I have seen on threads here, and in many other places, that people have very negative opinions of PETA, even if they support animal welfare and/or rights. So, I’m curious, how could an organization like PETA be improved?
Suppose for a moment that you support PETA’s basic principle that animals do not belong to humans and are not ours to use. Therefore, your goals would be to promote veg*nism, stop factory farming, end animal testing, and stop things like bullfighting, rodeos and circuses. You want to get this message out to as many people as you can in the most effective way possible. What would you do that’s different from what PETA does, and what (if any) of PETA’s tactics would you use?
I would make sure the organization’s overall message was one of “animals should be treated humanely,” as opposed to a message of “animals have the same rights as human beings.”
I’d suggest steering away from some of the ludicrous publicity stunts that they’ve engaged in over the past few years, which are clearly done solely to keep their brand name in the public eye.
Such as, a few years ago, asking the Green Bay Packers to change their team name to the Six-Packers, since “Packers” comes from the team’s original sponsor (a meat-packing company). These sorts of things make them come across as both silly and extremist.
I think the Humane Society already takes that route. PETA’s core message is more along the lines of we shouldn’t use animals, not that the animals we use should be treated humanely. It may be a tough message to sell, but is it possible to do a better job of selling it than PETA is doing?
End the publicity stunts. Get more respected figures to start talking about the cause, as opposed to Playboy bunnies.
Start a PETA seal of approval for products made in conformance with their standards.
Look for ways to equate ethics with dollar cost, such as advocating that ranchers pay for use of public lands, with the ultimate goal of raising the cost of meat.
I agree with the fact that we shouldn’t treat some of these animals the way we do. However, i totally oppose peta and everthing they try to do. Say they somehow pursuaded us to end whitetail hunting these animals would run rampat, tearing up farms and eventually causing food prices to rise, costing use millions more from hitting these dear on the roads, and thats just the begining. Whether or not you agree, animals were put on this earth for us to use and quite frankly for survival.
The missions of groups like the ASPCA and AHS are fundamentally different than the mission of PETA. The mission of the first groups is to treat animals humanely, the mission of PETA is to stop using animals.
It seems that if you can’t even imagine supporting PETA’s mission, then no matter what route they take to get their point across, you won’t like the organization (and would likely have equal problems with groups like the Vegetarian Society or Farm Sanctuary). However, PETA seems to inspire a lot of ridicule, including some from people who support all or part of their mission.
One thing I wonder is, while many of their stunts seem silly, is their some benefit for getting the publicity? Even though it would make more sense to have a person like Howard Lyman or T. Colin Campbell as a spokesperson, does Pamela Anderson actually get more attention?
Yes, but what kind of attention? Its just ridicule. I doubt if if persuades anyone who doesn’t already agree with them and I’m sure it turns off people who might. Heck, when PETA advocates for something it actually makes it harder for me to also advocate for it as I don’t want to be lumped in with them. Also acting ridiculous makes even their valid goals ridiculous.
They can do be better. See this ad with Simon Cowell. It uses a famous person, but it’s not over the top and and actually raises awareness of a sensible goal. They need to do more stuff like that if they want to be effective.
Maybe i’ll write a longer response to this thread later, when i have more time.
I just want to note, though, that the idea that animals “were put on this earth for us to use” is, quite frankly, just about as irrational a claim as anything PETA has ever come up with.
Sure, why not? Vegetarian meat substitutes that have just as much protein without the cholesterol that don’t taste like cardboard? Robotic animals that can perform the same as rodeo animals? Something useful, as opposed to spending money on the stupid shit they do now.
I glanced at the “hardline stance.” I especially liked this line criticizing people for telling their pets “to get off the furniture or be quiet.”
Hey when I was a kid and my old man came home from work and wanted to take a nap on the couch, he certainly had no problem telling us the same thing. Likewise if my cat’s on the sofa when I get home from work, well he’s just going to have to find another place to lay down, because that couch is mine.
And for the record a gentle nudge usually works if you want him to move.