Why do YOU hate PETA?

[GESancMan]

There's a lot of PETA bashing on this board, of which I wholeheartedly approve. I'm curious, though, if anyone else has actually had any run-ins with them, or reasons to personally hate them. Not that a reason is needed to hate and bash them; the fact that PETA is composed of a bunch or morons is quite sufficient. Here's my story:

I used to be the general manager of a pizza restaurant in downtown San Jose. In 1998 the space next to my store became available for lease, so my boss (the owner of the restaurant) snapped it up and expanded the restaurant, tripling its size. One of the things he bought for the expansion was a 360 gallon aquarium, complete with two nurse sharks, Mike and Dale (http://www.suppersready.net/pictures/Sharks/sharks.html).

Those guys were awesome. I, and my staff, quickly fell in love with the sharks, and having them created something of a buzz around town. We fed them by hand, and would pet them as we fed them. I never knew fish could have personalities until I got Mike and Dale. For instance, the tank was located in my office, with the front facing out into the restaurant; the door to the office opened right near the side of the tank. Whenever I would enter, the sharks would dash to that end of the tank and start hamming it up. It's hard to describe, but it was kind of like how a dog gets totally excited when you come home.

At one point, The Daily Show filmed a short segment (http://www.suppersready.net/pictures/Dailyshow/dailyshow.html) in my restaurant specifically because of my sharks. They were doing a "Tale of Survival" story, about the mascot of the San Jose Sharks who tried to rappel from the rafters of the Arena and got stuck. TDS staff asked if there was anywhere close by that had actual sharks, and they were directed to my store. For some reason, only the second half (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-22-1999/a-tale-of-survival---s-j--sharkie) of the story can be found in TDS archives, and the parts filmed in my store aired during the first half of the story. :(

Unfortunately, about a year after we got them, Mike and Dale started to outgrow their aquarium. I started looking around for someone to take them, but didn't have much luck. I tried the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco, but IIRC they couldn't take them because they didn't have tanks at an appropriate temperature for my sharks.

As an aside - and this isn't even about PETA yet - during this time I got all sorts of grief from people about this. Some hippy-type would come up to me, all outraged, and start in about how I had to get those sharks outta there - as if I didn't already know that. I would try to patiently explain that I was trying to find them a new home, but it was never good enough. I had to get them out RIGHT FUCKING NOW. I always wanted to throttle these idiots - what the hell was I supposed to do, drive the sharks down to Santa Cruz and toss 'em off the end of the pier?

Anyway, I wasn't looking for any compensation for my sharks, I just wanted to find them a home. I was looking into donating them to Caesar's Palace, when PETA came along. I knew of the organization, but at the time I didn't know how loopy they were (or maybe they hadn't gone off the deep end yet?). They wanted to help, and I was happy with that. In early 2000 they put together a deal where the sharks were flown to Miami and released off of the Florida Keys, at no expense to my company. The lady I dealt with was very nice (at the time), and I thought it was a win-win situation.

The San Jose Mercury News showed up to cover the story when the day came to remove the sharks from my restaurant. The next day, a Sunday, the story ran. The article was fair - it impartially covered the story pretty much as I've written it here. The press in Miami, though, was a different story. I wasn't witness to it, as it happened on the other side of the country, but apparently the arrival of my sharks caused a bit of a stir in the Miami press. When I heard of this, I started looking into it, to see what was being written and shown on television.

None of it was good. The lady I dealt with was all smiles-and-nice with my company, then turned around and painted us as the epitome of evil to the media in Miami. Instead of just telling the truth, they were helping out someone in need and finding a home for my sharks, PETA made it appear as though I was some cruel asshole who likes to torture animals, keeping the sharks in a tank that was "unkempt" to the point the sharks "could barely breathe." And, of course, PETA came charging to the "rescue." It was all such a bunch of fucking bullshit! And did the "fair and impartial" press in Miami contact me to get my side of the story? Of course not.

As much as I would have liked to take PETA to task for this, it wouldn't have done any good. Being the manager of the restaurant, if I'd attacked them then my company name would have gotten involved, and things would have become unnecessarily ugly. So I let it go. I did, however, write a scathing email to the nitwit at the Miami Herald who wrote a rather inflammatory article, but she never got back to me. Surprise, surprise.

For my write up here, I tried to hunt down these articles to link them here. I found the SJ Mercury story, dated 2/6/00, in their archives, but I'd have to create an account to access the full article, which I'm not interested in doing. I did a search for "shark" in the Miami Herald's archives, looking through the month of February 2000, but I couldn't find what I was looking for. But again, the search results only showed the first couple of lines of each story, and I can't access the rest without an account.

So that is why I personally think PETA is a bunch of fucking idiots. Any others?

[Ferret Herder]

I'm a vegetarian, partially for animal-cruelty-based reasons. I also dislike animal testing of cosmetics/beauty products and try to avoid ones that use the process, though I'm in favor of (useful, logical) animal testing for medical products. I don't proselytize on the subject.

I hate PETA because many of their campaigns end up tarring sensible people like me with the brush of idiot lunacy. I get that they're trying to make a point with the "seakittens" campaign (rename fish to "seakittens" because otherwise people don't give a damn about anything that isn't cute and fluffy) and many others, but damn, most people just see stuff like that and think they're lunatics who want animals to be able to vote and hold office or something.

I also hate PETA for their history of supporting various radical organizations, like speaking out in favor of radical action, monetarily helping the Animal Liberation Front in defending against lawsuits, and PETA's founder helped ALF with some raids, allegedly.

And in a lot of ways, they're the only ones out there for many issues. Most successful anti-animal-cruelty organizations are the "omg look at the puppies being beaten and starved!" types. I understand why. Those ads on TV totally dig in on my conscience - and tear ducts, for that matter. And PETA does help in the area of pets, including offering reduced cost or free pet neutering and offering free, compassionate euthanasia for pets whose owners cannot afford it (or for some communities who cannot afford to provide it at shelters), in some poor regions of the US.

But on the subject of treatment of food animals, PETA is the major player. Most people don't know about what their meat goes through before it hits their tables, but some would certainly prefer that it be treated a lot better when it's a living, breathing animal, and would be interested in knowing about what's going on. Pulling stupid stunts isn't the best way to go about it, and between that and their support of more radical organizations, PETA makes themselves look dangerous and unreliable, and makes those people who are concerned about such things look insane.

[ralph124c]

I find PETA both amusing and annoying. The amusing part: claiming that certain animals are like humans. A local Boston radio talk show guy (Howie Carr) always has some nut from PETA on-the day before Thanksgiving. This guy raves on and on about how turkeys are intelligent, and that it is a crime to kill and eat them. The fact is, a domestic turkey is pretty low on the intelligence scale, and they taste delicious. :D
The annoying part: they don't want people to have pet dogs and cats. I HAVE a dog, and I take good care of her-it is none of their damn business, that I enjoy my pet.:(

[Oakminster]

PETA is real tough when they're harassing blue haired little old ladies for wearing fur. If they want to impress me, they'll need to start harassing biker gangs for wearing leather.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to The BBQ Pit.

[Todderbob]

I don't like PETA, because they're a bunch of douchebags who assume that anyone who has a pet has a slave. Not really, I wish I lived in the kind of luxury my dog does. The spoiled dog gets anything and everything she wants, sleeps whenever she wants, and might as well be a cat for all the work she does.

[Silver Tyger]

I hate PETA because they kill perfectly healthy animals (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/). They get animals in and instead of finding homes for them, euthanize them. And they do this for 90% of the dogs and cats they get.

[tr0psn4j]

As a fisherman, I have a FEW reasons.

I wouldn't even know where to start. The PETArds can rot in hell.

[LurkMeister]

I don't like PETA, because they're a bunch of douchebags who assume that anyone who has a pet has a slave. Not really, I wish I lived in the kind of luxury my dog does. The spoiled dog gets anything and everything she wants, sleeps whenever she wants, and might as well be a cat for all the work she does.

I was just telling myself the other day that if reincarnation is real I want to come back as a cat that has the life that my cats have. They get fed, cleaned up after, petted when they want it and ignored when they don't, and don't have to do a lick of work. Well, being neutered might have been a disadvantage....

[Kyla]

I agree with Ferret Herder. I hate that a lot of us vegetarians who are interested in animal welfare end up get painted with the loony brush due to these morons.

[Mr. Excellent]

The lady I dealt with was all smiles-and-nice with my company, then turned around and painted us as the epitome of evil to the media in Miami. Instead of just telling the truth, they were helping out someone in need and finding a home for my sharks, PETA made it appear as though I was some cruel asshole who likes to torture animals, keeping the sharks in a tank that was "unkempt" to the point the sharks "could barely breathe." And, of course, PETA came charging to the "rescue." It was all such a bunch of fucking bullshit! And did the "fair and impartial" press in Miami contact me to get my side of the story? Of course not.


This is very strange. Why would you tar-and-feather a business that's *cooperating* with your agenda in full? If you think sharks shouldn't live in tanks, and a business says "hey, we have sharks in tanks - can you help us release them?", why wouldn't you praise them to the skies? Isn't this exactly the behavior PETA wants to encourage?

[Oscalo]

Because they're basically the teabaggers of the left - a bunch of yahoos whose extreme rhetoric and stunts pretty much obscure whatever legimate concerns they may have.

[Bill Door]

This is very strange. Why would you tar-and-feather a business that's *cooperating* with your agenda in full? If you think sharks shouldn't live in tanks, and a business says "hey, we have sharks in tanks - can you help us release them?", why wouldn't you praise them to the skies? Isn't this exactly the behavior PETA wants to encourage?

Because PETA's business is not releasing sharks. PETA's business is soliciting donations from people who want sharks released. The harder it looks, the more the money flows. Wresting these mistreated fish from cruel owners draws a lot more donations than having somebody walk up and give you a couple of sharks.

[Magiver]

I have no use for an organization that shows up at a restaurant and pickets it with a "meat is murder" rant. The last time they did this in my area I drove across down (as did many other people) to buy food from the establishment. I don't remember what the outcome was but the restaurant did very well that day. The only message that hit the news was the success of the business.

The same organization was railing against large egg production facilities in my state in the middle of the swine flu epidemic (eggs are used in the vaccine process).

For any good they might do they burn their credibility to the ground with the stunts they pull.

[YogSosoth]

They lie to people about animals and animal products. They regard animal rights as being above human rights.

[romansperson]

I hate them for coming to the state in which I live, the lying scumbags, and telling shelters they'll find new homes for some of their animals and then killing those animals and dumping the bodies (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8255324).

I hate them for getting for getting away with it, (http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/1379/NC/US/) and I hate that most likely that isn't the first time and won't be the last, either (http://news.bestfriends.org/index.cfm?page=specialreports&catid=06617146-BDB9-396E-92D188A09A37E78E&mode=entry&entry=B0925E65-BDB9-396E-99D960E7B872CB4F). And still there's morons out there that give them money.

[NinjaChick]

There's two types of people:
1. People who are for animal rights in some form or another (against corporate feed lots, against animal cruelty, against animal testing, against fur/leather). These people generally hold beliefs which can in some way be paraphrased as 'treat living things with respect'. These people will generally acknowledge that it's impossible to treat everything perfectly, and that if a pharmaceutical test may, say, yield a drug which is cheap to produce and prevents glaucoma, saving the vision and thus livelihood of countless humans may be worth the discomfort and even death of otherwise well-treated lab animals. They also acknowledge that what someone chooses to eat is really none of your damn business: your preferences are your own, and no one likes to go out to dinner with an asshole.
2. PETA people, who refuse to acknowledge any shades of gray and believe that their moral beliefs are unassailable truths. They also seem to think that dressing up hot chicks in bikinis and having them strut around in public does something meaningful, when all it does is make me confused as to who I hate more, the black-and-white animal rights people or the "everything is offensive" feminist people.

Also, I haven't read as much of what they say about other animals, but their stance on pet dogs is pretty reprehensible.

[tr0psn4j]

Anyone know a PETA member?

[GESancMan]

This is very strange. Why would you tar-and-feather a business that's *cooperating* with your agenda in full? If you think sharks shouldn't live in tanks, and a business says "hey, we have sharks in tanks - can you help us release them?", why wouldn't you praise them to the skies? Isn't this exactly the behavior PETA wants to encourage?

I should clarify that PETA approached me, not the other way around. I don't know how that came about, I assume a customer got in touch with them. So perhaps in their twisted minds they really were "coming to the rescue."

I've never given this much thought before, but now I'm wondering why the way they presented the story towards the media in San Jose, where my business was located, was so drastically different than the spin they gave the story for Miami. I mean, knowing what I do about PETA now, it seems out of character that they didn't spread the same lies at home, where they could have hurt my business. Though I suppose it's easier to make yourself look like the hero in a faraway place, where the "vanquished" aren't present to counter the story.

[Harmonious Discord]

They are extremists that think doing anything they want is alright if it's for their goal.

[Kyla]

Anyone know a PETA member?

I took a community college course several years ago with a PETA member. He and I had an innocent conversation once wherein I happened to mention that I'm a vegetarian. Thinking he'd spotted a potential convert, he then spent the rest of the course giving me PETA pamphlets with horrible graphic pictures of dead animals.

No, thank you.

[Merneith]

I do follow PETA's list of cosmetic companies which do/don't perform testing of ingredients or products on animals. I can't argue against medical testing but for vanity products I try to go as vegan as possible. PETA's list is imperfect (and they acknowledge it) but it's something. Overall, they're a pretty dodgy bunch.

[romansperson]

Anyone know a PETA member?

I used to have a neighbor who worked for PETA back when I lived in VA. She did not seem insane, and she and her husband kept pets. So when the story I linked to above broke, I did wonder what she would have said about it had she been around to ask. She and her husband divorced and they sold their house and moved away even before we moved, so I didn't know where she was by that time.

[Chefguy]

I dislike all extremist groups, regardless of their supposed good intentions. PETA is populated by a bunch of loonies with opinions that are rarely based in fact. Sort of the Tea-baggers of the left.

ETA: I see that Oscalo put it more succinctly than I.

[stpauler]

I'm more of a carni- than an omnivore. I like to eat meat. Well, a couple years ago, I thought of severely slowing down my meat intake and going more towards vegetarian. So, as I was googling for vegetarian recipes, PETA popped up and offered a free vegetarian recipe book for meat eaters. Perfect! I thought this would be something that would change my eating habits.

A week or so later, I got the equivalent to a Jack Chick tract in the mail from PETA. The recipe book had two recipes in it and the other 30 pages or so were devoted to showing slaughterhouses and animal cruelty and preachin' and screechin'.

They must not realize that that would actually turn someone off of their cause instead of winning them over. I never did go even close to vegetarian and while I don't blame PETA, they certainly did not help at all.

[llcoolbj77]

My story -

I used to work at the National Institutes of Health in college and for a year after; first at the NCI (cancer), then at NIAMS (arthritis/musculoskelatal diseases). For a few days every year there were organized protests, specifically aimed at the laboratories that conducted animal testing. During those days security was beefed up and mostly the protestors just made it a pain in the ass to get in and out of work.

But it just bothered me that many of the protestors were wearing make-up and leather shoes/purses (not to mention the number of yippie college kids wearing nike running shoes). Some how killing animals for attire, or to ensure that mascara was hypoallergenic, was justified... :smack: These folks were so fired up about animal testing, but happily supported a company notorious for sweatshops... :rolleyes:

[BluePitbull]

I'm more of a carni- than an omnivore. I like to eat meat. Well, a couple years ago, I thought of severely slowing down my meat intake and going more towards vegetarian. So, as I was googling for vegetarian recipes, PETA popped up and offered a free vegetarian recipe book for meat eaters. Perfect! I thought this would be something that would change my eating habits.

A week or so later, I got the equivalent to a Jack Chick tract in the mail from PETA. The recipe book had two recipes in it and the other 30 pages or so were devoted to showing slaughterhouses and animal cruelty and preachin' and screechin'.

They must not realize that that would actually turn someone off of their cause instead of winning them over. I never did go even close to vegetarian and while I don't blame PETA, they certainly did not help at all.

Wouldn't pictures of slaughterhouses and animal cruelty make you feel guilty enough to be a vegan?

[tr0psn4j]

Wouldn't pictures of slaughterhouses and animal cruelty make you feel guilty enough to be a vegan?

It might make me hungry. :)

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Wouldn't pictures of slaughterhouses and animal cruelty make you feel guilty enough to be a vegan?

Not me. They make me hungry.

Mmmmm...bloody, eviscerated meat.....

Seriously, I can understand why some people don't eat red meat/poultry due to objections to factory farms and the like, but fish? FISH? Now we shouldn't eat "seakittens" either?

Give me a break.

[stpauler]

Wouldn't pictures of slaughterhouses and animal cruelty make you feel guilty enough to be a vegan?

No.

I mean, if I had to watch it while I was eating I would probably lose my appetite. The same with having to watch a person paid far below minimum wage picking my produce while I try to eat a salad.

My problem with PETA was that instead of helping me, they chose to (figuratively) scream at me the "evils" of what I was doing.

[friedo]

I do follow PETA's list of cosmetic companies which do/don't perform testing of ingredients or products on animals. I can't argue against medical testing but for vanity products I try to go as vegan as possible. PETA's list is imperfect (and they acknowledge it) but it's something. Overall, they're a pretty dodgy bunch.

Guess what: all your cruelty-free cosmetics are made by companies who just buy their recipes from other companies that do animal testing. That way they can say they don't do any animal testing.

[Serenata67]

As a Green Bay Packers fan, and advocate of responsible consumption of alcohol, I hate them.

About once a season or so, PETA protests on a game day. They hate the Packers because it used to be the Acme Meat Packers, way back when. They suggest we change the name to "The Green Bay Six-Packers." Are you fucking serious?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

As a Green Bay Packers fan, and advocate of responsible consumption of alcohol, I hate them.

About once a season or so, PETA protests on a game day. They hate the Packers because it used to be the Acme Meat Packers, way back when. They suggest we change the name to "The Green Bay Six-Packers." Are you fucking serious?

You have to admit, it does have a certain panache, a joie de vivre that's fairly representative of the average NFL fan that goes to games.
:)

[Serenata67]

I find it funny, yes. But sometimes PETA is so close-minded that they don't realize what they're doing. For this argument, I'll take PETA's stand that meat (and meat-packing) are evil. So basically, they're moving from advocating one evil (meat-packing) to another (alcohol consumption).

I'm sure the Temperance League would be all about protesting that name change. :D

[Kimstu]

For this argument, I'll take PETA's stand that meat (and meat-packing) are evil. So basically, they're moving from advocating one evil (meat-packing) to another (alcohol consumption).

Which seems especially ridiculous given that I'm sure millions of people, including me, never even realized that the team name "Packers" was originally "Meat Packers". Why is it somehow better to change "Meat Packers" to "Six Packers" rather than just to "Packers"? The "meat" association is already gone.

[Serenata67]

which seems especially ridiculous given that i'm sure millions of people, including me, never even realized that the team name "packers" was originally "meat packers". Why is it somehow better to change "meat packers" to "six packers" rather than just to "packers"? The "meat" association is already gone.

Exactly!!!!!

[drachillix]

I'm sure the Temperance League would be all about protesting that name change. :D

Or MADD..

Make those two groups butt heads and they may convert totally to energy and annihilate wisconsin in the ensuing explosion.

[Revtim]

They make an extremest joke out of a decent cause, minimizing the suffering of animals. Fuck PETA, and support The Humane Society and local shelters.

[AClockworkMelon]

I hate PETA because they're hypocrites (fueling protests outside of shelters because animals there are put to sleep - only to hide the fact that they put down thousands of animals every year themselves) and because they demand "total liberation" of animals. No pets, no more medical research (without animal studies all medical research comes to a halt), no more film, insulation, furniture glue, nothing that uses animal parts.

They want us to live in the stone age.

[NinjaChick]

Anyone know a PETA member?
I had the misfortune of living in the same dorm as one. She called me a murderer for using honey, and was unable to explain where I was wrong in assuming that honey farmers in fact want their bees alive, not dead. Also according to her: humans are not omnivores, that's just a lie spread by the government. Another government lie is that vegetarians need to pay attention to their diet to get enough nutrients, because humans can naturally extract everything they need from vegetables. Yep, just veggies - no need for things like grains or legumes. There's seriously just no reasoning with some people.
Not me. They make me hungry.

Mmmmm...bloody, eviscerated meat.....

Seriously, I can understand why some people don't eat red meat/poultry due to objections to factory farms and the like, but fish? FISH? Now we shouldn't eat "seakittens" either?

Give me a break.
I agree that "seakitten" is one of the stupidest attention-getting attempts ever, but there are some issues (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,391523-1,00.html) with fish farming. I'm not trying to sway you in any particular direction, but in the interest of fairness I do want to point out that fish farms can have significant environmental impact and may not be great for the fish. (I personally don't really care; my much greater objection is that fish is the most foul-smelling edible substance ever.)

[Ají de Gallina]

PETA is real tough when they're harassing blue haired little old ladies for wearing fur. If they want to impress me, they'll need to start harassing biker gangs for wearing leather.

I'm going to steal this phrase.
You fucking nailed it.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

From what I've seen of PETA (and the ALF - I'm not going out of my way to make a distinction between them), they are at best ignorant hypocritical irresponsible lying bastards with no respect at all for the welfare of the animals they supposedly care so much about.

[Ferret Herder]

Guess what: all your cruelty-free cosmetics are made by companies who just buy their recipes from other companies that do animal testing. That way they can say they don't do any animal testing.
Or with chemicals that were tested in the past on animals and thus the company doesn't see a need to do it all fucking over again.

[Alessan]

Wouldn't pictures of slaughterhouses and animal cruelty make you feel guilty enough to be a vegan?

No, it would make me angry at the people who showed me something so unpleasant, causing me to reject whatever they're advocating. In other way, I'd treat them the same way I'd treat someone defecating on my doormat.

[Bill Door]

I'm going to steal this phrase.
You fucking nailed it.

The first time I heard that one I laughed so hard I fell off my saber toothed tiger. That one might be older than Oakminster. It's still a good one, and once you file the serial numbers off of it should be fair game. You can't call it stealing.

[Gangster Octopus]

My wife used to be a member of PETA, and she is still sympathetic if not entirely on board. And she understands completely that 90% of the stuff they do is to create shock and awe tohelp raise money.

I certainly don't condone the way PETA handled the OPs situation, sounds pretty shitty. But it was also pretty short-sighted to buy sharks without considering the consequences of when they got bigger. Certainly doesn't make you the devil incarnate, though.

[Oakminster]

I'm going to steal this phrase.
You fucking nailed it.

The first time I heard that one I laughed so hard I fell off my saber toothed tiger. That one might be older than Oakminster. It's still a good one, and once you file the serial numbers off of it should be fair game. You can't call it stealing.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I heard it somewhere before, but I can't remember where or when. Might pay to watch PETA try it, though....

[Harmonious Discord]

They want us to live in the stone age.

Not really. Humans used lots of meat and animal parts back then.:)

[AClockworkMelon]

Not really. Humans used lots of meat and animal parts back then.:)But they didn't have film and modern insulation!

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I fail to understand the outrage over the use of animal parts beyond food. Besides maybe clubbing baby seals for their fur, leather is a perfectly acceptable usage of cow skin to me.

I guess I'm going to be the asshole that says "I don't really care about the supposed plight of herd animals and birds that are harvested for their meat and body parts, since they are...not people".

I really don't give a shit. What I DO give a shit about is the potential for human poisoning due to unknown results of modern farming practices like hormones and such.

And even then, I don't care a whole lot. I like meat, I like milk, I like whatever I like, and if I am able to buy a product that is by and large demonstrably safe, then I generally just don't care.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I hate PETA because they're such successful trolls. There are thousands of nonprofits doing great work in the US and around the world, but if a search I conducted a few years ago is accurate, all of them together get less attention here on SDMB than PETA does. They troll, y'all bite.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I hate PETA because they're hypocrites (fueling protests outside of shelters because animals there are put to sleep - only to hide the fact that they put down thousands of animals every year themselves) and because they demand "total liberation" of animals. No pets, no more medical research (without animal studies all medical research comes to a halt), no more film, insulation, furniture glue, nothing that uses animal parts.

They want us to live in the stone age.Of course, I also hate it when folks buy someone else's bullshit! about PETA. This quoted paragraph has only a nodding acquaintance with reality; I say this having done some several hours of research into PETA's positions and actions some years ago. They don't protest euthanasia at all, and their call for total liberation of animals is very much a long-term prospect. They're still nutbags in many ways, but not like this.

[Martini Enfield]

I fail to understand the outrage over the use of animal parts beyond food. Besides maybe clubbing baby seals for their fur, leather is a perfectly acceptable usage of cow skin to me.

I guess I'm going to be the asshole that says "I don't really care about the supposed plight of herd animals and birds that are harvested for their meat and body parts, since they are...not people".

I really don't give a shit. What I DO give a shit about is the potential for human poisoning due to unknown results of modern farming practices like hormones and such.

And even then, I don't care a whole lot. I like meat, I like milk, I like whatever I like, and if I am able to buy a product that is by and large demonstrably safe, then I generally just don't care.

I just wanted to observe the disconnect here between your poster name and your views. :p

In relation to the OP, PETA have not made themselves popular in Australia due to their attempts to get live exports of farm animals banned (Farming is a major industry in Australia and fucking with that is a Very Bad Thing), criticising Steve Irwin after he died (people might have found his image a bit cliched and tiring, but no-one can deny he did good work and was truly passionate and cared about about wildlife), and generally being associated with the extreme left fringe.

[AClockworkMelon]

their call for total liberation of animals is very much a long-term prospect.It being a long-term prospect doesn't reduce its ridiculousness at all.

[Una Persson]

1) Without animal medical testing, I and millions of other diabetics would have been dead.

2) Their criminal actions which they feel are justified by the ends.

3) They are incredible IRL trolls, and trolls on message boards. Wasn't there a PETA member on this message board who caused a stir by equating wearing leather shoes with making Jewish skin lamps?

Most PETA members I've met are typically the overeducated and underemployed children of middle-class homes who in lieu of doing anything productive with their life like a career, decided to essentially become 21st-century Yippies.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I just wanted to observe the disconnect here between your poster name and your views. :p



Purely accidental. I have no particular liking for seasoned, seared duck or goose body parts when they are served over a brioche toast to catch the drippings and an acidic fruit/wine combo to finish the deal. Disgusting!

That shit should be illegal or something...

[Cheshire Human]

As a Green Bay Packers fan, and advocate of responsible consumption of alcohol, I hate them.

About once a season or so, PETA protests on a game day. They hate the Packers because it used to be the Acme Meat Packers, way back when. They suggest we change the name to "The Green Bay Six-Packers." Are you fucking serious?

I suggest Fudge-Packers.:D

[curlcoat]

They make an extremest joke out of a decent cause, minimizing the suffering of animals. Fuck PETA, and support The Humane Society and local shelters.

Not the HSUS - they are essentially the same thing as PETA.

[Jenaroph]

1) Without animal medical testing, I and millions of other diabetics would have been dead.


Including Ingrid Newkirk, PETA president.

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
--Glamour, January 1990

[Rick]

1) Without animal medical testing, I and millions of other diabetics would have been dead.A number of years ago I had a an employee that was a very nice sweet beautiful young lady. This young lady was one that brought light into any room she walked into. Funny, smart, nice, everything you can say about the typical girl next door (assuming that you have excellent taste in neighbors)
She also happened to be severely diabetic. Injected insulin.
Anyway to make a long story short, I love my dog, but if it meant the life of a person like her, I would gladly give the life of my dog, and all of my future dogs to preserve hers. (same with you Una)
Also if you look up hypocrite in the dictionary it says see PETA. MaryBeth Sweetland, is an insulin-dependent diabetic.[75] Sweetland, who would not have had treatment available for her disease had insulin not been developed using animal products and testing, has defended her actions, stating "I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."[76] cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals)
bite me bitch. Your life is not worth 1 penny more than Una's or my former employees. In fact it is worth less as they contribute positive things to this life, you on the other hand are a POS.

[AClockworkMelon]

Including Ingrid Newkirk, PETA president.

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
--Glamour, January 1990

That's actually PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland. But yes, it is the height of hypocrisy.

Edit: Rick beat me to the punch with MaryBeth's quote.

[Jenaroph]

Huh. Misread my cite, my apologies. The point stands however.

[BigT]

The one girl I know who embraces PETA seems to do it because she likes to look at herself and post pictures of herself in various stages of undress on her MySpace.

I don't even know if I can muster up actual hate for PETA anymore. I honestly believe they are shooting themselves in the foot, as I know of no one in my generation or younger that actually buys what they are selling. That's the thing about trolling: it's unsustainable in the long run.

[Ferret Herder]

Not the HSUS - they are essentially the same thing as PETA.
I've never seen anything to support that assertion. Even their positions on animal welfare/rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_States#Position) differ greatly. They support a lot of animal research (but with some reductions), they are in favor of responsible pet ownership, they oppose cruelty in raising of food animals but are not against eating animals, etc. They're against hunting for any reason other than wildlife population management or food.

[DianaG]

Not the HSUS - they are essentially the same thing as PETA.
This is impressively ignorant, even for you. :dubious:

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This is impressively ignorant, even for you. :dubious:
There's a one-many lobbying team who runs some websites like activistcash.com and some others. He's hired by the restaurant industry to try to discredit people who might increase restaurant costs or litigation. His two main focuses are animal welfare issues and MADD. If you hear someone claiming HSUS is like PETA, they probably have been taken in by this guy.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I fail to understand the outrage over the use of animal parts beyond food. Besides maybe clubbing baby seals for their fur, leather is a perfectly acceptable usage of cow skin to me.
Seal hunters have stopped hunting juvenile seals at least 20 years ago because of protests. Of course, that won't stop PETA or other extremist groups from still making this claim, as young seals are "cute".

And of course, most of the opposition to seal hunting is based on cuteness in the first place.

[Serenata67]

I suggest Fudge-Packers.:D

Are you a Bears or Vikings fan? :p

[Merneith]

Guess what: all your cruelty-free cosmetics are made by companies who just buy their recipes from other companies that do animal testing. That way they can say they don't do any animal testing.Or with chemicals that were tested in the past on animals and thus the company doesn't see a need to do it all fucking over again.

You don't say.

Still, Friedo, I suspect you'd be unable to provide a cite showing that -all- cruelty-free cosmetics use recipes from companies which currently perform animal testing. Cosmetic testing on animals was banned in Britain in 1998 and was banned in the EU five years later. Clearly it's possible to buy from companies which currently eschew animal testing for cosmetics. I can't do anything about products or companies involved in animal tests decades ago but I can do my best to avoid products from companies which are still testing today.

Like I said, the testing lists are imperfect, but they're a start.

[billfish678]

".

And of course, most of the opposition to seal hunting is based on cuteness in the first place.

One of my favorite early internet sites was Hunting Baby Fur Seals for Fun and Profit. It was a tongue in cheek site that had the feel of those late night ads for home businesses/MLM type of things.

Of course some people had no sense of humor about it. And some even thought the thing was for real. The hate mail that guy posted was hilarious.

And the Bonzai Kitty website where the guy had a how to on how to grow a baby kitten in a bottle to make it a Bonzai Kitty had some good mail too.

[Mr. Excellent]

One of my favorite early internet sites was Hunting Baby Fur Seals for Fun and Profit. It was a tongue in cheek site that had the feel of those late night ads for home businesses/MLM type of things.

Of course some people had no sense of humor about it. And some even thought the thing was for real. The hate mail that guy posted was hilarious.


I remember that one! Oh, man - memories. Prodigy dial-up, watching GIFs sloowwwly load one line at a time ... I kind of miss the nineties now.

[Projammer]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I heard it somewhere before, but I can't remember where or when. Might pay to watch PETA try it, though....
I'm reasonably sure I've seen it on a bumper sticker somewhere. An oldie, but definately a goodie.

[tagos]

Because they're basically the teabaggers of the left - a bunch of yahoos whose extreme rhetoric and stunts pretty much obscure whatever legimate concerns they may have.

PETA are not part of 'The Left', whatever that might be.

[Gangster Octopus]

PETA is particularly annoying for those of us who do support Animal Welfare causes (note Animal Welfare, not Animal Rights) because they are so out there with their insane campaigns, that they tend to paint every activity and organization related to animals with the same crazy brush.

[muldoonthief]

3) They are incredible IRL trolls, and trolls on message boards. Wasn't there a PETA member on this message board who caused a stir by equating wearing leather shoes with making Jewish skin lamps?


That was OpalCat, here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2072856&postcount=27), where she was questioning whether its ethical for vegetarians to buy leather-bound books or some such nonsense.

Hmm, now I'm hungry for some buckeyes...

[chrisk]

I should clarify that PETA approached me, not the other way around. I don't know how that came about, I assume a customer got in touch with them. So perhaps in their twisted minds they really were "coming to the rescue."

I've never given this much thought before, but now I'm wondering why the way they presented the story towards the media in San Jose, where my business was located, was so drastically different than the spin they gave the story for Miami. I mean, knowing what I do about PETA now, it seems out of character that they didn't spread the same lies at home, where they could have hurt my business. Though I suppose it's easier to make yourself look like the hero in a faraway place, where the "vanquished" aren't present to counter the story.

I wonder if this is because there were actually two different people handling it in each city - the San Jose guy didn't really want to antagonize someone who was cooperating/seemed to want what was best for the sharks, but didn't bother to communicate that to his Miami counterpart:

"Hey. Yeah, I've got two sharks here, need some help getting them released into the ocean. You can help me out? Hey, thanks man. Huh? Oh, they were living in a pizza restaurant for two years, and now they're too big for the tank, yeah."

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

Anyone know a PETA member?

I'm sure there are plenty of people, though, who join PETA because "hey, they help animals", and aren't really aware of what whackjobs they're hooking up with.

I had the misfortune of living in the same dorm as one. She called me a murderer for using honey, and was unable to explain where I was wrong in assuming that honey farmers in fact want their bees alive, not dead.

:eek: Of all the ignorance mentioned in this thread, I think this takes the prize.

[romansperson]

Or MADD..

Make those two groups butt heads and they may convert totally to energy and annihilate wisconsin in the ensuing explosion.

They actually have already (http://www.realbeer.com/news/articles/news-000747.php)- in 2000 PETA did this dumbass 'Got beer?' campaign, which it aimed at college students, claiming that beer was better for you than millk (Cecil actually did a column related to it (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2442/is-cows-milk-the-worst-beverage-on-earth)). MADD got all up in their grill about it and they pulled the campaign, only to try to start it up again a couple years later in Canada (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2002/tgr82602.htm). I'm they (PETA, that is) were delighted with the extra attention they got from it.

[GESancMan]

I wonder if this is because there were actually two different people handling it in each city - the San Jose guy didn't really want to antagonize someone who was cooperating/seemed to want what was best for the sharks, but didn't bother to communicate that to his Miami counterpart:

"Hey. Yeah, I've got two sharks here, need some help getting them released into the ocean. You can help me out? Hey, thanks man. Huh? Oh, they were living in a pizza restaurant for two years, and now they're too big for the tank, yeah."

No, it was the same person, the woman who was in charge of the operation to "rescue" my sharks. She played nice with the media in San Jose, but the articles I saw in the Miami press quoted her with the lies I've written about.

You have a point, though. She probably didn't want to antagonize us, as you say, but wanted PETA to come across as "The Hero" in Miami, perhaps thinking we'd never know.

[Johnny Angel]

PETA is real tough when they're harassing blue haired little old ladies for wearing fur. If they want to impress me, they'll need to start harassing biker gangs for wearing leather.
I'm going to steal this phrase.
You fucking nailed it.
I believe the ultimate credit for this bon mot goes to Terry Pratchett.

I agree with much of the grumbling about PETA's tactics, hypocrisy, attention-whoring, ect. Compared to that, one particular grudge I still hold against them seems pretty minor, but rankles me in the mists of memory. Early in the explosion of the web, one guy registered the domain PETA.org. He put up a web site called People Eating Tasty Animals (http://mtd.com/tasty/) that featured links to anti-PETA information, as well as a lot of sites of interest to people who like the things PETA hates. When PETA woke up and realized they were missing the bus, they wrested the domain name away from the owner through lawsuits. They were a huge organization funded by the allowances of a lot of gullible 14-year-olds, but the guy who got the domain name first was just a guy holding down a job. Fucking pricks.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

:eek: Of all the ignorance mentioned in this thread, I think this takes the prize.
Actually, the irritating roommate had a point. Beekeepers want the hive to survive, but inevitably bees are killed in the production of honey, and there's no profit in preventing a small number of deaths. One beekeeper's memoir I read described how her summer assistants would work themselves up to ten stings a day, deliberately administered (thus killing 10 bees a day), to inure themselves to the pain of the sting. If you start from the admittedly dubious position that a bee's life is something worth serious protection, then avoiding honey is wise.

As for PETA's taking the peta.org domain, that was wholly reasonable and within any sort of traditional trademark realm. The dude that registered generalmotors.com also had to give it up.

I agree with Gangster: PETA's trolling distracts people from serious animal welfare issues, and even from serious animal rights arguments (such as those put forth by Tom Reagan). They're an incredibly annoying organization, not least because people fall for their trolling so consistently.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Actually, the irritating roommate had a point. Beekeepers want the hive to survive, but inevitably bees are killed in the production of honey, and there's no profit in preventing a small number of deaths. One beekeeper's memoir I read described how her summer assistants would work themselves up to ten stings a day, deliberately administered (thus killing 10 bees a day), to inure themselves to the pain of the sting. If you start from the admittedly dubious position that a bee's life is something worth serious protection, then avoiding honey is wise.As a beekeeper, I think the roommate is a moron (well, obviously). I, personally, want all my bees to survive and I try to manage my hives so they do. I, and all the other apiarists I know, avoid getting stung whenever possible. I feel bad every time I crush a bee (which happens pretty often) and try to avoid it at all costs.

[Risha]

In addition to all of the above, I also object to how they treat women like a piece of meat*.

*joke not original to me

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

As a beekeeper, I think the roommate is a moron (well, obviously). I, personally, want all my bees to survive and I try to manage my hives so they do. I, and all the other apiarists I know, avoid getting stung whenever possible. I feel bad every time I crush a bee (which happens pretty often) and try to avoid it at all costs.
Seriously? That's interesting to me. How much inconvenience are you willing to go to to prevent the death of a single bee? My comments about deliberate stingings are based on Sue Hubbell's A Book of Bees (http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780395883242-1). Is her approach unusual, then?

I'm not saying the roommate was right to weep for the deaths of bees; I'm just saying that the production of honey does, as far as I know, require the death of a certain number of bees. I don't weep for those bees when I eat honey.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

In addition to all of the above, I also object to how they treat women like a piece of meat. Would you rather they treat a piece of meat like a woman? 'cause I don't want to know what happens in that kitchen.

[Dostoyevsky]

I hate PETA for only complaining when some animals eat meat. Consistency is a virtue.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I hate PETA for only complaining when some animals eat meat. Consistency is a virtue.

I have a modest proposal.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I hate PETA for only complaining when some animals eat meat. Consistency is a virtue.That's nonsense. I might fairly object to the morals of a man who kills a baby, without objecting to the morals of a tiger who kills a baby, or to the morals of a baby who somehow causes the death of another baby.

[curlcoat]

I've never seen anything to support that assertion. Even their positions on animal welfare/rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_States#Position) differ greatly. They support a lot of animal research (but with some reductions), they are in favor of responsible pet ownership, they oppose cruelty in raising of food animals but are not against eating animals, etc. They're against hunting for any reason other than wildlife population management or food.

This is impressively ignorant, even for you. :dubious:

There's a one-many lobbying team who runs some websites like activistcash.com and some others. He's hired by the restaurant industry to try to discredit people who might increase restaurant costs or litigation. His two main focuses are animal welfare issues and MADD. If you hear someone claiming HSUS is like PETA, they probably have been taken in by this guy.

This (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4062-unpacking-the-hsus-gra) is the first site I came across regarding what the HSUS really does. There are lots more, all you have to do is look for them. Those of us who are involved with animals have been aware for many years that the HSUS is as "concerned" for animals as PETA is.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4062-unpacking-the-hsus-gra) is the first site I came across regarding what the HSUS really does. There are lots more, all you have to do is look for them. Those of us who are involved with animals have been aware for many years that the HSUS is as "concerned" for animals as PETA is.
As I said, you've been duped (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash.com).
ActivistCash.com is a web site affiliated with the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. ActivistCash.com was launched in November 2001.

ActivistCash.com was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, DC, Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains.
I mentioned ActivistCash; you linked to their "umbrella" organization (in quotes because the operation's really too tiny to talk about umbrella organization; it's mostly just one dude who makes up a lot of different groups to throw people off the scent).

Here's the main group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom). In addition to their campaigns against HSUS, they have other charming campaigns mocking the CDC's warnings about obesity or a scientific study about elevated mercury levels in pregnant women who eat swordfish. Their major funders include CocaCola, Outback Steak House, Wendy's, and Monsanto.

You been duped.

[Risha]

Would you rather they treat a piece of meat like a woman? 'cause I don't want to know what happens in that kitchen.I'm cool with that, as long as the meat is already dead and I don't have to eat there.

[curlcoat]

As I said, you've been duped (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash.com).

No, I haven't. As I said, that was the first thing I ran across, and since I have no ide why you think that a group that is "a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries" would lie about the HSUS, it doesn't appear that my link wasn't worthwhile.

And, as I said, all you have to do is look at bit to find out the links between the HSUS and PETA, such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLn_T-4iAWY) one, which also has many other links (the scam alert one was interesting as I didn't know that the Humane Society of the US spent money abroad), or this (http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=16) one, which isn't all about HSUS but it does have several mentions.

Just spend some time looking, probably a lot less time than I would since I'm on dial-up. And I already know that the HSUS is no friend of animals, except occasionally by accident or to cover their tracks. The HSUS is no more a friend of animals than PETA is.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Just spend some time looking, probably a lot less time than I would since I'm on dial-up. And I already know that the HSUS is no friend of animals, except occasionally by accident or to cover their tracks. The HSUS is no more a friend of animals than PETA is.
Damn, you're a fuckin idiot. Because HSUS supports legislation calling for mandatory spay/neuter of animals brought for a second time to an animal shelter, they're no friend of animals? That's fuckin stupid, even for you.

And I needn't spend time looking: when I worked for a local humane society for many years, I depended on the many resources HSUS made available to local unaffiliated groups. I'm very familiar with their positions and their attitudes, far more than you are.

I withdraw my earlier suggestion that you'd been duped. I shouldn't have used the passive voice.

Edit: shit, I just watched your Youtube video. That "full page NYT ad" it touts? You'll never guess what group paid for that ad! Other folks will, given my previous two posts, but you won't. It all comes full circle.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Edit: shit, I just watched your Youtube video. That "full page NYT ad" it touts? You'll never guess what group paid for that ad! Other folks will, given my previous two posts, but you won't. It all comes full circle.
Link that I meant to add to the above (http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/full-page-new-york-times-ad-calls-humane-society-terrorists/774/), but missed the edit window.

[OtakuLoki]

Why do I hate PeTA?

Mostly because I had an asshole roommate while I was in the Navy who was very vocal about being in PeTA - but who also insisted on keeping a snake in our "no pets" apartment. And who took a positive glee in feeding live mice to it.

I just couldn't take his position seriously, and his association with PeTA has colored my view of them ever since.

What's worse, IMNSHO, is that I believe PeTA has done enough stuff on their own to confirm that original negative impression of their organization.

[Sailboat]

This (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4062-unpacking-the-hsus-gra) is the first site I came across regarding what the HSUS really does. There are lots more, all you have to do is look for them. Those of us who are involved with animals have been aware for many years that the HSUS is as "concerned" for animals as PETA is.

Yeah, LHOD is right -- for the record, each and every site associated with the "Center for Consumer Freedom" is purely an astroturf organization created to protect and expand commercial interests at the expense of citizens and without regard to factual accuracy.

[curlcoat]

Damn, you're a fuckin idiot. Because HSUS supports legislation calling for mandatory spay/neuter of animals brought for a second time to an animal shelter, they're no friend of animals? That's fuckin stupid, even for you.

And I needn't spend time looking: when I worked for a local humane society for many years, I depended on the many resources HSUS made available to local unaffiliated groups. I'm very familiar with their positions and their attitudes, far more than you are.

I'm not going to waste any time on you, particularly since you obviously have no desire to actually educate yourself. I will say that the fact that you worked for a local humane society has zero to do with the HSUS, since the HSUS has zero to do with your local shelters. I've been involved with animals for over 40 years, I understand the issues, like why legislation calling for the mandatory spay/neuter of any animal is wrong. You obviously are the typical man on the street, who falls for the flash and the lies.

[MTCicero]

Anyone know a PETA member?

Yup.

In fact, I used to date this person. And oh, my, the meetings I used to get dragged to, so enamored was I by the cooze.

[MTCicero]

The one girl I know who embraces PETA seems to do it because she likes to look at herself and post pictures of herself in various stages of undress on her MySpace.

Um, cite?

(Pretty please?)

[DianaG]

I've been involved with animals for over 40 years
That's what happens when people won't have you.

[KarlGrenze]

Hey now, I'm surrounded by people who have been involved with animals more than 40 years and have yet to be like curlcoat! ;)

I don't like PETA because of some of its positions (I'm an omnivore veterinarian). They go... well, they go against what I do, sometimes.

And regarding HSUS... while I prefer people to help local humane societies, I can't really be too mad at them, considering they helped my alma mater fund parts of their shelter program (http://www.vetmed.lsu.edu/vth&c/shelter_medicine.htm), from which I and many of my classmates benefited. In fact, the curly-haired veterinarian in the first picture... her position and her rotation was funded in part by a big grant from the HSUS.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'm not going to waste any time on you, particularly since you obviously have no desire to actually educate yourself. I will say that the fact that you worked for a local humane society has zero to do with the HSUS, since the HSUS has zero to do with your local shelters.

Oh, the irony. (http://www.animalsheltering.org/)

[Triskadecamus]

If you think sharks shouldn't live in tanks, and a business says "hey, we have sharks in tanks - can you help us release them?", why wouldn't you praise them to the skies? Isn't this exactly the behavior PETA wants to encourage?You seem to suffer from the misapprehension that PETA is about the animals. PETA is a self aggrandizing hype group. The most extreme elements of PETA are all there are. Everyone else in the world offends them. Don't swat that mosquito, you barbarian murderer!

What matters is not that animals might suffer less, what matters is that they (PETA membership) get to feel the warm glow of moral superiority.

Tris

[Tethered Kite]

There's very little in my life worth working up a good case of hatred. Not good for my health.

While I appreciate all efforts to respect and care well for animals and recognize the connection between people who are abusive to animals and people who may also be abusive to people, I do think PETA takes it case to extremes.

Any acts of physical, psychological, or economic terrorism, regardless of the purported purpose, indicates to me yet one more part of the problem - people who form groups and attempt to force their will on others.

The photos of damaged animals which I've been subjected to by well-meaning types I consider pornography of the most digusting order.

As with most well-organized groups these days a great deal of misguidance seems to have crept in.

[curlcoat]

Oh, the irony. (http://www.animalsheltering.org/)

I don't think you know where the irony in that is. I didn't look thru that whole link because, you know, I'm not going to waste the time, but I didn't seen anything about the HSUS giving anything to local shelters. I did see them posting what local shelters and rescue groups are doing themselves, which makes me think that the HSUS wants to take credit for that.

If there is anything there that you think proves your point, you are going to have to actually present it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I don't think you know where the irony in that is. I didn't look thru that whole link because, you know, I'm not going to waste the time,

I'm not going to waste any time on you, particularly since you obviously have no desire to actually educate yourself.
The irony continues.

Earlier I'd talked about how I'd depended on HSUS resources for doing my job when I worked for a local, unaffiliated humane society. You seemed to think that I didn't know what I was talking about, and thought you were educating me by telling me that "the HSUS has zero to do with your local shelters" (which is either incorrect, or is exactly the point behind my pointing out that my humane society was unaffiliated, depending on what you meant). I linked to some of their online resources. Rather than look through them, you just repeat your position.

Try this even more direct link (http://www.animalsheltering.org/programs_and_services/) to see some of the resources available. If you need, here's an even more direct link (http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/sep_oct_2001/how_to_set_up_visiting_room.html) to one very specific example of the kinds of resources I'm talking about: it's an article on how to set up a room for prospective adopters to meet animals.

To forestall a specific goalpost move you might try: HSUS does not provide direct financial assistance to animal shelters, nor did I ever claim that they did. The resources they provide are mainly in terms of free expertise. Those resources are extremely valuable, and as I said, I used them all the time. Everyone I know who actually, y'know, works for an animal shelter really appreciates the resources HSUS makes available.

[curlcoat]

The irony continues.

Yes it does. That you seem to think that I am going to ignore 42 years of living with this sort of thing and believe some, er, dork on the internet. And that I am going to waste any time on him. Yes, I am going to "just repeat my position" because, if for no other reason, I am certainly not going to believe anything you cite coming from the HSUS itself! If you go to PETA's website, or any of their partners in crime, don't you think you would see the same sort of thing you are seeing on the HSUS site?

Besides, I didn't say that the HSUS might not have propaganda to send your shelter (which would have been silly since propaganda is a way of life for them and for PETA), I said they don't have their own shelters and they don't support any others, in the context of financial support. I'm sure that the HSUS would be quite happy to have your shelter run the way they want it to - all pets spayed and neutered, all breeders so heavily regulated that it is next to impossible to have a litter and all puppy mills outlawed. At that point, where will you get your next pet?

[amanset]

Or with chemicals that were tested in the past on animals and thus the company doesn't see a need to do it all fucking over again.

Isn't that the basics of the defence as to why that idiot at the head of PETA uses insulin when PETA is against animal testing?

Ohand the "necessary evil so she can continue to do her work" think, but can anyone even say that with a straight face?

[Alessan]

Isn't that the basics of the defence as to why that idiot at the head of PETA uses insulin when PETA is against animal testing?

Ohand the "necessary evil so she can continue to do her work" think, but can anyone even say that with a straight face?

Sure. There are some people who truly believe that they are indispensable. These are usually the most dangerous people you can find.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Yes it does. That you seem to think that I am going to ignore 42 years of living with this sort of thing and believe some, er, dork on the internet.
Sorry; I can see your mind is made up, and I'll stop bothering you with the facts.

[DianaG]

LHOD, if you can't see that the goal of the HSUS is the complete eradication of puppies (and kittens, and probably unicorns too, the evil bastards), it's because you're just too brainwashed to see the light when gifted with curlcoat's all-powerful perception.

Hey, has anyone ever seen curlcoat and Starving Artist in the same room?

[Ferret Herder]

Isn't that the basics of the defence as to why that idiot at the head of PETA uses insulin when PETA is against animal testing?
So because continuing to test for no good reason makes me uncomfortable, I should either use no health and beauty products at all because of past animal suffering, or completely reject all animal welfare concerns and pick out stuff from companies who destroy rabbits' eyes with highly concentrated chamicals to test whether getting a cosmetic in the eye hurts?

I'm not against animal testing if it's done responsibly and for justifiable reasons. I work in medical research, though I'm involved on the human end of the testing process.

I simply personally try to avoid cosmetic/beauty products that are currently being tested on animals, as it's just not something we need to continue with any longer, at least for many products. The majority of the chemicals we use in cosmetics have either been used/tested for a long time (petroleum jelly, beeswax, all kinds of common stuff) or have not undergone sufficient testing to establish safety and yet we put them on anyway!

I will not, however, let myself be ensnared by the perfect being the enemy of the good. Sure, animals suffered and died to show the effectiveness/safety of some random chemical in the lotion I put on last night, but that doesn't mean I have to be all or nothing about this - reject every single beauty product or the "sins of our fathers" are on my head, or give it all up and become a foie gras and steak-devouring, fur-coat-wearing, radical on the other side of the spectrum.

My choices at the beauty counter have no effect on anyone around me, but hopefully they do keep a few more animals from harm. I do not preach to anyone about how I feel. (NB: I acknowledge that I'm posting here, but my involvement in these threads is pretty limited, and I do not preach in-person or otherwise off or online.) I don't have "save da widdle animals!" posts on my (non-existent) Facebook page or hippie bumper stickers on my car. I came into this thread, on the second post no less, to express my disdain and contempt for PETA. I acknowledge the benefits that animal testing has brought and, unlike members of PETA, express a desire for responsible and necessary animal testing.

[curlcoat]

Sorry; I can see your mind is made up, and I'll stop bothering you with the facts.

Get back to me when you actually find some facts, not HSUS propaganda.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Get back to me when you actually find some facts, not HSUS propaganda.
Good grief. How can you run with that goalpost on your back? Every cite you've given has led eventually back to a lobbying firm hired by the restaurant industry; you've got nothing other than innuendo and guilt-by-association nonsense of the highest six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon order, whereas I've shown the active support HSUS gives to animal shelters. Yes, HSUS does a lot more than support shelters; but every shelter worker I've known has appreciated HSUS's expertise and guidance.

[curlcoat]

Every cite you've given has led eventually back to a lobbying firm hired by the restaurant industry;

That's not at all true - that cite is just the only one you bothered to look at. Or commented on anyway.

whereas I've shown the active support HSUS gives to animal shelters.

No, what you have shown is the HSUS saying that they are supporting shelters.

but every shelter worker I've known has appreciated HSUS's expertise and guidance.

I was a shelter worker - I hate the HSUS, particularly since they don't have any expertise at all, and their guidance only applies to whatever fits their agenda. Some of the cites I gave you included shelter workers who stated they had never had anything from the HSUS, and another was about how the HSUS didn't follow thru on the promises they made regarding the Katrina animals. But all you can talk about is one site from restaurant people, who don't like the HSUS because they keep interfering in the livestock industry, which is a legitimate gripe. However, I don't care that you are one of the hundreds of thousands that are taken in by their slick propaganda, it just proves again that that masses are asses.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

That's not at all true - that cite is just the only one you bothered to look at. Or commented on anyway.
You've offered three cites in this thread. I just went back and checked. I commented on all three. You're right, though, that only two of them go back to consumerfreedom.
I was a shelter worker - I hate the HSUS, particularly since they don't have any expertise at all, and their guidance only applies to whatever fits their agenda.
Simply untrue. I linked to specific examples of the expertise they offer. Did YOU look at these cites? They're not propaganda, they're advice on increasing adoptions.

Some of the cites I gave you included shelter workers who stated they had never had anything from the HSUS, and another was about how the HSUS didn't follow thru on the promises they made regarding the Katrina animals.

As near as I can tell, this is a lie. I only see three cites from you:
1) consumerfreedom.org
2) A video that shows a consumerfreedom NYT ad as if it's gospel
3) The sporting dog alliance that spends a long damn time complaining about spay/neuter laws.

Did you provide other links in other threads?

[Monty]

Seems to me that there's a huge difference between the HSUS and PETA.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Seems to me that there's a huge difference between the HSUS and PETA.
The only reason there's any doubt is, again, that a particular lobbying firm is being well-paid to create confusion on the issue, through innuendo and deception. Anyone familiar with the facts knows that this is true, just as there's a huge difference between the Sierra Club and Earth First!, or between Focus on the Family and Operation Rescue, or between Bill Gates and John Galt.

[gravitycrash]

Not that you give a shit what I think curlcoat but LHOD and DianaG just handed you your ass.

[amanset]

So because continuing to test for no good reason makes me uncomfortable, I should either use no health and beauty products at all because of past animal suffering, or completely reject all animal welfare concerns and pick out stuff from companies who destroy rabbits' eyes with highly concentrated chamicals to test whether getting a cosmetic in the eye hurts?

I'm not against animal testing if it's done responsibly and for justifiable reasons. I work in medical research, though I'm involved on the human end of the testing process.


I'm not taling about you.

PETA are 100% against animal testing in all forms. The use of animal testing and animal products were essential to the understanding of insulin. Millions would have died without it in the US alone. The fact that someone so high up in PETA uses a product that had animal testing and products being so essential to its understanding and production is nothing more that an acceptance that animal testing and the use of animal products are valid scientific techniques that have a place in our pursuit of healthcare.

Either that or it is a massive piece of hypocrisy.

For the record, without animal testing and the use of animal products it is highly likely I would be dead, as I have been an insulin-dependent diabetic since 1993. When someone tells me that animal testing for scientific/medical purposes is wrong I simply ask them "are you saying you'd prefer it if I was dead?" Because in my mind that is exactly what those people are saying and watching them struggle for words to justify their stance is always very amusing.

[curlcoat]

Simply untrue. I linked to specific examples of the expertise they offer. Did YOU look at these cites? They're not propaganda, they're advice on increasing adoptions.

They are advice on making sure that people only "rescue" pets, and have them all spayed/neutered. It is part of their overall goal to get rid of pet animals, other parts being things like BSL and impossible to deal with breeder legislation.

As near as I can tell, this is a lie. I only see three cites from you:

As I said at the time, those were a beginning and you had to spend the time to look further. There were plenty of links to other cites there, but you just choose to believe what you want to, much like all of the folks who believe that PETA actually cares about pets.

Here, try this. PETA ads and HSUS ads are almost identical. Both say that all pets should be spayed/neutered, breeders are all evil puppy mills and the only ethical place to get a pet is to "rescue" it, preferably from a shelter. Mixes good, purebreds bad. Etc. Both of these organizations have made life more and more difficult for the average responsible hobby breeder, which is the group they both should be supporting if they actually cared about dogs and cats. HSUS may have gotten smart and started sending a small tiny amount of the money they raise to local shelters, but that in no way makes up for all of the damage they do otherwise.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Riigght, so I give you specific cites to specific pages on HSUS, and you don't bother to read them (as evidenced by your summary above). You give me cites, and I'm not only supposed to read the entire page you link to--I'm supposed to follow all the links from that page? Yeah, good luck with that debate strategy.

Some PETA ads are almost identical to some HSUS ads. I'll wager that those PETA ads are the ones that most folks find least objectionable. When people object to PETA ads, they're objecting to the ones that compare eating chicken to the Holocaust, not to the ads that ask people to spay and neuter their pets.

And the idea that HSUS wants to get rid of pet animals is tinfoil hat territory.

[RedWood]

PETA angers me by picketing the circus every time it comes to my city and targeting small children with their handouts. C'mon guys! Don't trash a 6-year-old's day!

[toodlepip]

Seal hunters have stopped hunting juvenile seals at least 20 years ago because of protests. Of course, that won't stop PETA or other extremist groups from still making this claim, as young seals are "cute".

And of course, most of the opposition to seal hunting is based on cuteness in the first place.

Cute from a distance. I occasionally have to treat sick or injured baby seals at work. I often wish I had a club for self defence.

[kambuckta]

That's what happens when people won't have you.


Heh.


:D

[even sven]

Sorry, I'm a little unimpressed with your tale of woe.

I am trying to imagine what led up to these decisions....

Manager: "Hey, guys, I'm trying to think of something cool for the restaurant. Any ideas?"

Dude: "I know! Sharks! Everyone loves sharks!"

Manager: "That's a great plan. I'll call up 1-800-SHARKS first thing tomorrow and place an order."

Voice of Reason: "You know, I was just looking on the internet- the greatest research tool in the world at your fingertips- and it says sharks are big animals. It seems like our sharks will probably outgrow our aquarium in a year. These guys grow to 14 feet long. Maybe we should get some koi or something."

Manager: "Koi?! Do I look like some kind of sushi chef. Sharks or nothing!"

Voice of Reason: "It looks like there are not even appropriate facilities in our state to take care of these things when they outgrow their tank, which will be in only a year."

Manager: "SHARKS!"

[Ferret Herder]

Sorry, I'm a little unimpressed with your tale of woe.

I am trying to imagine what led up to these decisions....
I actually expect that was quite close to the real discussion. :smack:

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Glad someone else sees that. Very cursory research shows that nurse sharks grow up to 14 feet long; 360-gallon aquariums are apparently about 4' long. This is called Not Planning Ahead, my friends--and if the press in Miami made y'all look foolish, well, they didn't have to do much. Of course the PETA rep was nice to you: she was trying to get you to give up the sharks, and you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Once she'd gotten them out of there, she had no incentive not to speak her mind.

That said, what a ridiculous issue for them to focus on, even if you accept the premise of animal rights. The money they spent flying two sharks to Miami could have been spent to save many, many more animals.

[Gangster Octopus]

PETA angers me by picketing the circus every time it comes to my city and targeting small children with their handouts. C'mon guys! Don't trash a 6-year-old's day!

I have protested the circus, but not with PETA. We specifically would not give to children and if a child asks for some literature we do not give it to them, we give it to their parents only. But, I have worked side-by-side with PETA at these events and I actually concur with you, I would see them giving to children and it made the rest of us cringe and quite angry.

What is interesting is how often we would give it to a parent who would, without even looking or giving it a second thought hand it to their child.

[Gangster Octopus]

Sorry, I'm a little unimpressed with your tale of woe.

I am trying to imagine what led up to these decisions....

Manager: "Hey, guys, I'm trying to think of something cool for the restaurant. Any ideas?"

Dude: "I know! Sharks! Everyone loves sharks!"

Manager: "That's a great plan. I'll call up 1-800-SHARKS first thing tomorrow and place an order."

Voice of Reason: "You know, I was just looking on the internet- the greatest research tool in the world at your fingertips- and it says sharks are big animals. It seems like our sharks will probably outgrow our aquarium in a year. These guys grow to 14 feet long. Maybe we should get some koi or something."

Manager: "Koi?! Do I look like some kind of sushi chef. Sharks or nothing!"

Voice of Reason: "It looks like there are not even appropriate facilities in our state to take care of these things when they outgrow their tank, which will be in only a year."

Manager: "SHARKS!"

Yeah, clearly shortsighted and not all too smart. But my impression from the OP is that they were being accused of being satanical malicious jerkfaces. No, they were ignorant (w.r.t. the sharks) and shortsighted and then tried to do the right thing after they realized they had made a mistake.

[curlcoat]

Riigght, so I give you specific cites to specific pages on HSUS, and you don't bother to read them (as evidenced by your summary above). You give me cites, and I'm not only supposed to read the entire page you link to--I'm supposed to follow all the links from that page? Yeah, good luck with that debate strategy.

:rolleyes: So if I don't come up with the same conclusions as you do, it must be because I didn't read the cites. Uh, no. I have far more background on the issues than you do, so obviously I am going to respond differently.

As for "supposed to follow all the links" - well, I didn't say that did I? Lying isn't exactly a great debate strategy you know.

Some PETA ads are almost identical to some HSUS ads. I'll wager that those PETA ads are the ones that most folks find least objectionable. When people object to PETA ads, they're objecting to the ones that compare eating chicken to the Holocaust, not to the ads that ask people to spay and neuter their pets.

When was the last time you saw a PETA ad that compared eating chicken to the Holocaust? PETA got smart about those sorts of things a long time ago. All I ever see now are the spay/neuter ads, and the "adopt from a shelter" ads. And they might as well have been put out by the same person.

And the idea that HSUS wants to get rid of pet animals is tinfoil hat territory.

Yet the idea that PETA wants to isn't? What is the difference? The name?

[KarlGrenze]

:rolleyes:
Yet the idea that PETA wants to isn't? What is the difference? The name?

HSUS would prefer/like/enjoy it if people adopted shelter animals (which can or cannot be purebred) vs continuing to adopt purebreds. Particularly since many people don't do background checks on breeders.

PETA does advocate more strongly against pet ownership.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

HSUS would prefer/like/enjoy it if people adopted shelter animals (which can or cannot be purebred) vs continuing to adopt purebreds. Particularly since many people don't do background checks on breeders.

PETA does advocate more strongly against pet ownership.Pretty close to the truth.

Here's what PETA says. (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp)
Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.
I'm unclear (and don't really care) whether they want to eliminate pet ownership or merely reduce it.

Here's the closest I could find to an HSUS statement on pet ownership (http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/)
Four million cats and dogs—about one every eight seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year. Often these animals are the offspring of cherished family pets. Spay/neuter is a proven way to reduce pet overpopulation, ensuring that every pet has a family to love them.

Many cats and dogs who die as a result of pet overpopulation could have made wonderful pets. Between six and eight million dogs and cats enter U.S. shelters every year; far too many to all find homes.

A solution is possible and starts with each of us taking one small step: getting our own pets fixed. To help stop pet overpopulation further, consider adopting your next pet from an animal shelter.
Note the happy reference to pets, wanting every pet to have a family, wanting people to adopt pets, etc.

A clear difference.

And for anyone who couldn't be arsed to click on my previous links, here's an example of what curlcoat considers HSUS propaganda, and what I consider helpful advice to animal shelters:
Deal with the Bare Necessities

While some agencies have had benches built into the walls of their visiting rooms during construction, plastic or metal chairs are easy to add and easy to disinfect. Make sure there are enough seats available for a family. If you’ve had couches or other furniture donated, you can use them in your visiting room, but you should consider adding plastic slipcovers that can be easily disinfected; the number of animals who come in and out of a visiting room can make the room a harbor for bacteria and strange, stressful smells, so you have to combine comfort with cleanliness. It’s great to have a disinfection station in the room—one that dispenses waterless antibacterial gels—so folks can wash up after their drool-inducing meet-and-greet. You should keep a mop and paper towels handy, too, in case an excited pup gets a little too excited.
Propaganda, or advice? You j udge.

[DianaG]

Clearly propaganda. Note the glaring reminder that puppies drool and tend to void their bladders inappropriately. Way more trouble than the little beasts are worth. Best to put them all down, I think.

[Peremensoe]

Not a PETA supporter or advocate here, just some thoughts.

Some hippy-type would come up to me, all outraged, and start in about how I had to get those sharks outta there - as if I didn't already know that. I would try to patiently explain that I was trying to find them a new home, but it was never good enough. I had to get them out RIGHT FUCKING NOW. I always wanted to throttle these idiots - what the hell was I supposed to do, drive the sharks down to Santa Cruz and toss 'em off the end of the pier?

Well, why didn't you?

I don't think "tossing" would be necessary, but given that a simple ocean release was exactly what ended up happening... why did you have to wait for PETA? Why not take responsibility yourself?

No, it would make me angry at the people who showed me something so unpleasant, causing me to reject whatever they're advocating. In other way, I'd treat them the same way I'd treat someone defecating on my doormat.

You'd eat the feces? :eek:

[Jackmannii]

It's not enough to have an enormous restaurant aquarium with nurse sharks.

You need at least one shark and an octopus, so diners can be treated to a nature display like this (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/13/video-octopus-kills.html).

That'll please PETA even more.

[curlcoat]

Well, why didn't you?

I don't think "tossing" would be necessary, but given that a simple ocean release was exactly what ended up happening... why did you have to wait for PETA? Why not take responsibility yourself?


See, that's the problem with most folks that support PETA - they don't know enough about animals to know what they are talking about. One doesn't take even fish that have lived their whole lives in captivity and just release them into the wild. They aren't going to have much of a clue as to where to find food and/or how to stay away from predators. So just releasing these sharks into the wild without any sort of segue just means they are likely to starve to death or get eaten.

You'd eat the feces? :eek:

Huh?

[Bookworm77]

Glad someone else sees that. Very cursory research shows that nurse sharks grow up to 14 feet long; 360-gallon aquariums are apparently about 4' long. This is called Not Planning Ahead, my friends--and if the press in Miami made y'all look foolish, well, they didn't have to do much. Of course the PETA rep was nice to you: she was trying to get you to give up the sharks, and you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Once she'd gotten them out of there, she had no incentive not to speak her mind.

That said, what a ridiculous issue for them to focus on, even if you accept the premise of animal rights. The money they spent flying two sharks to Miami could have been spent to save many, many more animals.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I was thinking that the money saved if the OP and his boss did the research first, would be used to help many animals.

[Peremensoe]

See, that's the problem with most folks that support PETA - they don't know enough about animals to know what they are talking about. One doesn't take even fish that have lived their whole lives in captivity and just release them into the wild. They aren't going to have much of a clue as to where to find food and/or how to stay away from predators. So just releasing these sharks into the wild without any sort of segue just means they are likely to starve to death or get eaten.

That's probably true, though there's considerable variance among species in how much survival behavior is instinctual and how much learned. But in any case, that's what did happen with these sharks. So the OP could have done as well himself without PETA ever coming into it. (Again, I don't support PETA. Maybe you didn't mean to say I did.)

Huh?

Jokes are only funny when unexplained. But since there was sort of a point here, I'll indulge.

Wouldn't pictures of slaughterhouses and animal cruelty make you feel guilty enough to be a vegan?

No, it would make me angry at the people who showed me something so unpleasant, causing me to reject whatever they're advocating. In other way, I'd treat them the same way I'd treat someone defecating on my doormat.

So Alessan is saying that, yes, the images of slaughterhouses are unpleasant--like feces on the doormat--and that therefore he'd want to eat meat. I'm pointing out that being angry at the people responsible for confronting him with unpleasantness doesn't mean that one should reactively embrace the unpleasant thing.

[curlcoat]

That's probably true, though there's considerable variance among species in how much survival behavior is instinctual and how much learned. But in any case, that's what did happen with these sharks. So the OP could have done as well himself without PETA ever coming into it. (Again, I don't support PETA. Maybe you didn't mean to say I did.)

It rather sounds like it. Anyway, I don't remember - did PETA tell the OP up front that all they were going to do was dump the sharks in the ocean, or did they "forget" to tell him that, along with the media circus they were going to bring in? I find it difficult to believe that you feel the OP is more at fault than PETA here. Nurse sharks don't necessarily grow all that big in aquariums, and even if it were true that they always do, it's a freaking fish ferchrissakes. Nobody deserves PETA problems because they didn't know that a fish in their business aquarium might grow too big.

So Alessan is saying that, yes, the images of slaughterhouses are unpleasant--like feces on the doormat--and that therefore he'd want to eat meat. I'm pointing out that being angry at the people responsible for confronting him with unpleasantness doesn't mean that one should reactively embrace the unpleasant thing.

Still doesn't make any sense.

[Alessan]

So Alessan is saying that, yes, the images of slaughterhouses are unpleasant--like feces on the doormat--and that therefore he'd want to eat meat. I'm pointing out that being angry at the people responsible for confronting him with unpleasantness doesn't mean that one should reactively embrace the unpleasant thing.

I wouldn't eat any more or less meat as a result of their activities. I'd oppose them in a political sense because they're jerks.

Also, I used to work on a dairy farm. Spend a few months up to your knees in cow shit, and you'll start to believe that a good cow is a dead cow.

[PsyXe]

I hate PETA because they believe in an aesthetic ideal and will put that pretty-looking ideal above actual animals any time. Dump ex-aquarium sharks in the ocean - the probability that they'll be dead in a week or so is most likely pretty high. Never mind, though! No one has to

[PsyXe]

(Sorry, missed edit window!)

...see those sharks die, so it's OK! Much better than living long, peaceful lives in an aquarium, because then some people would have to deal with the aesthetic dissonance of "they belong in the ocean, y'know?" I'm convinced that animals have consciousness and emotions and all that stuff, but I'm equally convinced that they have no concept of such abstract philosophical concepts as freedom. As long as they've got enough food and enough space and mental stimulation not to get bored, they're set.
But that offends these peoples delicate sensibilities, because "they belong in the wild", and so "better dead than bred", better dead than anything, it seems.

I also hate them because their great far-future ideal of no captive animals whatsoever would necessarily involve the extinction of all domestic species or subspecies, and a vast decline in the number of individual animals alive in the world at any time. Also, with no zoos or any other place where children can ever come into contact with animals, the next generation would have no emotional attachment to animals, no personal incentive to preserve them in the wild.

A third reason why I hate PETA is because they not only don't like us eating meat, they don't really like animals eating meat either. What I mean is that they seem to prefer prey animals to predators. They are against the re-introduction of predators such as wolves into their historical ranges, from which they were driven out by man, because one, to do this the wolves would have to come into contact with humans. Being darted, kept in enclosures for a while to get them used to their new environment before being released, and so on. Oh, the horror! Much better to release them willy-nilly so that they have absolutely no chance of surviving. Anyway, the second reason why they're against predator re-introductions is oh, the poor little deer! They say on their website (and I'm quoting this from memory, I don't want to go back and get pissed off again) that the prey animals of an area where the predators had been wiped out are used to no predation, and re-introducing predators would be traumatic for them. Deer good, wolves bad.

Me, I prefer wolves to deer any day, and tigers to chickens. In South Africa where I'm from, some game parks are in a conservation program together with China, to breed South China tigers and get them used to living in the wild over here, so that they can be released back into their natural habitat in China. (See, there ARE tigers in Africa! Living wild too!) So anyway, they started training these tiger cubs to fend for themselves by giving them chickens to hunt. So then the SPCA (more or less the equivalent of SPCAs in other contries, but with slightly watered-down PETA-style animal rights policies rather than animal welfare. So like PETA, only with more power locally to influence laws :( and fewer sexy adverts) goes ballistic because oh, the poor little chickens! So the deaths of a few chickens are more important than training endangered South China Tigers to live and hunt in the wild. ("where they belong!":dubious:)

So that's why I hate, hate, hate PETA and anyone like them.

[AWB]

I don't eat anything with a face on it. That's why I have the butcher cut that part right off.

[curlcoat]

I don't eat anything with a face on it. That's why I have the butcher cut that part right off.

The faces aren't particularly tasty anyway... :cool:

[Muffin]

Anyone know a PETA member?

Yup. She was nuts, as in full disability and occasional institutionalization.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sharks are instinctive hunters. Cite for the claim that they can't be released into the wild as adults?

[PsyXe]

Hey, this is the Pit, and that was an opinionated rant! I wasn't particularly thinking of cites, but here's a barely-related article where some people, at least, feel that a shark should go through some kind of rehabilitation before being released: http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/dubaii-whale-shark.html#cr
I wasn't for a moment thinking that sharks couldn't catch their own food; you may have been confused by the tiger story. I'm thinking more in terms of other things eating them.

[Sailboat]

Also, I used to work on a dairy farm. Spend a few months up to your knees in cow shit, and you'll start to believe that a good cow is a dead cow.

Seriously? Like the kids book says, Everybody Poops.

Here's hoping this economy doesn't force you to take a job in a sewage treatment plant.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I wasn't for a moment thinking that sharks couldn't catch their own food; you may have been confused by the tiger story. I'm thinking more in terms of other things eating them.
Ah. Well, that's a fair point. You may remember the darkly humorous story of Dunham (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=110419&catid=8), the bottlenose dolphin rescued and rehabilitated by Clearwater Marine Aquarium. He was released back into the Gulf of Mexico, and... immediately eaten by sharks.

[curlcoat]

Sharks are instinctive hunters. Cite for the claim that they can't be released into the wild as adults?

No specific shark cite, but I'm sure there are plenty out there for animals raised in captivity not knowing how to find prey and/or how to keep from being eaten. If the nurse sharks were being fed regular old fish food, they may not recognize anything else as "food".

Not that I really care - the whole idea of sharks needing to "be free" to "be happy" is just silly...

[PsyXe]

Ah. Well, that's a fair point. You may remember the darkly humorous story of Dunham (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=110419&catid=8), the bottlenose dolphin rescued and rehabilitated by Clearwater Marine Aquarium. He was released back into the Gulf of Mexico, and... immediately eaten by sharks.

Oh no, that's horrible! :(

[PsyXe]

Not that I really care - the whole idea of sharks needing to "be free" to "be happy" is just silly...

I agree with you there - as I said, I can definitely credit animals with emotions and intelligence, but freedom is such an abstract concept I'm sure it's the last thing they'd be concerned with (always assuming their needs including enough space and mental stimulation are being taken care of).

[Amber in Treasury]

I dislike PETA for many reasons, but it's things like their "Holocaust on your Plate" campaign that really anger and disgust me. There are holocaust survivors still alive now, right? I'm sure they are just so thrilled about PETA's piss-poor look-at-me godwinization. Barf.
Comparing concentration-camp prisoners to farm animals. Barf barf barf.
Not only is it spectacularly dumb and in extremely poor taste, it also trivializes the Nazis' crimes.
But hey, you might say, PETA's fucked-up shock campaign worked! Or why else is it still being talked about years later? Well, fuck that! Yes, it worked - in that it made at least some of us realize what utter assholes PETA are.
Fuck PETA.