was developed, not a single human patient from the first batch died precisely because the operation was trialled on pigs first. So really, if you want a "compromise", let's not eat animals but let's test everything out on them first. ADK^{...I'll push your queen!} 21:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Animal testing saves lives.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that was his point - that's why we should keep it, because human lives are more valuable than animal lives. But perhaps human taste preferences are not more valuable than animal lives.--^talk 22:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

PETA doesn't do much good.

PETA doesn't seem to be doing much. Sure they say things like Brittany wore fake fur, oh my that's promoting animal cruelty. Now don't get me wrong, I love animals and I absolutely will not stand for mistreatment, but their practices are ridiculous and aren't representing the cause very well. Take for example the Mario instance recently. PETA said that Mario changing into a Tanooki suit (fantasy animal) promotes kids to wear fur. It's quite ridiculous especially since Tanooki is a fantasy animal much like Big Foot, so it's saying that it's not okay for kids to wear big foot suits. Another thing is that in Mario, you throw fireballs at turtles. Obviously that's a bit more serious than a Tanooki suit. There are also little kids wearing Lion suits for halloween, and most likely they aren't animal haters who have a hatred for lions. Look at the Flintstones, they have been on the air forever and PETA hasn't called them out. I don't know if any of you have heard about the Colorado incident, but a while ago, thousands of cows starved in a blizzard and PETA didn't even try to help them. The Colorado governor said that they were "losers" and "didn't even lift a finger" to try and help the Coloradans. Coloradans actually gave PETA thousands of dollars to come and help the cows, but they never came. Better yet, they tried to blame the Coloradans for murdering the cows. This not only makes PETA unreliable, but straight out liars.

PETA doesn't seem to want to help animals, but protest their rights. I'm glad they are protesting animal rights, but only if they do it accordingly and correctly.

PETA has a high euthanization rate with this in defence. The percentage being killed and how quickly it takes for the PETA's shelter to put an animal on the euthanasia list is still suspiciously high and I wouldn't be surprised if they got lazy and had distorted views on what animals were "too far gone". Nonprofit organizations like Vet Ranch, which takes and treats animals on the euthanasia list of various shelters, show that many of them can still live happy and normal lives after treatment but it's expensive so you can see where PETA's priorities lie. They'd rather put more funding into ads and seem to be intentionally shocking and do wild stunts to gain media attention on themselves.

PETA's bigotry harms animal welfare. DO NOT let PETA members adopt (or go near) your animals

PETA’s zero-compromise, my-lifestyle-choices-make-me-better-than-you, superiority complex doesn’t help animals. Most don’t join PETA because they love animals. You join PETA because you love drama, and you cower behind the false premise of “animal welfare” to justify committing hate crimes & acts of intolerance, at the expense of unnecessary animal suffering. I foster rabbits, and will allow virtually anyone to adopt them whom I believe will give them a good home. However, between the lack of any common sense/reasoning capability that applies to a large portion of their members, and PETA's tendency to kill healthy companion animals just because they can, PETA members are NOT welcome to adopt (or even be near) my rabbits, and I encourage those who foster animals to NOT allow PETA members to adopt from you.

Undoubtedly, PETA and other nutjob animal rights organizations have caused as much harm as they have good. Let me first say that some ideas from these organizations make some good, legitimate, and important points. I think the way the Western world looks at animals is not always a good thing…we need to change the way we look at the animals we use. And I do not mean that in a sense of having dietary or lifestyle changes forced on the masses, but rather rethinking our treatment of the animals used for consumption. An animal used for food should still have a dignified life & death and some of the conditions these animals see are horrendous. That can change, and it should.

But then when some goofball starts comparing animal consumption to genocide or slavery, tries to argue that pigs should be able to vote, claims the life of a pigeon is as sacred as a child, proposes a ban on seeing eye dogs & all companion animals, or argues every person should be forced to live a certain lifestyle, that causes harm. When one has the attitude that anyone else who does not strictly adhere to their own personal standards are somehow lesser of a human, that can cause great harm. This is called bigotry; it has played a catalyst for some of the worst human rights violations in recorded history, and it is something PETA constantly displays.

It doesn’t just harm people…it harms animals also!!! It makes people not care. If you want to change something, you need to work together. The conduct of PETA members puts people on the defensive and encourages belligerence rather than change and it drives people to take actions out of spite. Making a lot of people angry doesn’t make a lot of change. Then, when rational people try to improve animal welfare, we get grouped in with these fools. When a PETA member hands out a ‘bucket of blood’ to a 7 year old, argues ice cream should be made from human milk, or condemns animal research involved in life-saving treatments, we look like complete idiots and people do not want to help. The PETA extremism pushes people away from this subject, and makes it taboo.

PETA’s argument for their extremism is that it gets results and it gets attention…they do not realize that is the wrong kind of attention, much like Britney Spears shaving her head. By PETA standards, most people are dumb and do not care about animals, which I disagree with 100%. If you approach people in a civil manner, make a logical argument, and strive for a solution, positive change can occur and this happens every day. PETA cannot accept & respect the fact that not everyone wants to adopt their 100% vegan lifestyle, but just because someone consumes animal products does not mean they are apathetic to the living conditions of these animals. This sort of intolerance shows that principles are far more important to PETA than actual animal welfare, as they are intentionally alienating potential allies.

So does PETA help animals?...or is the “change” that they manage technically a net loss of what improvements to animal welfare could occur if this was approached in a more sane & respectful manner? Oh, and PETA should also be reclassified as a slaughterhouse. Check out their stats on the number of animals they euthanize (and then literally throw the bodies into a dumpster and blame Asian-Americans, which isn’t racist whatsoever...) --PNZT1 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I know very little about PETA but is this, for example, really true: "(It) tries to argue that pigs should be able to vote, claims the life of a pigeon is as sacred as a child"?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)