Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 211

Thread: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

  1. #51
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    With all due respect to those of you who mention that Peta turned you vegan... please understand that the reason some of us don't support Peta isn't (of course) because they have helped some people go vegan. They do that - too, and that's of course great.

    Both based on the experience I've had with running this site and from other situations, I've often noticed that people who have an opinion or disagree with someone tend to look at whatever they have an opinion about, isolated, somehow - or at least without looking at possible alternative options. In the case of Peta, it doesn't make much sense to look at Peta and imagine two situations: a world with Peta as it is today. vs. a world without a large pro-veg, pro-animal profile and many members.

    If we include some degree of imagination, some visionary perspective to any pro/con dilemma, we shouldn't look at 'something' vs 'nothing'. We shouldn't look at 'Peta' vs 'not Peta', but look at what would have happened if the many people who have supported a similar. but better organization, or if Peta wouldn't have those links to eg. ALF, Pamela Anderson/Paris Hilton type of squezzing some promotive value out of already over-exposed 'celebrities', without their IMO far to wide*profile... and so on.

    By the way: By 'wide' profile I mean that they IMO have decided to have an opinion about way too many things - things that would be better off supported by separate groups. If they want to 'shock' people with nudity (is nudity really that shocking nowadays anyway?) - do it in a separate activist group. If they really want to help people from ELF and ALF with money? Isolate it from promoting veganism and vegetarianism, out of respect for the veg*n movement. Do these people want to be actively involved in killing a lot of pets? Do it within a organizational frame that's dedicated to that kind of work.

    Do they want to provide reliable, in-depth information about plant based nutrition the way some other groups are trying to do? Well.... it seems that they aren't even interested. They are probably the only pro-veg organization on the earth that could put a lot of money into that kind of research, but they don't.

    Maybe they (or their leader) simply see things differently than many of us do. Ingrid Newkirk apparently have said that she would have eaten roadkill if she could:

    "I loved meat, liver above all,'' she told me. If liver were somehow morally permissible, I asked her, would she eat it again? "My God, I would eat it tomorrow. Now. I would eat roadkill if I could. "I'd eat burgers, steak, anything. I love car racing and meat."
    Maybe she actually looks at animals and meat as desirable food, but is capable of holding back. I have no idea, and maybe all this isn't really relevant either.


    If the topic is 'do I support this group or not', it isn't relevant if they made you vegan or not. It's relevant on a personal level, of course, but the really relevant part is that whatever Peta did that made you go vegan was good for you. This could be done by someone else than Peta if peta didn't exist, or it could be done by a different Peta.

    If I was a politician, and saved someone from drowning in a river this morning, I don't expect them to vote for my political party tomorrow, and even if Peta would have saved my life, I wouldn't have seen that as a reason to necessarily support them or everything they do - or enough of what they do to actually donate money to them.

    Of course Peta has made a lot of people vegetarian and vegan, but that doesn't mean that Peta in 2009 wouldn't benefit from undergoing major changes in order to make even more people go vegan - and to reduce the number of people of have increased skepticism against veganism after having learned about Peta. It's also to make people go vegan in ways that will ake them vegan for longer than it takes to get over the shock you get after having seen some undercover video from a slaughterhouse.


    However - it may be too late 'reform' Peta. The link to Newkirk and what seems to be a firm belief in the old myth about 'all publicity being goof publicity' may be so strong that even if Peta would undergo a revolution tomorrow, it would take decades before people would stop thinking of Peta they way it is today. In worst case, the skepticism against Peta wouldn't decrease until one of her eyes already was "removed, mounted, and delivered to the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a reminder that PETA will continue to be watching the agency until it stops poisoning and torturing animals in useless and cruel experiments" and "that the other is to be used as PETA sees fit", as stated in her will.

    What if she isn't the leader of Peta when she dies? Have they really made a long-term contract about what to with the body of a person after she's dead... a person who may be replaced by someone else next year? How deep is the tie between Newkirk and Peta... anyone?

    I'm often surprised to see comments from vegans here who tend to get very negative feedback from friends and family when they go vegan. That seem to be very rare where I live. Maybe this actually is because Peta isn't represented here, so very few people have been 'shocked' by their 'shock tactics' yet?
    Last edited by Korn; Feb 12th, 2009 at 09:28 AM.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  2. #52
    V for Veganica Sarabi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    543

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Korn View Post
    It somehow works, some extra people will stop and watch, but that doesn't mean that they'll agree in the message or have increased respect for the organization behind the protest - not by the people who stop and watch, and not by media.
    Agreed, Korn. I think what's most telling of all, superficially, is that PETA is known and disliked by so many meat-eaters. If PETA is getting intense and numerous negative reactions from all sides, what's the point? PETA *does* trivialize veganism by turning it mainstream, white supremacist, anti-immigrant and overall CONSERVATIVE for the sake of attention. We don't need to be trivialized. I am not saying that PETA doesn't do simple things that are good, but they will always be caked in this mental manure because PETA just doesn't care about intersecting issues whatsoever.
    "To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana." - Buddha

  3. #53
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Nudity is very much a shock tactic in the US. Our culture is very different from the UK. If there is any nudity of any sort in a movie, it is rated for adults only. (R - meaning an adult has to be with you if you are under 18) Everything on our culture is based on sex, but this is not inherent to us, it is inherent to all humans. It's evolutionary psychology at work.

    I also think it is important to point out that PETA is NOT vegan, and does not promote veganness. They promote reducing animal products as much as possible. They could care less if you don't check where that b-12 is sourced, or if that granola bar has honey in it. They care about results, and don't care less if you're doing it for the right reasons. Frankly, I think this is about as selfless as you could get, because they care about fewer animals being harmed.

    That quote about liking meat has a distinct point to make. That it's NOT about your tastes, and veggies don't hate the taste of meat. It's about caring about animals more that your taste buds. It's about making sacrifices, because all those people who say "I love the taste of meat too much" (I hear that phrase on a daily basis) SHOULD sacrifice for the good of animals.

  4. #54
    CATWOMAN sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Emerald Isle
    Posts
    2,506

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote snivelingchild View Post
    That quote about liking meat has a distinct point to make. That it's NOT about your tastes, and veggies don't hate the taste of meat. It's about caring about animals more that your taste buds. It's about making sacrifices, because all those people who say "I love the taste of meat too much" (I hear that phrase on a daily basis) SHOULD sacrifice for the good of animals.

    Yes, but by saying things like that she is reinforcing the view that most meat eaters have, that all vegans are secretly WANTING to eat meat. They seem to think that being vegan is a struggle and that we are continually denying ourselves, when in reality being vegan it is the most liberating and easiest thing in the world.
    I like Sandra, she keeps making me giggle. Daft little lady - Frosty

  5. #55
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote snivelingchild View Post
    I also think it is important to point out that PETA is NOT vegan, and does not promote veganness.
    Peta is definitely pro veganism, and promotes veganness, sniv...

    Look here:

    http://www.peta.org/accidentallyVegan/

    Or here:

    http://www.goveg.com/getactive.asp ("Cutting meat, eggs, and dairy products from your diet makes an enormous difference—you will save more than 100 animals every year just by switching to a healthy, vegan diet.")

    Or here:
    http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Peta-R.../dp/1570670447 (Cooking With Peta: Great Vegan Recipes for a Compassionate Kitchen (Paperback))

    Or here:
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5937293.html
    ("PETA wants to advertise vegan message on border ")

    Or here:
    http://www.venturacountystar.com/new...s-vegan-shoes/ ("PETA gives Patagonia props for its vegan shoes")


    They could care less if [...] that granola bar has honey in it. They care about results, and don't care less if you're doing it for the right reasons.
    Look here
    http://prime.peta.org/tag/honey


    It's about making sacrifices, because all those people who say "I love the taste of meat too much" (I hear that phrase on a daily basis) SHOULD sacrifice for the good of animals.
    For some people/for a period of time, 'sacrifice' may be a relevant term, but what I've seen over a long period is that once your habits are changed, you just don't feel like eating meat anymore. Frankly, I don't even think most non-vegans think about food if they by accident kill an innocent animal with their car. I'm not blaming Newkirk for anything, that wouldn't make any sense at all - and for what I know, that quote could be old. Let's just say it's not relevant.

    If they really 'care about results', they have to focus on promoting veganism if they care for animals, because by doing nothing else than changing their eating habits, each of their members (and each of the people they address with their campaigns) would save millions of animal lives without even trying (after their habit's had been changed).

    Each of them would save a a lot more lives "automatically" than an averagely successful AR/ALF campaigner would save throughout his own live by being involved in legal or illegal ways to liberate mice from test labs. There may be a million Peta supporters out there, but there aren't a million active AT activist/campaigners/"liberators" out there. Food is extremely important for people who care for animals.

    If it would actually would have been true that Peta does not promote veganness, I'd gladly donate to anyone who would make Boycott Peta stickers: there 's no real way to promote ethical treatment of animals without promoting veganism.

    ETA:
    Ssince they are pro ethical treatment of animals, why would they not promote 'vegan-ness'? Because some people still may believe that it's "difficult" to become a vegan? They clearly don't seem to be worried about what others think when it comes to supporting ALF or using shock tactics, so I doubt that they are really worried about what others think when it comes to going vegan.

    It can't be right that they have 2 million members, but even if they have "only" one million members, they could use their resources to save a lot of animals by helping people understand how easy it is to be a vegan - let alone how it would contribute to make it even easier if all their members and target audience would do it.

    If one million people go vegan, the save approx. 760 million chickens, 20 million pigs, five million cows and 500,000 trawler net of fish throughout their lifetime. It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but never mind for now... By going vegan, most of them will also influence a lot of people to do the same - friends, children, colleagues and so on. Looking at how many animals and fish (etc) one can help/save by making people go vegan compared with rescuing small groups of animals here and there (and I'm not saying that one can't do both), going vegan is essential if you care about results.

    Quote Pat Sommer
    Face it, by enjoying this forum we are sitting on our backsides doing nothing for animals (myself included).
    Unless the many people who have told me that this forum have helped them go/remain vegan are lying, "enjoying" a forum like this may be quite worthwhile for a number of - animals.
    Last edited by Korn; Feb 10th, 2009 at 12:19 PM.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  6. #56
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    To me it's a sick joke to say that PeTa are 'selfless' in wanting to save as many (animal) lives as possible and reduce suffering, when they have such a high-kill record in their 'shelters' . I do realise that in the U.S there seems to be a much higher kill rate (here it's quite rare now to find shelters that will PTS healthy animals) than in the U.K, for example. However, i would expect an organisation with such a title to be working much, much harder on rehoming these unfortunate animals.

    I also think that there's nothing wrong with a vegan saying they used to enjoy the taste of meat, but to continue by saying they would eat roadkill now is very peculiar indeed .

    I notice that its PeTa who check (allegedly anyway) whether animals are harmed in the making of films, are they the only body in America responsible for this kind of animal welfare?. Do they have any legal powers? .

  7. #57
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    I know they promote veganism, but and have much vegan info on the website for people who want to learn, but they promote near-veganness. Many of the items on their vegan lists are not really vegan, just 99%. That was my point.

  8. #58
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Many of the items on their vegan lists are not really vegan, just 99%
    I know, but this may be because they may not be as good at promoting veganism as they want to be. I don't think they 'promote' that people should include something in their diet that includes 1% animal products.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    There is nothing of PETA that I don't agree with. They do a great job and critisizing is easy. Offcourse they could do better, but everything and everybody can be better. Everybody is free to leave PETA and start their own organisation and try to do better.
    Here in Belgium we to have a great animal rights organisation www.gaia.be
    They are the largest organisation in Belgium and well know. They have achieved tremendous things for animals. But still many animal right activist say they don't do enough. And ex-employees have complained about working conditions. I find this appaling to critisize an organisation who accomplishes the most for animals in the whole country. And thus putting animal rights in a bad spotlight for the grand public.
    Most organisations have their own place in the fight for animal rights.
    I keep loving PETA

  10. #60
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Korn View Post
    I know, but this may be because they may not be as good at promoting veganism as they want to be. I don't think they 'promote' that people should include something in their diet that includes 1% animal products.
    If I had more time I'd find it on their site. They do say that you shouldn't get hung up on those tiny ingredients because they think it makes veganism too hard for people to do.

  11. #61
    * petunia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    146

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    I find it interesting how much people hate/dislike/don't agree with peta. I do believe that they objectify women, and definitely DO NOT like or agree with that aspect of them.

    However, I believe that since animal rights/veganism is such a miniscule part of mainstream society's beliefs, the more organizations promoting the lifestyle, the better.

    Also, look at it this way: peta IS mainstream, whether we like it or not, almost everyone has heard of peta. What is involved in "mainstream" culture? Sex. Sex sells. Like it or not, sex does sell. Of course it would be nice if everyone would be a feminist and do their own research and check out organizations that are more "moral". But they aren't, and they won't. The fact is that many people in the world are not going to learn on their own. Whether it's because they're lazy or busy or just plain stupid, I don't know. But the fact is, they are only going to see something if it is shoved in their face and/or if it peaks their curiousity. Sure, peta could shove pictures of death and destruction in peoples' faces, and I'm sure they do. But aren't pictures of beautiful half naked women much more appealing and more likely to get attention?

    I am a feminist, and do see the connection between the objection of women and the objection of animals. However, many people don't see that connection. And at least, at the very least, women have a voice. Animals don't.

    Also, IMO, "killing" an animal, and "euthanizing" it because it cannot be properly taken care of are not even close to the same thing. very few things in life are black and white.

  12. #62
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Peta says they have such a high kill ratio because they specifically target the half dead dogs and cats, hit by cars, starving to death in back alleys, freezing in the winter, etc. They are putting them out of their misery. The cute, fluffy, healthy, adoptable ones aren't the animals they seek out.

    If one's primary objective is to minimize the millions of slow, lingering, painful deaths these poor animals face, this makes some sense to me.

    It may be possible for some parts of the world, but for much of America the concept that we could get by with just "no-kill shelters" alone, even if they were to multiply by a factor of one hundred, is completely naive, IMO. Dogs and cats are abandoned and discarded at such an alarming rate that compared to the adoption rate it simply doesn't work mathematically even if we had a no kill shelter built on every single street corner.

    Getting honest figures from them is problematic, but I would assume that for the vast majority of no- kill shelters here in America, most of them fill to 100% capacity in a matter of weeks upon opening and then cease to be effective in reducing the pain and suffer of the street animal community simply because they then are forced to refuse 99% of all incoming animals because they simply have no vacancies. They are nice in theory but from a practical perspective they don't work. Peta is simply accepting this, instead of pretending they are solving the pain and suffering of the street animal population by a setting up no-kill shelters that don't really do anything but address .01% of the problem.

  13. #63

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    Peta says they have such a high kill ratio because they specifically target the half dead dogs and cats, hit by cars, starving to death in back alleys, freezing in the winter, etc. They are putting them out of their misery. The cute, fluffy, healthy, adoptable ones aren't the animals they seek out.

    If one's primary objective is to minimize the millions of slow, lingering, painful deaths these poor animals face, this makes some sense to me.

    It may be possible for some parts of the world, but for much of America the concept that we could get by with just "no-kill shelters" alone, even if they were to multiply by a factor of one hundred, is completely naive, IMO. Dogs and cats are abandoned and discarded at such an alarming rate that compared to the adoption rate it simply doesn't work mathematically even if we had a no kill shelter built on every single street corner.

    Getting honest figures from them is problematic, but I would assume that for the vast majority of no- kill shelters here in America, most of them fill to 100% capacity in a matter of weeks upon opening and then cease to be effective in reducing the pain and suffer of the street animal community simply because they refuse 99% of all incoming animals because they have no room. They are nice in theory but from a practical perspective they don't work. Peta is simply accepting this instead of pretending they are solving the pain and suffering of the street animal population by a setting up no-kill shelters that don't really do anything but address .01% of the problem.
    Perhaps so, but they should spend a little more time and money making this obvious, quantifiable and accessible to the general public rather than getting societally conformist 'beautiful' women to get their bits out, imo.
    The impression given is one of a generally callous disregard for life since they do not seem to dispute that they kill the vast majority of animals they receive.
    We have a problem here in the UK in as much as the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals is so well known that people use them as a first port of call to dump unwanted animals as well as donate wads of cash. As far as I can tell they generally will kill any animal after a given time due to a lack of space.
    The Canine Defence League (now called Dogs Trust), for example, is far less well known, receives far less money but will not kill an animal that is not suffering terminally but can only help so many as a result and has a reduced possibility of rehoming turnover.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

  14. #64
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote snivelingchild View Post
    If I had more time I'd find it on their site. They do say that you shouldn't get hung up on those tiny ingredients because they think it makes veganism too hard for people to do.
    It's totally possible to both promote veganism and tell people about the well know 'as much as practical and possible' aspect of being vegan....
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  15. #65
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Korn, please elaborate on what you mean.

    Are you saying that it is not "practical or possible" to worry if the vitamin D found in breakfast cereals such as Grape Nuts is vitamin D3, cholecalciferol, which is to the best of my knowledge always derived from sheep (wool) or other non-vegan sources? I ask because that is exactly what I think Peta's stance is regarding Sniv's point.

  16. #66
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    but i am curious to know why no-kill shelters work here but wouldn't work over there, Mahk?
    do we have better animal protection laws over here or is it just the vast size of America and the comlex inter state laws that are the problem?

    IF PeTa are honestly only euthanasing sick/infirm/dying animals then of course that changes things. It would be my personal instinct to want to save any animal that i found but i understand there are situations where that may not be possible or even honourable . I have had to make some tough decisions in the past when i worked in rescue shelters and i know that death from euthanasia can be way preferrable to the alternative for some poor animals .

    Maybe PeTa have just shot themselves in the foot with some badly thought out stunts and statements which are diverting attention form any good that they do. Some of their campaign videos are very effective.

    I think it's the case that the RSPCA/SSPCA's shelters vary a lot in their policy on how long they will keep healthy animals and i'm sure they do have quite a few no-kill shelters these days. They have certainly moved on from the times when they used to electrocute dogs in a very basic electrocution unit .

    Obviously we have some MAJOR problems with the RSPCA/SSPCA in that they don't endorse the cessation of using animals for food, but on the other hand i am mighty glad they are there. They are almost the opposite to PeTa, though, in that they are not 'shocking' enough, hmm.......

  17. #67
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    Korn, please elaborate on what you mean.

    Are you saying that it is not "practical or possible" to worry if the vitamin D found in breakfast cereals such as Grape Nuts is vitamin D3, cholecalciferol, which is to the best of my knowledge always derived from sheep (wool) or other non-vegan sources? I ask because that is exactly what I think Peta's stance is regarding Sniv's point.
    Here's both a long and a short answer. The long version first:

    What I'm saying is that Peta definitely seems to be promoting veganism and 'veganness', and that they - like other vegans - also are aware of the fact that sometimes you won't be able to avoid animal products. Neither Donald Watson, The Vegan Society or Peta have - to my knowledge - defined a clear 'threshold' for what's within the 'not practical/not possible' sphere.

    Peta doesn't 'promote' use of animal derived vitamins - in the sense that they don't encourage people to use D3 instead of D2.

    Btw, we discuss the same topic here:
    Are you a Self Exhausting Microgram-Oriented Vegan?

    I don't defend that Peta makes a list of vegan stuff which contains non-vegan stuff. What they may try to do, is to stress that it's better to do your best than to give up - which I not only totally agree in, and even think some people should focus more on - but that doesn't justify calling non.vegan products for vegan. There are so many vegan products in every supermarket, so they should just have removed those with animal products in them, even on if they contained animal products on a microgram level. So, personally I wouldn't make a list of vegan products and put non-vegan products in there (of course), but I also know that we can't always live a life that's 100% free from animal products. We would be exhausting ourselves as vegans if we should even try that.


    Vegans have a tendency to over-complicate things sometimes, so sorry for stating the following: Things actually are even more complicated than the most fanatical vegans want it to be. Example: You may find a 100% vegan version of a special product you used to eat /use before you were vegan. But: you have no idea how the colors on the packaging were produced, if the company that transports the products are involved with the animal product industry or if the company that owns the shop you buy it in have huge investments in other companies that performs cruel experiments on animals. We can't control every aspect of everything, and each of us to define our own 'thresholds'. We have to let go of that 'complicated-ness' aspect continuously, simply because the world isn't vegan. Very often, it's not about 'how vegan' something is, but about how good we are at not focusing on the non-veganness of this world.

    Compare these to actions:
    A) Spend 10 minutes on trying to find a vitamin that's totally animal free.
    B) Spend 10 minutes in sending an email to the manufacturer and ask if they have (or are planning) an animal free version of the same product.

    If you care for animals and have to choose between A and B, B has an 'efficiency rate' that probably is thousands times as high as A.

    Now, look at C:
    C) Log into a vegan forum and ask if it's vegan.

    B would still be loads more efficient than C.

    Now back to Peta's list (kind of):


    Let's say you live in the Northern part of the world and consume a total of 1,000,000 micrograms vitamin D throughout your life, by taking supplements in the darkest months. Even if you would use only D3 every single day you take vit. D, you wouldn't be able to consume more than 1 gram of cholecalciferol during your whole life. This equals going vegan a fraction of a second earlier than you did, if you did it in the middle of drinking a glass of cow's milk.

    Do I then promote use of D3? No. We are vegans, we should ask for animal free products.


    I'm not avoiding taxis with leather seats, or avoid having my hair cut if I don't know the ingredients in the shampoo the local hair dresser use. I don't even ask.

    And if I theoretically needed vitamin X today, and couldn't find an animal free version of it, I'd (still theoretically) use a version with animal derived vitamin in it - but that's the theoretical version. In real life, I'd ask the store to order an animal free version, and wait for it. If they would tell me that it's not possible to get an animal free version of vitamin X in the country I live in, I would have to order it online or consider using something else for now. In both cases, when we talk about amounts so small that it would take a lifetime to consume one gram, I would consider it a much more 'minor' problem than eg. if I vegans give their children cow's milk or eggs. It's all about perspective.

    I haven't checked Peta's site for their views on this topic, and I probably won't, because I'm not that interested in Peta.

    We had a potential member the other day who said he was a vegan at home and non-vegan at work, and wanted to become a member here. Maybe someone would say that to eat animal products at work would be within that 'as much as practical and possible' definition? IMO it's clearly not. It's like if you would eat a cheese burger at McDonalds because the local falafel bar was four blocks away and McDonalds was just around the corner. That's not a vegan view of looking at things...

    Peta gets it wrong when they list non-vegan products as vegan, but I'm not paying too much attention to that, because Peta gets it wrong very often.

    That was the long version of my answer. The short version is here: Peta promotes veganism, they're just not very good at it, and there's no reason to list non-vegan products as vegan products. The world is full of vegan products anyway.

    Last edited by Korn; Feb 11th, 2009 at 09:05 AM.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  18. #68
    BlackCats
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote petunia View Post
    Also, look at it this way: peta IS mainstream, whether we like it or not, almost everyone has heard of peta. What is involved in "mainstream" culture? Sex. Sex sells. Like it or not, sex does sell. Of course it would be nice if everyone would be a feminist and do their own research and check out organizations that are more "moral". But they aren't, and they won't. The fact is that many people in the world are not going to learn on their own. Whether it's because they're lazy or busy or just plain stupid, I don't know. But the fact is, they are only going to see something if it is shoved in their face and/or if it peaks their curiousity. Sure, peta could shove pictures of death and destruction in peoples' faces, and I'm sure they do. But aren't pictures of beautiful half naked women much more appealing and more likely to get attention?
    I am a feminist, and do see the connection between the objection of women and the objection of animals. However, many people don't see that connection. And at least, at the very least, women have a voice. Animals don't. Also, IMO, "killing" an animal, and "euthanizing" it because it cannot be properly taken care of are not even close to the same thing. very few things in life are black and white.
    I was going to say almost exactly the same things before. I don't even care why people turn veggie and vegan as long as they do.

  19. #69
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Sex sells - sure. But that isn't really the topic, is it?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  20. #70
    baffled harpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,655

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote petunia View Post
    Sex sells. Like it or not, sex does sell.
    But the end doesn't justify the means, does it, otherwise e.g. we might support animal experimentation because it's in a good cause.

    From a purely pragmatic point of view, I would imagine sexist adverts alienate at least as many people as they attract - women, for example. I don't have any evidence but nor has Peta produced any evidence to the contrary as far as I know.

    It seems like an organisation with multiple personality disorder, and some of its personalities are a lot more congenial than others. In the UK equivalent functions seem to be fulfilled by a number of different organisations - the RSPCA, CIWF, the Vegan Society etc - so people can choose which to align themselves with.

  21. #71
    BlackCats
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote harpy View Post
    It seems like an organisation with multiple personality disorder, and some of its personalities are a lot more congenial than others.
    That's true, I always hear and read very different things about Peta.

    From the farmed and tortured animal's perspective I don't think it matters to them why humans turn veggie and vegan. I think that humans are selfish morons generally () and I think anything that shakes them out of their reverie and gets them to see the bigger picture is a good thing. Humans slow down their cars and watch accidents and people take a second look at anything remotely "sexy", it's in our nature and Peta are just exploiting that fact.

    I think vegans and non-vegans are always going to be divided on Peta anyway.

  22. #72
    baffled harpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,655

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    It doesn't matter to the animals but that's not the only possible reason to object to it. To me exploitation of people is just as much of a problem as exploitation of animals so that sort of advertising is never going to be acceptable. Of course, we could go on to argue about what constitutes exploitation but probably this isn't the place to do it

  23. #73
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    I don't think it matters to them why humans turn veggie and vegan
    It matters a lot in the sense that some people go vegan and remain vegan, while others don't. If people are truly convinced that eating animals isn't something they want to be in anymore, they'll probably stay vegan for longer than if they think Peta is cool or have seen a 'shocking' video. Shocks normally don't last forever, whether it's a 'shock' from seeing an activist giving a speech while taking her clothes of or shock from having seen a video of how animals in factory farms.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  24. #74

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    I just don't see the problem of women taking their close of for the good cause. Is nakedness really such a big deal. Is feminism not there to give women a choice? A choice to use their body?

    Here in Belgium 6 out of every 10 cats in shelters are euthanasized and then we are not even talking about all the feral animals.
    No kill shelters are not a solution! The solution is early age spaying and neutering. If every shelter neuters their kittens and pups before they get adopted out , then the problem solves itself. Offcourse their also have to be strict laws for breeders. And a ristriction of breeders.

  25. #75
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Is nakedness really such a big deal.
    For whom? According to a post in an earlier thread, nudity still is a big deal in US. Nudity is still somewhat 'shocking', and if it wasn't, PEta probably couldn't have used nakedness the way they sometimes do. If Peta wants to use nudity to promote animal rights, and this way both promote a version of women's lib, animal rights and a more relaxed way of dealing with nudity, it's their choice of course.

    The problem may be that they are trying to sell two 'products' at the same time. The people who are interested in their care for animals may or may not be put off by the nudity, and people who like that some activists break some taboos around naked bodies may not be interested in their message.

    Nudity creates attention, but there' a reason that most groups that are comparable with Peta still choose not to use nudity. I wouldn't start supporting Peta if they would stop the nude stunts.


    Would Obama have gotten more votes he would give nude speeches? Or would he only have gotten ore attention? What do you think?

    Is feminism not there to give women a choice?
    Sure, but while people who are against the Peta/nudity link cant really decide what an individual woman wants to do with her body - they may have opinions about Peta's choice of tactics. These people may be contributing to Peta's economy, and therefore have an opinion about their ways to try to reach people.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  26. #76
    Knolishing Pob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sittingbourne
    Posts
    1,523

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote wendy View Post
    No kill shelters are not a solution! The solution is early age spaying and neutering. If every shelter neuters their kittens and pups before they get adopted out , then the problem solves itself. Offcourse their also have to be strict laws for breeders. And a ristriction of breeders.
    If animals weren't collected and disposed of and were left to run rampant, then maybe proper legislation would be brought in to deal with problems of overbreeding. The problem is that organisations collecting and euthanising animals works very nicely in controlling the problems of overbreeding, so there's no incentive for proper regulation.
    "Danger" could be my middle name … but it's "John"

  27. #77

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,996

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Korn View Post
    the reason some of us don't support Peta avoid supporting them because they help people go vegan.
    I don't understand what you mean by this Korn... can you please explain?

  28. #78
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Sorry - should have been: "the reason some of us don't support Peta isn't because they help people go vegan". I sometimes try to edit a sentence to improve the English language, and ends up getting it all wrong. Sorrisimo!

    That sentence could benefit from having an "of course" in there as well... My point is that we of course think it's great that Peta make some people go vegan, especially of it lasts more than a few months, but that this in itself doesn't mean that Peta wouldn't have been better off with some major changes, or that another organization could have done the good stuff Peta does without what some would describe as the embarrassing sides of Peta.
    Last edited by Korn; Feb 11th, 2009 at 05:04 PM.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  29. #79
    Sloth
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    .

  30. #80

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    215

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Some organisations may use nudity , others might not. It takes every kind
    I think Peta hasvthhe right approch and so do those who don't use nudity

  31. #81
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Pob View Post
    If animals weren't collected and disposed of and were left to run rampant, then maybe proper legislation would be brought in to deal with problems of overbreeding. The problem is that organisations collecting and euthanising animals works very nicely in controlling the problems of overbreeding, so there's no incentive for proper regulation.

    i doubt that - the main reason there are so many rats around is human greed and carelessness but all that happens is that rats get killed, there aren't huge programmes to stop people being so filthy and wasteful. It's always the animals' fault .

  32. #82

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Sloth View Post
    .
    I liked this post and am sorry you felt the need to remove it.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

  33. #83
    Sloth
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote horselesspaul View Post
    I liked this post and am sorry you felt the need to remove it.
    Thankyou, that's very good to hear. I'm not a confident person and I ended up taking it down because I thought I sounded garbled and silly...

  34. #84

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Sloth View Post
    Thankyou, that's very good to hear. I'm not a confident person and I ended up taking it down because I thought I sounded garbled and silly...
    I thought it was cogent and apposite.
    The point about nudity and its use in campaigning is not what should be the perception of it, rather what is.
    Obviously feminism has enabled many to feel free to do what they will with their bodies and rightly so. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this sadly male dominated world do not adhere to these principles and cannot see past the constant objectification of women that they crave and upon which their outdated view relies.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

  35. #85
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    but i am curious to know why no-kill shelters work here but wouldn't work over there, Mahk?
    do we have better animal protection laws over here or is it just the vast size of America and the comlex inter state laws that are the problem?..
    I guess I didn't explain it well so I will try again. It boils down to the fact that the [US] discarded/abandoned animal population living on the streets is growing at a much much faster rate than the successful adoption rate from shelters. My informal research suggests that only 28% of dogs and 24% of cats are ever adopted in a given year here in the US. If every shelter in the land were to switch overnight to a "no kill policy" then they would be forced to put a "no vacancy" sign in the front window once they came to full capacity (which would be in a matter of days) and leave it there almost permanently. Literally millions of dogs and cats would be turned away every day and left to die a slow lingering death on the streets instead. That's not very animal friendly.
    ---

    [The balance of this post is not directed to cobweb but instead to everyone]

    Yes, I suppose if we build an infinite number of new "no kill shelters" every time one comes to peek capacity and therefor no longer functions then we have *ahem* "solved" the problem. Heck, why even have spaying and neutering at all for that matter, just build more of these dog/cat apartment complexes instead and they may have all puppies and kittens they possibly want. [sarcasm]

    Note, we do have some "no kill shelters" here in the US but they are a band-aid approach to a much bigger problem.

  36. #86

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    Literally millions of dogs and cats would be turned away every day and left to die a slow lingering death on the streets instead.
    Domesticated dogs and cats can do pretty well as feral animals, though not necessarily all, perhaps PeTA should devise some aptitude test and release the most suitable into the wild rather than execute them..
    Just saying, and being facetious at the same time, but I do get your point.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

  37. #87
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Mahk i think your sarcasm is unwarranted, i have worked in two 'no kill' shelters which also ran spaying and neutering schemes (one of which i was manager of for 3 years).
    Both places just grew and grew in terms of accomodation due to need. Yes, some animals had to be 'turned away' - sadly there would always be animals in that situation even if we all went out on killing sprees tomorrow and rounded up all the visible strays. There are many other animals who will be abandoned the next day due to people moving/having a baby/not giving a damn .
    I was trying to understand why it's 'normal' for shelters in America to have such a low rehoming rate/high killing rate as opposed to the opposite scenario over here, that's all .

  38. #88
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    I've also come to learn that Peta also serves as a free euthanasia clinic for people who've had their pets hit by cars or are otherwise terminally ill. They will even come to your house to do it for free. Many poor people who can't afford a vet or transportation choose this over watching their pet die slowly.
    ---

    I feel bad for Peta because they are targeted by the unscrupulous Rick Berman, aka Dr. Evil, with his slick "Peta kills animals" websites undoubtedly funded by the meat and pet food industries.

    This video is a must see.

    I've read in other forums that Berman's own son has disowned his father due to his unwillingness to stop his greed based smear campaigns against Peta and others.

  39. #89
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    Mahk i think your sarcasm is unwarranted, i have worked in two 'no kill' shelters which also ran spaying and neutering schemes (one of which i was manager of for 3 years).
    My sarcasm wasn't directed at you so please don't take it personally. Sorry, I will re-edit my post to try to make that more clear.

    I also think I made it pretty clear that I was addressing the US, not everywhere, because I am only familiar with our very low re-homing rate. Why it is so low I couldn't tell you but my 24% cat and 28% dog adoption rate figures were based on this study [alternate link here] and I was assuming that Michigan's rates should be typical of the rest of the states, but I don't know for sure. I also know that for certain breeds, notably the pit bull, the successful adoption rate from shelters is only one for ever 600 they take in! [Again, US data]

    In a community where the adoption rate is much higher or where there are an infinite number of vacancies in no-kill shelters then they work quite effectively at eliminating the millions of starving/freezing/suffering animals that I feel sad for. America does not fit that description was my point.

  40. #90

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    I've also come to learn that Peta also serves as a free euthanasia clinic for people who've had their pets hit by cars or are otherwise terminally ill. They will even come to your house to do it for free. Many poor people who can't afford a vet or transportation choose this over watching their pet die slowly.
    ---

    I feel bad for Peta because they are targeted by the unscrupulous Rick Berman, aka Dr. Evil, with his slick "Peta kills animals" websites undoubtedly funded by the meat and pet food industries.

    This video is a must see.

    I've read in other forums that Berman's own son has disowned his father due to his unwillingness to stop his greed based smear campaigns against Peta and others.
    Berman is without doubt one odious lying individual. His kind feed on people's inability to find the truth or to care about whether they do or not.
    I wish PeTA was more willing and able, as far as I can make out, to refute his claims though, despite his lack of credibility.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

  41. #91
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote horselesspaul View Post
    I wish PeTA was more willing and able, as far as I can make out, to refute his claims though, despite his lack of credibility.
    Berman and his various sham organisation fronts have placed "Peta kills animals" billboards in major US cities, including New York.

    Here's PeTA's standard response I've copied from their forum:

    "This is a peta admin response from a previous post similiar to your question.

    Recently, some groups have made misleading claims about PETA’s euthanasia rate compared to the rates of various animal shelters. One such group is the deceitfully named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)—a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters that kill millions of animals every year—which is acting not out of compassion but out of greed. These companies are worried about the strides that PETA is making that are changing their industries and compelling them to take animal welfare concerns seriously; they hope to scare people away from supporting PETA by misrepresenting the vital work that we do for animals. To learn more about CCF—which USA Today recently opined should rename its Web site FatforProfit.com—please see the following Web sites:

    http://www.ConsumerDeception.com
    http://www.CitizensForEthics.org/node/19131
    http://www.Prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=8984

    Although PETA does not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place hundreds of animals in excellent lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept—such as those who are severely injured, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable—we are often a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to animals who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.

    While some of the animals we take in are lost companion animals or adoptable strays, many of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option. To cite a local instance, our caseworkers were able to gain custody of a dog who was tied to a 15-pound chain and who was starved until she was severely emaciated. We had to carry her into the emergency clinic because she could barely walk. A vet recommended that the most humane option for her was a peaceful and dignified release from her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their convictions for cruelty to animals. To learn more, please see http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/f-asiasstory.asp. On another occasion, when a power-line transformer explosion burned a flock of starlings, PETA was the only agency to come to the birds’ aid, offering the animals a painless escape from their suffering.

    PETA receives calls every week from people who do not have the inclination or money to provide veterinary care. Many of these people request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if they were transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad.

    Unlike “no-kill” shelters, PETA does not refuse animals simply because euthanasia is the only humane option for them. Many of the animals we take in are given to us because they have been rejected by other facilities.

    Thank you for your sincere questions and concerns."

  42. #92

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    I have seen that, thanks though Mahk.
    It does contain a fair amount of doublespeak and obfuscation, imo.
    The statement that they have re-homed "hundreds" of animals should be viewed against the time they have been doing it and the total number of animals given to them, I feel.
    One person's 'humane' is another persons 'efficacious'..
    It cannot be easy for them. I understand that.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

  43. #93
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote horselesspaul View Post
    Domesticated dogs and cats can do pretty well as feral animals, though not necessarily all, perhaps PeTA should devise some aptitude test and release the most suitable into the wild rather than execute them..
    Just saying, and being facetious at the same time, but I do get your point.
    Not to get too far off point, but in my community (which I think is very average) there is no 'suitable' to live wild. There's no animal more able to not get hit by a car or attacked by another animal than another. My biggest point is that I personally see a new dead animal on the road every single day I leave my house. There is no wild anymore. We've taken over. Perhaps if there were wildlife refuges in remote cut-off areas but seeing as how those don't exist...

    Cobby, I think no-kill shelters would be a great solution when we get over the massive over-population. In the meantime, with almost 10 million animals euthanized every year (in the US), I don't see another choice. That's a number we can't deal with, even if adoption numbers quadrupled!

    I get annoyed when people HATE peta, mostly because often they disagree with how they do something that they agree with. Come on. Hate gets you nowhere. Disagree passionately with meat factories and the like. Your personal ideas differ with Peta's? That's subject matter for a "I think Peta would do better if they..." convo than the usual rhetoric of "ZOMFG PETA is teh major SUCKS and I HATE thems becuase of...."

    I don't understand how people can talk about abortion and politics in a calm matter, and these same people turn into fanatics when Peta is mentioned.

    I also don't consider Peta a vegan organization because of the aformentioned unvegan foods mentioned (and a quote I've read from a higher up that came to the effect of "who cares if it has honey?") and the fact that most members are not vegan. They work on each campaign separately. They get criticized by vegans for having meateaters work on anti-fur campaigns and taking baby steps (and making compromises...something ESSENTIAL for results), and criticized by meateaters for being too extreme and abolitionist. Come on, they can't be both.

  44. #94
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote horselesspaul View Post
    The statement that they have re-homed "hundreds" of animals should be viewed against the time they have been doing it and the total number of animals given to them, I feel.
    Why so? if they are not an adoption organization? It is not their main focus by far.

  45. #95
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    the fact that most members are not vegan
    If this is correct, Peta looks more and more like a sad joke - especially if they have a million members or more. They may have helped a few animals here and and a few animals there, but think of all they lives that could have been saved, all the suffering that could have been avoided if they would focus on getting their own members do stop harming animals. Maybe they need to 'shock' themselves before they work on figuring out how they can 'shock' others into not haring animals.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  46. #96
    snivelingchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana, United S
    Posts
    1,022

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    ^ the point is that they work on different areas of animal cruelty differently. Getting a million people to cut 1/5 of the cruelty out of their lifestyle is better than getting a thousand to go vegan (in the amount of money put to cruel industries that is). If part of the membership is that everyone in the org should be vegan, they'd be a tiny org. You don't have to be veggie to be against veal or fur. That's a good thing. I think once you get it mostly universally agreed upon that fur is bad, you can move on to the next step.

    Excepting people to completely turn their lives around, and become vegan is a lot. I will wager to say that most people here turned vegan when they opened their minds to it. NOT because someone went, HEY, THAT STUFF YOU DO IS ALL WRONG!

    I like the fact that they have omnis working towards animal rights. Accepting people rather than turning them away for not being perfect or agreeing with them 100% is the way to change minds.

  47. #97
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote snivelingchild View Post
    ^ the point is that they work on different areas of animal cruelty differently. Getting a million people to cut 1/5 of the cruelty out of their lifestyle is better than getting a thousand to go vegan (in the amount of money put to cruel industries that is).
    To a certain degree it's a question of mathematics, and if most of Peta's members aren't vegans, and they have a million members, it's not a question of getting a small amount of people to go vegan, but hundred's of thousands.

    If part of the membership is that everyone in the org should be vegan, they'd be a tiny org.
    Not even The Vegan Society requires that their members should be vegan.


    You don't have to be veggie to be against veal or fur. That's a good thing.
    And: you don't have to be against fur to be a veggie. People may buy fur/leather products once in a while, but non-vegans normally eat animal products several times a day.




    Excepting people to completely turn their lives around, and become vegan is a lot.
    The problem is that if Peta spokespeople use their site to post statements like 'who cares if it's honey on it', they decrease the likelihood that their readers will go vegan, because many of them know that vegans don't use honey, and if some official Peta person states that honey doesn't matter, he more or less directly claims that veganism doesn't make sense.


    I will wager to say that most people here turned vegan when they opened their minds to it. NOT because someone went, HEY, THAT STUFF YOU DO IS ALL WRONG!
    I agree.

    I like the fact that they have omnis working towards animal rights.
    That's better than omnis not working for animal rights - sure. But the whole situation with Peta may end up with loads of people who continue to harm people through their own lifestyle, and use their $25 membership fee as a some sort of indulgence - they feel that they have done something for animals, but their money may simply may have been used to pay someone else's vet bill. If animals are suffering to the degree that their owners want to euthanize them, the bill should either be payed by themselves or by the government (if they can't afford it), and not by poor students who may think that becoming a member of Peta means that your $25 will be used towards promoting a lifestyle free from animal products.

    Imagine this scenario:
    Peta-member to non-vegan: "Don't use fur!".
    Non-vegan: "But you use leather shoes/eat fish/dairy products, and you're even a Peta member?"
    PM: "Yes, but I'm only an activist, I tried going veg, but it was too difficult for me. Peta thinks so too, so they don't try to make their members go vegan".

    What effect would that have on Peta's target audience?




    Accepting people rather than turning them away for not being perfect or agreeing with them 100% is the way to change minds.
    But that's again a very different topic. If a person skips only meat twice a week, I don't only "accept it" (as if they would care if I did), I think it's great. It's not a question of accepting what they do, or accepting what Peta does. They're not interested in my acceptance either. Its a question - the way I see it - of what's the best way to use energy/time/money to diminish suffering as much as possible, and for me, that means going vegan.

    The main negative side effect of having an organization that's supposed to fight for "ethical treatment of animals" is that if their own members use leather shoes, but are against fur, or promote Peta, but eat fish/chicken/honey/cheese, people will either...


    - not take them seriously
    - use their use of animal products against them
    - falsely assume that you can treat animals ethically and still use animal products
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  48. #98

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Quote snivelingchild View Post
    Why so? if they are not an adoption organization? It is not their main focus by far.
    I was just pointing out that the language used is a little disingenuous.
    Personally I would like to see them spend a little more of the 34.3 million dollars they receive on adoption and its promotion, but I realise that they have their priorities and I have mine.
    My point about the feral animals was a frivolous one to add to a point Pob made about people's awareness of the issues being potentially dulled by PeTA's approach to sadly unwanted animals.
    Anyone who says that they HATE PeTA is missing the point not only of such an organisation but also the obvious complexity of the whole question of animal rights and welfare in today's society.
    My personal preference would be for fewer grand shock tactics (the use of nudity/holocaust comparisons etc) that make them look ridiculous to the majority, and more vegan advocacy.
    ..but what would they do with all the cows?..

  49. #99
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    i don't hate PeTa i'm just very confused by them as an organisation -
    e.g what's the point in something like the 'holocaust' comparison if they are not actively promoting veganism?. Seems a tad hypocritical.

  50. #100
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

    Does Peta have any public document stating what Peta's purpose is?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

Similar Threads

  1. Peta sent me 5p
    By Mr Flibble in forum VEGANISM - THE MAIN TOPICS
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: Nov 26th, 2011, 04:00 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: Dec 24th, 2010, 06:22 PM
  3. PETA Ad NOT OK!
    By Vegabond in forum VEGANISM - THE MAIN TOPICS
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: Nov 11th, 2008, 10:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •