Why don't people watch PETA videos?

Seriously, they aren't made up, or sensationalized. Why is it so hard for people to see what goes on in real life?

:popcorn:

Okay, go!

it's a legitimate question.

Why do we, as a society, have an issue with facing what we do to maintain our lifestyle?

yes, it is a very legitimate question.

I can't really answer your question about why we, as a society, might have an issue with facing what we do to maintain our lifestyle. I've seen all the videos from PETA and the rest (hell, I was part of one HSUS put out), and it's one reason why I'm a vegan to begin with.

However, my "ok, go!" statement was in regards to the potential for this to be a thread with potential for ugliness. ANY time PETA is mentioned, things go badly.

seriously.

I really want to know.

I brought the beer!

:toast:

:beer:

Have a seat.

:toast:

This is going to be nuts

:popcorn:

Aren't all beers vegan? The surprising answer is no. You might be surprised what a few of the British brews have swimming around in your beer.

If you’ve ever had a Guinness, you’ve probably heard a variety of rumors as to where it gets its distinctive flavor. Two of my favorites involve brewers tossing hunks of venison into the vats and rats tossing themselves in only to drown while going on a booze cruise.

The good news is that neither of those is true. The bad news is that Guinness is, in fact, not vegan. Neither are Bass, Harp, and many of your other favorite Irish and British beers.

Link

:beer:

but, I knew that. Also, no mead (honey). Also, most vegans won't buy anything from Anheuser-Busch. Granted, it's shit anyway, but their track record of not caring for animals is well documented. If one went to the next degree, like I do, they also wouldn't drink any of the Canadian beer based on the seal hunt, and none of the Japanese beers based on the whale hunt. Some Mexican beers still support bullfighting. PBR supports the rodeo.

Alaska, Bridgeport, Wolaver's, Hale's, Full Sail, Magic Hat, Smuttynose, Red Hook...there are many.

Along with the ones you mention, Peak, Red Stripe, Newcastle, Moorehouse aren't vegan. And anything with honey in the name.

And for the record, I killed Cattle, Pigs and Sheep. The cattle with a gun to the head, the Pigs with a Hammer and the Sheep by slitting their throats.

And no, I'm not kidding.

I still eat meat, I still wear leather, I love lamb, Veal and Pork and I own a Coyote Leather jacket.


And no, I'm not a barbarian.

than anyone with their radical stuff? Things like breaking into labs and setting test rats loose, thereby setting back key research projects, things like saying that those of us who like to cast a hook into a river and maybe catch some fish are just no good assholes, things like trying to destroy the farm economy by telling us not to eat meat. I have absolutely no use for PETA. No I don't advocate mistreating animals, but I eat meat, I like to go fishing, and will sit on my leather easy chair while I watch a baseball game later on this evening.
On edit- I just thought of this. Baseballs are made out of horsehide. So does that mean we can't enjoy a ball game either?

this country, is it?

Should we be testing on animals at this point? Would those baseballs go just as far covered with something else? Would you be just as comfortable on a chair covered in a different fabric?

Why is it so hard to change the last two things? Should it be?

no it is not hard to insist on decent treatment but PETA takes it to extremes.

I'm an "animal welfare" advocate myself. I only eat meat from certified "humane" operations.

PETA doesn't believe that people should own animals at all. They think an animal is better off dead than being a well-loved companion of a human. Me, my two dogs and two cats aren't down with that philosophy.

PETA has a great "bring your pet to work" policy.

You've read some unfortunate spin, sorry to say.

This poster just fell for the "I heard it, so it must be true" spin.

Here's just one:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

Seriously? You don't really have a clue have much of a clue about PETA do you?

As for the euthanasia figures, PETA is a last chance resort. PETA has an agreement to take animals from "shelters" with no decent euthanasia program. They do the humane task so that these animals don't get put in a gas chamber or shot by some dumb fucking redneck in the back of the head.

Do some real research.

they are covered with cowhide these days, not horsehide.

Yes, you will hear people in the baseball world referring to baseballs as "horsehide," but it's in the same figurative, archaic sense that we refer to someone who has earned a college degree as "getting the sheepskin." When's the last time you saw a college diploma actually printed on the skin of a sheep?

The goal is to minimize how much must be done, but, before human testing begins, ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) work must be done. Computer simulations and tissue sampling has allowed scientists to greatly reduce what points live animals must be used at, but it has not come close to making animal testing unnecessary.

they are too busy doing it (sex/eating meat) to watch others.... :rofl:

ok, thanks.

The "smilie" you chose is weird in this thread. Do you think suffering is funny enough to roll on the floor kicking your legs in the air?

Not as funny as fart jokes. Nor as funny as misplaced righteous indignation.

But funny regardless.

"Well, for the same reason some people don't watch porn movies - they are too busy doing it (sex/eating meat) to watch others...." :rofl:

There is no other way to put it!

They are aware of what is happening and accept the ethical bargain.

And though they aren't made up or sensationalized, they show the worst of the worst and expect us to believe that conditions are the same everywhere.

And surprised no one has answered your question yet.

Good post my friend.

People don't watch that because it's a blatant lie.

I doubt a layperson could tell the difference between a D&C done as a biopsy and an early abortion procedure. There's only an "ethical bargain" if someone's playing throbbing music and dimming the lights.

I do know what goes on in real life. I lived through WWII, Korea, Viet Nam and all the attendant images. Last Thanksgiving my teenage grandson played such a video right before we were heading off for a ham dinner...sorry, call me whatever you'd like, but I couldn't deal with watching it. I'm 70 and when I was in high school back in the 50s our Home Ec teacher (girls only in Home Ec then!) took us to a slaughterhouse. Somehow I didn't get it--sheltered life, I guess. Glad my teen grandson is more enlightened and aware. And for the record, I eat very little meat but do eat poultry and fish. Back in the 70s when meat prices soared I went totally vegetarian for awhile, mostly 'cause I was poor. Then I read a novel in which one of the characters was talking to a vegan about not eating meat for humanitarian reasons and the meat-eater referred to the "death scream of a peach." You get the picture. Again for the record, I only eat dolphin-safe tuna, read labels a lot, buy organic as much as I can, don't buy cosmietics that use animals for testing, and I admire and honor my grandson's vegetarianism.

Thanks for listening! Feel free to take me to task, but more than anything right now, I do not want my grandsons to have to go fight in a war. That's my sincere desire and focus!

Tired Old Cynic

I've never had the chance. I don't live in a world where PETA videos occur. I suppose I could seek them out, but that would be tantamount to asking to see a video of someone's surgery. We've got meatcutters in our family, and it's well-known how the business works. That's all it is - a business.

I do respect the wishes of those who choose not to eat meat, wear leather, advocate for the rights of animals, all of that. I respect their beliefs, but that ends when they try to force those beliefs on me with videos that they think I should see.

I'm a grown-up. I have no desire to see them.

Off to the grocery store.

She would accost everyone wearing a leather jacket or carrying a leather purse and inform them of the suffering and death they were causing and responsible for.

Funny thing was, she was clad in pleather (that lovely oil-based substance) from head to toe.


I don't watch PETA videos because, 1)I've seen a lot of stuff on the subject and am quite aware, and 2)PETA seems to posess a certain extreme ideology that I neither believe in nor do I think is transmissible by aggressive tactics of the sort they espouse.


I have leather coats, work boots, shoes etc. They have lasted me for years and with maitenence like re-soling have never yet needed full replacement. I am fully aware of where they came from and respect that fact. I am anti-consumption and do not wish to consume more than I have to. Pleather shoes and such must be replaced frequently, whatta boon for consumerism. Just MHO.

assholes who think what they think is right is more important than legitamate disease/scientific research without bothering to understand it. AND they and have people that have been just as bad bullies to scientific researchers as any "right to life" group.
I love animals..I HATE PETA.

Factual and unsensationalized? Yep, just like Fox is fair and balanced.

for food. She lived alone for many years after her husband passed away (dad was 13 at the time) and she fed a large family via a garden, chickens, and rabbits.

She did kill animals, never thought I would see her in a comic book though as the villain :)

It put food on the table. I've done my share of dressing out game, and getting a really fresh chicken for Sunday dinner. (But boy do I hate plucking those suckers. Oh well, at least they aren't as bad a wild ducks or geese) The chickens got the ax, the rabbits and squirrels usually had to have the shot picked out of them before cooking.

There is a right and wrong way to treat an animal. It just seems at times they go off the deep end :)

Kudos to them for the positive work they have done, but just like any group they are not perfect and are open to criticism.

A healthy balance is a good thing.

Our food system could definitely be better at dealing with it. We as consumers should have the knowledge to make those decisions to buy food based on all the factors. But people have to buy what they can afford. Not everyone can afford to buy grain-fed organic beef or free-range chicken.

PETA shoots themselves in the foot by being too confrontational. Animals are a very important aspect to scientific research. You simply cannot test drugs initially on humans. It is against all medical ethics to do so. Without animal testing, millions of people would die of preventable illnesses. To eliminate animal testing is to hamstring scientists unnecessarily. There is simply no substitute.

Also hunting and fishing are perfectly acceptable activities. Most people eat what they kill. I do have an issue with trophy hunting where no use is made of the animal itself. That is a wasteful practice that should have died with Tedd Roosevelt.

Cleanly and without suffering. She ate it.

This isn't about ethical hunting for food; this is about suffering. You should know the difference as a hunter.

I don't watch PETA or support PETA because I believe that ultimatley, they want to impose their will on everyone. Truthfully, I believe that if given their head, PETA would ensure that no one ever eats meat, wears leather, takes medicine that tested on animals, etc. Now, I could be wrong, but I don't trust PETA, never have and I never will.

I lived a subsistence lifestyle in Alaska for many years. By subsistence I mean we hunted our moose and caribou or deer and sheep, and ate our halibut and salmon for our protein sources. I raised my family on wild caught food. I did not NEED to do this, which some people seem to think is some sort of qualifier. In other words, if you are poor, its okay, if you can afford to buy your meat at Safeway, it's not. However, I don't parse those ideological differences. The bottom line is that if you eat meat, something has to die. If you wear leather, something has to die. It is just that simple. Just because it comes packaged with Michael Jordan slamming a basketball or all sterile under celophane does not negate the fact that at one time, a creature lived and breathed and now it no longer does. We hide behind our packaging and play superior even though the truth is right in our face if we wish to see it.

Killing something does not bother me overly much, I see it as very natural. On the other hand, I certainly don't giggle and find the act of killing as immensely fun. I will say, that tracking, stalking, and finally killing your prey is certianly exciting on some primal level. It is also quite gratifying to sit down to a plate of food you yourself used your own resources and skills to harvest and prepare.

I am a toxicologist by degree and job description, and I don't believe that any creature with a highly evolved nervous system should have a prolonged death. I also believe that captive animals should be treated decently, housed appropriately, and killed quickly. If I thought that PETA was only ensuring the safety and efficacious treatment of these animals, I would support them unequivocably. I, however, think PETA has an agenda and I don't agree with it, and I will not support it.

In the meantime, I live in the country. I buy a calf and raise my own beef, I have chickens for my own eggs, and I still continue to supplement my diet with ducks, geese, a deer, or an elk when I can. I know where my food comes from, how it was treated, and who processed it.

Thanks for your most excellent post, WindRiverMan.

Fishing, Hunting, ... are all, to them, cruel..

a problem with your grandmother keeping rabbits for food.

To my knowledge, neither does Peta.

And I don't have a problem with PETA taking on cruelty to animals, I applaud it actually. But sometimes they jump the shark on some issues - to the detriment of their main goal.

that is what I intended to find out when I posted this thread.

I am not interested in ethical hunting, or raising animals for food; I want to know why people can't face corporate cruelty that ends up packaged in the grocery store.

If their message was a unified one about what you are discussing that is one thing.

But they have went beyond that message to many others - like that fishing is cruel and wrong, hunting is wrong, animals should have a bill of rights like we do, etc and so on.

Now if your avg Joe hunter were to support stopping corporations from being cruel to animals, they are also supporting people in that org who want to stop all hunting, fishing, etc and so on.

When the core message expands as much as it has with PETA than they can expect more and more people to distance themselves from them and stop supporting them.

I like to fish, have often eaten what I have caught in years past. Was better than buying fish from factory farms, etc. And I support PETA trying to put a stop to corporate cruelty and animal testing. But now they label me as the enemy as well - and many others who depend on hunting and fishing to subsidize their food intake. Once it was 'stop the cruelty' now they have become about a much broader message that affects a growing number of people.

It went from be nice and treat animals who will be food with respect to - if you kill an animal in any way or eat them you are just as bad and evil.

PETA got Hijacked. And while they may still have many worthy messages we should hear, they have alienated many potential friends by telling them they are cruel, evil, wrong, etc and so on.

People bought their message about cruelty, but they didn't about animals being the same as humans and that we should not eat them at all.

They simply don't accept how things are in this world and that humans will eat animals and that other animals will eat each other. Cruelty now seems like a side message to get attention.

PETA's message is very unified, which is why they get so much shit. Cruelty is a portion, or an offshoot or byproduct of their mission. PETA states, quite clearly, that they believe animals are not ours to eat, wear, exploit, experiment on or force to entertain us (I think I got them all).

PETA wasn't hijacked. This has been their core belief since 1980. And they don't, for gawd sakes, think animals should be the same as people.

Here:

“What rights should animals have?”

Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn’t have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.

and cleaning up a lot of their rhetoric and that's really unworthy of you.

The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human
being.
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA

We feel animals have the same rights as a retarded human child.
-Alex Pacheco (PETA)

Pet ownership is an "absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA

If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any
difference to me.
-Chris Derose, founder and director of Last Chance for Animals

Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal
consideration."
Michael Fox - Vice President, HSUS

They don't consider an animal the same as a human being? Not from what comes out of their own mouths.

Take your war against animal rights elsewhere. You interjecting quotes out of context from OTHER organizations shows your shitty bias.

"They" indeed.

You know damned well they are not out of context and uttered by the people running peta...including Ingrid Newkirk herself.

They don't want animals to have the same rights as humans, you're right there. They want animals to have MORE rights than humans.

When the publish crap like this:



They lose the right to bitch that people wont watch the other crap they put out..

"doesn’t have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child"

Is a subtle way to tie an animal to being the same as a child.

And no one was talking about them having rights to do things (like voting), it was all about we treat them and not what they can or cannot (or should not) do.

If they don't want us to eat them - then why not make that the central message over how we treat them before we eat them? Just come out and hammer that message as it is bigger than the cruelty one?

Maybe because they are more worried about the money they can pull in, so they hide behind one message while promoting another?

You'll get there, maybe.

No, the message is against us eating animals. Why? Because we don't need to. We do so because we WANT to, which, considering what we all know about the animal industry, is pretty fucking selfish.

If their message is about eating animals then why not make that their central focus over cruelty to how they are killed (and making sure KFC and others do it in a nice way) and just say up front to everyone what they are against.

Instead they work deals with big companies in hopes of making it less cruel, but if that is not their intention then why compromise at all?

The real reason is that they are on the losing end - world wide and since time began we have eaten animals and they have eaten each other. It is not about the morality of the act, but how it is done, and we are the only species to have an issue with the latter (and no one protests sharks when they eat a person who was just minding their own business in the water....).

In the end, one species will eat another - we though, as more sentient, should at least have enough respect to kill that which we are going to eat in a humane way. There is no reason not to. And I support that.

In the long run PETA is wanting money from people like me to stop cruelty to animals, when their real goal is something much larger. Why would I support a company that is basically lying to achieve such a goal as they have? Be up front and honest before you ask for support.

You want to support a vegan lifestyle - fine with me, that is your right. But if you show yourself as a group that wants to stop cruelty to animals on a corporate level while really trying to stop everyone from eating meat than I have an issue with that - especially when you are in favor of killing animals to stop them from over populating (ie, it is ok to kill them for one reason but not another).

You obviously didn't read my response.

PETA has a number of campaigns, and money goes towards each one. I fail to see where lying comes into play.

No reason not to? You know, that mentality is why folks buy Hummers. They WANT to. Regardless of how it fucks the planet, who gives a shit. Fuck the world. I want, so fuck you.

Sorta GOPish, if you ask me.

I always respect your posts here, even when, as now, we disagree.

So I hope you don't take my words as something personal - it is, and has been, a great and non-flamed discussion.

To me, on this larger issue, we have a group - PETA, representing itself to the many as a group which is for the prevention of cruelty to animals. They strive to work with large companies to improve the treatment of animals before they are killed. Something which I support. They fight against killing animals and raising them simply for fur, which I also support.

And yet they then veer off that trail and want to stop the very things they have worked on - an ethical treatment of animals. On the one hand they are working with others to make sure animals don't suffer before they die, and then later work to stop any death at all. You cannot have both.

This is my main issue with them. There is no middle ground in their eyes, but they have made one. It is OK for KFC to kill millions of chickens as long as they do so in a nice way, and yet they oppose killing them at all. But instead of working to stop them they work with them.

It is like saying stop the Iraq war but if your going to have it at least do it in a nice way, and let us assist you in doing so.

If they are opposed to the killing of animals, then fight for that in toto. Don't lure people into your cause by telling them you are opposed to X when it is really X&Y. Because when people see the Y they will be wondering why they are funding you when they were mainly on board for the X.

We have been, since the days of the indians and the buffalo, etc, here in the US been a people who have killed animals and eaten them and used them for multiple purposes. That won't change, ever. Humans have since the dawn of time eaten animals and used them (and to be fair, animals have eaten us as well).

What we want is a balance, what I and others want and hope for is a balance. So I support being fair and not torturing animals in the process.

I guess maybe I am wrong in all this, I thought PETA was for the ethical treatment of animals, which meant we did things in an ethical way when dealing with them before we ate them - versus corporations who treated them like a simple commodity and nothing more.

The human race won't ever change or stop eating meat. But at least we can change how we treat a food source.

My intention was not to offend, but to question and discuss. I hope outside of this issue we can remain friends on DU :)

Friends disagree often. I have friends that DETEST the Red Sox, yet, I keep them on speed dial.

I don't think PETA has represented itself as being solely a campaigning organization dealing with the immediate charges of cruelty to animals. They've gained accolades and a reputation for it, yes. PETA does cut deals with big corporations because those are the baby steps that we need. HSUS has done the same, albeit to me, more successfully. But then, I'm biased towards HSUS.

Ethics though, by definition, means we'd not eat animals at all. The "ethical treatment" of the equation is on a broad sense, not subject to what we ultimately wish to do with/to them.

On a philosophical level about humanity, animals, survival of the fittest, life after death, who decides what is best and how to enforce that, etc and so on...

Which is why I like talking to folks like yourself - we could go on all night about what it all means. If there is nothing beyond this life, than what reason do we have to be 'moral', etc and so on.

It is always good to come here and have a great discussion with folks like yourself.

From abortion to animal rights, from the death penalty to taxes and war and so on. One thing I find here at DU is the ability to interact with some folks without the yelling - and truly learn something, and if nothing else get to have my mind stimulated on issues.

We disagree, but at least I have found food (no pun intended...) for thought tonight :)


Thanks once more for a civil and intelligent discussion.

And, as always, good talking with you.

Don't tell your lovely wife that I stimulated any part of you, mind included. I think she could kick my ass.

:P

And she kicks my ass all the time, speaking of which, I need to go and clean the garage up before the end of the hockey game!

succinct and accurate

And PETA is an extremist group. I love animals, and I believe in treating them humanely in all cases. I volunteer for a lab rescue and I have seen the result of some of the cruelty, like some puppy mills, especially Amish puppy mills. But stealing lab animals is wrong, throwing blood on people is wrong. In order to make advancments in medicine and science, they need to try certain things out on something before they try it out on people. That doesn't mean that the animals should be mistreated, they should be treated as humanely as possible.

to PETA, the organization, stealing lab animals or throwing blood on people? I'd like to read them.

PETA is no more extremist than Greenpeace.

Watch this video:

http://thatvideosite.com/video/711

There is enough cruelty in the world against humans by humans. I know already what some are capable of doing to others without having to watch disgusting videos.

I get their (PETA) message, IMO there's no need to be so "in your face" about animal cruelty.

but my heart already aches for the animals. I think I'm close to having a stroke already, from all the shit that goes on every single day. There's only so much one can endure. :cry:

I have seen enough of them and I know what goes on, which is why I am a strong supporter of the animal rights movement. But, I don't want to depress myself by watching more of the videos :(.

Plus I like BBQ.

:hide:

has nothing to do with chosen dietary habits.

Just ignore them; the vegans and the meat eaters tend to go batshit when they see PETA. There were some good responses on here--you saw them. I think most people are like Barbara Bush---the truth--the reality hurts, so they just choose to turn away.

dont want to see the real story going on in the countries are are occupying. They dont want to soil their pretty minds with the truth.

*swoosh*

Good post.

Would I prefer that the meat I eat be the result of a clean kill after the animal has lived a life of relative comfort? Yes. But in reality, I can't always afford to seek out and buy only that kind of meat.

The bigger issue, however, is this: I don't think it's morally wrong for creatures designed to eat the flesh of other animals to eat it. Nor do I see this as a cruel game in which I, the human being, win, and the animal I eat loses. After all, I am going to die too someday, and when I do, whatever's left of me in the form of ashes will, I hope, fall to the ground and become part of the earth. That will nourish plants and earthworms, and the earthworms will be eaten by birds, and the birds will be eaten by other animals, and so on. Thus am I ultimately consumed myself, and part of the earth's life cycle. I may be at the top of the food chain now, but someday what's left of me will be at the bottom.

I have never understood the philosophy of people who say they "won't eat anything that has a mother" or "won't eat anything that can feel pain" or "won't eat anything that has a face." Doesn't every product of sexual reproduction have a mother, of sorts? How do we know whether a carrot feels pain? If it feels pain but can't cry out, aren't we discriminating in favor of creatures that CAN cry out? How doubly cruel, to eat something because if it feels pain, it can't cry out! And why the bias in favor of faced creatures vs. unfaced creatures? Does a sea urchin have a face? If it doesn't, is it then OK to eat it, even if it's a living thing capable of feeling pain, because it won't cry out and we don't have to look into its big sad eyes when we kill it? How biased is that, if we only feel bad about eating things that have eyes that can look at us and make us feel guilty about killing them? It's every bit as bad, I think, as having a problem with the eating of "pretty" or "pet" animals but not the eating of "ugly" or "food" ones. And hey, technically, pansies have a "face," even though they're only flowers; they look like they have faces. So we're not going to eat edible pansies when they garnish our food?

It just seems to me that many of the arguments in favor of veganism are based heavily in sentiment and the anthrpomorphization of animals. Attributing too much human quality and emotion to animals is just as bad as attributing too little or failing to recognize how much we share in common with them. Nothing wrong with veganism per se, so long as one ensures one's proper nutrition, but trying to guilt others into it by telling them they're cruel because they eat creatures with mothers and faces, that can experience pain, is just wrong.

As for PETA, they go way overboard in many areas. It's one thing to tell people there's no need to wear a fur coat. It's another to throw paint at them for doing so. Or "liberate" lab animals. Or scare children into believing that all meat eaters are bloodthirsty and enjoy torture. Or argue that "pets" are a moral evil.

I'm a member.

A member of PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANIMALS.

Though I also eat a lot of fruits and veggies probably half the people at my work think I'm veggie only. Little do they know.

explained why you choose not not watch their videos. This post is about the videos, not whether or not you like steaks.

Can you watch them? Do you? If not, why do you choose not to? Why is it difficult for people who eat meat to watch them?

If you are going to bother to post on the thread, please tell me why you don't/ or can't watch them. Not eating meat? Then do the videos of how your meat got to the table bother you?

zero.

This thread is about why people cannot, or do not watch those videos---not whether people are vegetarians, meat eaters, hunters, fisherman---nothing.

Please don't turn this into that.

You cant separate this out from some of their core goals

No Eating meat
No Fishing
No Hunting
No Medical Experimentation

Now off to make myself a steak..

I participated in the KFC boycott, and I've seen enough animal cruelty videos to last a lifetime. Idon't need to see more to get the point.

I think a lot of vegetarians think: "Oh, if they see this one, they're BOUND to go veg."

No. I tried vegetarianism for a while and it was not for me. I try to keep my meat consumption down for health's sake and go to cruelty-free producers when possible, but the hassle and unsatisfaction of trying to cobble together a balanced vegetarianvegan diet is not for me.

That being said - I think it's fine that the PETA folks want to run their ads and all, but this is DU. Most people here understand how factory farms work. Most of the people who would "go veg" already have.

Don't be mad if the videos don't have the desired effect.

I'm a leftist. My primary concern is HUMAN welfare and economic justice. I don't condone animal cruelty in any way, but animals' interests are way down on my priority list, even lower than wedge issues like lgbt rights or reproductive choice.

I'd rather see 100 chickens in typing-paper-sized cages than see one human child go hungry or abused. That's just me, though.

Have you ever seen an animal being killed by a wolf, a lion, or a bear? It's pretty horrific, they pretty much just jump on the poor critter and bite them until they are dead, sometimes they keep eating them alive. It's just as bad as when animals get killed by people for food or other resources. Still, if you took humans out of equation, tons off animals would still suffer horribly painful death at the hands of other animals on daily basis.

So why get so fixated on humans? For every horrific video of an animal being abused at a farm I can raise you a video of an animal being tortured and killed by another animal in the wild. Now what.

reason, I buy meat only at my local food co-op, which sells only meat from animals raised organically and humanely, free-range eggs, and organic dairy products.

seriously, why would they?

2. Because I find PETA members who throw dye and paint on people wearing fur despicable.

3. Because I find PETA protesters at modeling runways tiresome.

4. Because I've been to slaughter facilities, dairies, farrowing facilities, hog confinement facilities, feedlots, and livestock auctions, as well as horse races and dog races. I'm not bothered by any of it.

5. Because I generally find PETA members to be as annoying as anti-abortion activists.

just broaching the subject of PeTA brings about a lot of knee-jerk reactions.


There is literally nothing that you could post about PeTA that wouldn't get you the same response. A story about lobbying for laws against keeping dogs in cars in the summer or about the treatment of chickens by abusive slaughterhouses, or even about a letter-writing campaign against mistreatment of circus animals will get you the same responses:

PeTA are terrorists
Mmmm, steak
I'm a member of People Eating Tasty Animals
PeTA wants to outlaw companion animals
PeTA is trying to take away my meat

Even the most positive, peaceful, and effective campaign by PeTA will elicit the same response. PeTA could call for the elimination of, say, feeding ruminants to ruminants, and DUers would shriek about PeTA's extremism.



Most people are seriously misinformed about PeTA, and many actually believe the lies perpetuated about its purpose. There are organizations (like CCF) that are essentially designed to malign and lie about the mission of groups like PeTA. At the same time, PeTA doesn't help itself with its overly confrontational (and sometimes sexist) campaigns.


I can tell you that I have seen many PeTA videos. Having been a veg*n for over 20 years, I don't watch them anymore, because they hurt me. I suppose that there are some who don't watch them for that reason, but there are probably many who don't watch them because they think that animals don't matter, or because they don't like to feel as though they're being judged, even in a way that's so removed from them personally.

I wanted to read the reasons....even the smart ass "I love me some steak" ones.. because I think that most people want to keep their lives in the US sanitized. Seriously, it's not hard to eat meat when you "know" how the animals are treated, but all you see are the clean packages that the butcher has prepared.

I'm a vegetarian but I also grew up in farming country. some of PETA's views are valid, but others are just delusional, and don't pretend they don't sensationalize and propagandize.

Sorry I grew up butchering game animals, there is nothing that I could possibly see in a PETA video that I have not seen before or have not participated in, well I never used a cattle prod on an animal but other than that I have probably done it all.

One's ethics does not require one to see all the gory details of what one does or does not believe.

The human race eats meat. If some folks don't like that, don't eat it.