View Full Version : watch out for PETA

Pages : 1 2 [3]

Jan 9th, 2008, 09:50 PM
I've seen the video now and I think it's complete rubbish. Gah, I'm sort of angry now. :rolleyes:

Jan 9th, 2008, 10:26 PM
Astrid, do you mean you've seen the complete HBO documentary "I Am an Animal" ? Or something else? I've seen it and can't find the complete thing on the web but I did find this Ingrid Newkirk vid that clearly shows she endorses it and calls it a "well rounded" film.

HBO has some interviews with the filmmaker and more here. (http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/iamananimal/)

Jan 9th, 2008, 10:55 PM
No, no, the Penn & Teller video Ymber talked about in the first post. :rolleyes:

Feb 16th, 2010, 12:37 PM
Taking insulin and being vegan are not hypocritical. In the book "Being Vegan" Joanne Stepaniak specifically tell us as vegans to be as healthy as possible, and if we let ourselves be sick, we give the wrong impression to non-vegans and non-animal lovers. If we own a car, we are not complete vegans anyway. If we own a home or even rent an apartment or home, we are not completely vegan. Wine is not vegan. How many of us drink regular wine. I bet many of us do. There is a vegan wine, but I forget the name.

Feb 16th, 2010, 02:08 PM
Also, another woman uses insulin, as she is diabetic, which was derived from animal testing and contains some animal products. She simply says that her life is too important and she needs it to fight for the animals, even though they are completely against animal testing.

Are you sure of your facts here? My bf is Type 1 diabetic, and most insulins used nowadays are synthetic, not animal-derived. And suggesting that a diabetic go without insulin is just absurd; why should she stop working for a cause she believes in, simply because there is no alternative to animal-tested medications? I'm epileptic and need to take medication to keep me seizure-free, medication which has undoubtedly been animal-tested. What do you suggest I do? Go back to eating meat because I'm not a "true vegan"?

Feb 16th, 2010, 02:32 PM
What should a vegan do if they must take medications? I am a vegan through and through, but I must take 3 drugs 3 times a day for the rest of my life. If not for these drugs, I would have committed suicide. I am suffering from a rare disorder and I have this disorder for 7 years now. I was already a vegan when I got this disorder. It bothers me that I am taking drugs that most likely were tested on animals, but it would be wrong for a vegan to look unhealthy or die because of veganism. We need to give off the best reasons for being vegan, and dying and looking sickly will do harm to veganism. We need to live in order to continue sending out the message! Animal testing is No. 1 on my list that causes me sadness due to the suffering at the hands of humans. These very same monsters that torture animals by day, go home at night and kiss their children good night and tell them to say their prayers before they go to sleep. It bothers the hell out of me.

Feb 18th, 2010, 07:34 AM
Penn and Teller are utter c0cks.
Did you see the one about vegans?

I think I did (before I was vegan) and found them really annoying and many of their arguments stupid.

RE animal testing: Why do non vegans always set such high standards for us to live when they don't live to the standards themselves? I have had the same with people saying human rights are more important and I should focus on that... But then are they going to human rights demonstrations or getting involved in activism? No, of course not... But many vegans are.

Feb 18th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Don't ever trust a show meant to entertain and agree with the masses as fact. I've seen that particular episode, and it is just that, bullshit. Their evidence is petty at best and is more random blurry photographs and edited quotes than anything.

PETA may be a pain sometimes but they do turn a lot of people veg*n (myself included) so I'm not going to kick and scream that PETA is the devil. There are far worse charities out there, imo (i.e. RSPCA).

Apr 2nd, 2010, 12:23 PM
I agree with Gary Francione on this:

"Question 13: Isn’t taking advantage of medications or procedures developed through the use of animals inconsistent with taking an animal rights position?

Answer: No, it is not. Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the “benefits” of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals.

This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.

Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide.

We certainly could develop drugs and surgical procedures without the use of animals, and many would prefer we do so. Those who object to animal use for these purposes, however, have no control as individuals over government regulations or corporate policies concerning animals. To say that they cannot consistently criticize the actions of government or industry while they derive benefits from these actions, over which they have no control, is absurd as a matter of logic. And as a matter of political ideology, it is a most disturbing endorsement of unquestioned obeisance to the policies of the corporate state. Indeed, the notion that we must either embrace animal exploitation or reject anything that involves animal use is eerily like the reactionary slogan “love it or leave it,” uttered by the pseudo-patriots who criticized opponents of American involvement in the Vietnam War.

Moreover, humans have so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal exploitation completely. Animal by-products are used in a wide variety of things, including the asphalt on roads and synthetic fabrics. But the impossibility of avoiding all contact with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most obvious and serious forms of exploitation. The individual who is not stranded in a lifeboat or on a mountaintop always has it within her power to avoid eating meat and dairy products, products that could not be produced without the use of animals, unlike drugs and medical procedures, which could be developed without animal testing."


Personally, I would take a medicine even if it was developed by vivisecting human babies, but I would not support further vivisecting human babies. (And I would also take advantage of data collected by vivisecting humans in concentration camps, but, of course, would never support human vivisection.)

(I say vivisecting, because clinical testings are always conducted on human volunteers.)

Apr 2nd, 2010, 03:40 PM
I have not read this entire thread, but I am in a hurry, and I will read all of the postings a.s.a.p. but I just want to say that I only recently started reading Gary Francione books. I heard the debate he had with (was it Tom Regan? I don't remember right now) and I immediately was drawn to Gary Francione's belief that animal rights organizations that just get laws passed to give chicken's a couple of more feet in their battery cages or outlawing downers in the beef and pork business, just gives meat eaters a better conscience and the result is they continue to eat meat and most likely always will. When I heard this, all of the animal rights organizations that I support started running through my mind, and I realized that I totally agreed with Gary Francione.

But in defense of PETA and every other animals rights organizations, they all might not be perfect, but they do much more good than harm. I learned only recently that most animal rights organizations own stock in MacDonalds, the dairy company's and many more. I asked the founder of Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, New York (who also owns MacDonald's stock), and he explained that it gives them the right to sit in on the shareholders meetings and speak out for the animals.