this post was submitted on
91 points (73% like it)
142 up votes 51 down votes
all 140 comments

[–]roadnottaken 45 points46 points ago

It has nothing to do with PETA. Your choice to be vegetarian is offensive to people because it implies that they're doing something wrong. People don't like being judged, and when you decide that something they engage in regularly (eating meat) is wrong for you, you're judging them. Doesn't matter if you never bring it up. This took me a while to understand... you just have to learn to deal with it as gracefully as possible.

[–]linnal 2 points3 points ago

I totally agree with this statement. Also, if you are seriously committed to your vegetarianisn, you would take the time to seriously learn the issues and be able to explain to people why you are vegetarian and why PETA (and ALF, for that matter) do what they do. You can bring awareness to people (or at least those who are willing to listen) instead of blaming a group for your problems.

[–]obscenecupcake 0 points1 point ago

seriously committed to your vegetarianisn

being a vegetarian just means that she (for herself, and possibly for animals) decided to not eat meat.

it doesn't make you more or less of a vegetarian if you research PETA. you are not better than her because you know who the animal liberation front is.

[–]linnal 0 points1 point ago

I don't think I explained my position very well - if people are angry at you for being a vegetarian because of the actions of some group, to which you have no ties, I think you should have well planned responses that make it easier on you to discuss with them. I don't think that saying PETA is the root of all vegetarians' problems is a good solution, nor do I think it helps get to the fact that roadnottaken brought up, i.e that people take your vegetarianism as a silent judgment on themselves.

[–]obscenecupcake 0 points1 point ago

oh. then I completely agree.

[–]marcospolos 0 points1 point ago

Bookmarking for later.

[–]obscenecupcake -1 points0 points ago

It implies she doesn't want to eat meat, because she thinks about the animal when it was alive, or whatever her reason.

I'm sure that you wouldn't want to eat a dog, or avacado, or SOMETHING. does this imply you think other cultures where people eat [insert what you find offensive] are doing something wrong? if you don't eat brocolli, are you implying that people who do are wrong?

no.

otherwise idgaf. I've never seen anyone get crap for being a vegetarian unless they tried to push it onto others. (I live in america, in the midwest. this might be different in the south)

[–]carnegiehall 30 points31 points ago

I've found that most people who aren't vegetarian know nothing of the alf and think all their radical actions are the responsibility of PETA. I've never thrown paint at anyone wearing fur but I've protested retail shops. The point is that PETA brings attention to animal rights, regardless if you agree with their methods. GetEqual is an lgbt activist group that handcuffed themselves to the white house fence to protest unfair laws against the community. Some may view this as disrespectful but it got attention in the media thereby increasing awareness of the injustice.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]bobbaphetVegan 17 points18 points ago

Actively funding firebombers is not.

The FBI did a nearly year long investigation of PETA to find evidence of that. Guess what? They couldn't find any. You really should stop propagating false rumors...

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Uberche 5 points6 points ago

rather than just believing it and repeating it, shouldn't you find out first IF you are right?

Guys, pretty sure I read somewhere meoshimo2 likes to step on baby kittens, not sure if it's true but if I find evidence I"m wrong I'll be the first to admit it! Until then, fuck meoshimo2 and their kitten murdering ways.

[–]carnegiehall 9 points10 points ago

Show the proof where PETA funds fire bombers. That's the alf. Where are you getting your information that PETA euthanizes the "majority" of pets they rescue? The ASPCA does the same thing buy they are hailed as heroes. and what choice does a diabetic have? You would expect her to not take medicine? Rubber contains animal products too so are we not to use petroleum products? We can't help the system we live in because those who set it up had no regard for other life. Watch who you call a hypocrite.

[–]obscenecupcake -1 points0 points ago

When I read stuff like this, and check the quotes... that's how I make an "informed decision". Are some quotes going to be fake and perpetuated? maybe. that's why I look for ones with citations.

This:http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAanimalpeople.htm

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." - Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA. new york times interview

"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows ... I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." -Bruce Friedrich, PeTA's director of Vegan Outreach, at a Animal Rights Conference in 2001.

"I wish everyone would get up and go into the labs and get the animals out and burn them down." - Ingrid Newkirk, President & Founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals at PeTA National Animal Rights Convention July 1997

"Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works." - Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA- US News and World Report, April 8, 2002

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." (Washingtonian Magazine, Aug. 1986) - ingrid again

there is one where she says people are like cancer, but I can't find the original washington post article, so I didn't include it. i have trouble believing she would be that dumb.

the various commercials peta makes where they show that they have no problem debasing women, even if they don't debase animals. one example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM_AHnv2ol8 you can google for more

as for financial matters, I trust BUllshit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kXUPy-dCx4

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]DrStrangeFishPastafarian 4 points5 points ago

It is absolutely not hypocrisy to take drugs that have been tested on animals and still oppose future testing of drugs on animals. I care about real impacts on real animals. Denying myself drugs harms me and benefits no animals, so would just be, well, stupid.

[–]rooktakesqueenOvo Lacto Vegetarian 22 points23 points ago

You know, I frequently hear about all these terrible things PETA does, but only in generalities, never specifics.

So far as I've ever heard, the worst PETA actually does is, gasp, put up advertisements with naked people. Or picket outside a KFC. Those terrible extremists!

I've never observed any red paint being thrown on someone wearing fur, and I'd be willing to bet that's as much a farcical right-wing bogeyman as the welfare queen driving a Cadillac.

And to tie together PETA and the ALF is ridiculous. That's like trying to link the Council on American-Islamic Relations with Al Qaeda because hey, they're both Muslim. Being an animal-rights organization does not make PETA responsible for the actions of every other animal-rights organization.

[–]REDDIT_SHMEDDIT 1 point2 points ago

PETA has a giant billboard here in LA with a cat with the top of it's head removed and some sort of device, to protest animal testing. It's shit like that.

[–]DrStrangeFishPastafarian 4 points5 points ago

Your point being that when terrible abuses of animals occur, people shouldn't have to look at them? I disagree. Of course no one wants to see that but the only hope of changing it is to force people to look at what really goes on.

[–]bobbaphetVegan 1 point2 points ago

Woah, billboards are terribly extreme!...huh?

[–]PrincessBunBun 5 points6 points ago

a cat with the top of it's head removed

Sounds NSFL to me

[–]kloober 5 points6 points ago

It is life. It's the NS that's the problem.

[–]rooktakesqueenOvo Lacto Vegetarian 3 points4 points ago

...sounds NSFC(at) to me.

[–]bobbaphetVegan 1 point2 points ago

Yes, reality is NSFL, that's the whole point.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

How do you feel about the tactics abortion protesters use?

I mean, a photo of an aborted fetus is life, amirite?

[–]bobbaphetVegan 0 points1 point ago

It's a free country, they can do whatever they want. It's called free speech.

[–]RandallDangerStevens[S] -4 points-3 points ago

I'm not trying to like attack you or anything, but Ingrid Newkirk (Founder of PETA) states that she supports the ALF and criminal activity for the cause of animal rights. That's some of the stuff I'm talking about. Crime and violence isn't going to solve anything. I like their message, they just go about it the wrong way.

[–]rooktakesqueenOvo Lacto Vegetarian 10 points11 points ago

Yes, but Ingrid Newkirk isn't PETA, and PETA isn't ALF, and its tactics are not at all the same. ALF is much more radical, and in fact radical animal liberation groups often criticize PETA for being too conciliatory and willing to work within the system.

[–]Ph1l0 -1 points0 points ago

Yes, but Ingrid has used PETA's name to show what ALF does. I believe PETA has shown videos of the actions of ALF within a short of amount of time of ALF committing the act. The groups have to be communicating for PETA to get that privileged information within such a short amount of time.

The point is that Ingrid founded and runs PETA and whether or not PETA officially endorses ALF, her actions speak for the whole of the group in everything she does. It's the price she pays for holding that position.

[–]bw2002 59 points60 points ago

PETA's methods are the only reason people know about the conditions at factory farms.

[–]philogos0 19 points20 points ago

Yes. Meet Your Meat was the thing that gave me the courage to commit to vegetarianism.

[–]roger_ 7 points8 points ago*

It's cool to bash PETA (especially on Reddit).

I not disagreeing that a lot of what they do is wasteful, and that they often come across as douches, but they're still bringing issues like bw2002 mentioned to the general public.

[–]whenthetigersbroke 11 points12 points ago

I feel confident that without them, I wouldn't have had the information that convinced me to become a vegetarian. I understand the criticism, but I think they're still valuable as contributors.

[–]bloodsexsugarmagik 0 points1 point ago

Honestly, I don't think so anymore. There's much more documentaries and literature about it today.

[–]bw2002 7 points8 points ago

The only reason those things came about was because of PETA's initiative.

[–]efmac 0 points1 point ago

Vegan Outreach and Friends of Animals have been fairly active in my neck of the woods in the last couple years, but I think PETA has still organized more demos, handed out more leaflets, and raised more awareness despite (or because of) sole of their dodgy tactics.

[–]LibidoOvo Lacto Vegetarian 5 points6 points ago

I thought like this when I was a newbie vegetarian, and then again after a while.

The truth is that it's bullshit though. It's convenient as shit to be a non preachy, almost closet vegetarian that doesn't trouble people with the fact that you know your friends and family are eating the rotting caucuses of dead animals that are the biggest cause of pollution in our country, help increase global starvation, not to mention the personal health effects or lack of compassion that eating meat causes.

It is so much easier to realize how disgusting meat is, change your personal diet, and then object to those doing something about it.

I can't really blame you, it is much easier to just quietly realize the truth in your corner... I've been there for years. Lead by example, slowly convince people to eat less meat or no meat at all, feel angry about those that take bold measures...

However, I've come to believe that it is those bold measures, those individuals that feel so strongly about animals being abducted, attacked, etc that they will risk their own personal safety to rescue those animals and expose them.... it is those individuals that are at the forefront and only them that have a chance of making a difference.

[–]indigenius 0 points1 point ago

Well, aren't we superior? I, for one, was led by the example of my uncle. He never told me why he was vegan, nor did he make my grandparents feel bad for eating meat on holidays. When I would ask him, all he would say is that he loved animals.

All that this extremist attitude serves to do is to make vegetarianism "cool." Kids like to rebel and they need an outlet. Well, I don't want it to be cool, because then it just becomes another trend.

And, if you were wondering, my whole family on my dad's side now practices some form of Vegetarianism thanks to him.

[–]LibidoOvo Lacto Vegetarian 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I've seen mixed results both ways really. I still do the quiet vegetarian style more, but have gotten more aggressive in explaining it when either questioned or challenged.

It's a learning process for us all, but I think there are advantages or disadvantages of both ways.

[–]indigenius 0 points1 point ago

Thank you for the calm and calculated reply. I agree with the need for aggression in certain situations. Hopefully between the two different styles, someone will benefit

[–]trashed_culture 3 points4 points ago

I'm a vegetarian, and I'm seriously not in anyone's face about it. But my whole family always criticizes me for it, even though I never bring it up.

Maybe you should. Maybe we all should be.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]bobbaphetVegan 1 point2 points ago

That is completely true. However it helps to understand the psychology behind all of what is going on there. The guy that chimed in "don't believe that shit", would not be convinced that animals have rights, by anyone, even by the most moderate of groups. He would still be discrediting your cause, even if it weren't for PETA.

[–]sephrahVegetarian 10 points11 points ago

i have to disagree with you. yes, some of peta's methods are a little extreme, but i think that the topics they are addressing are extreme.

extreme circumstances call for extreme measures.

[–]bobbaphetVegan 12 points13 points ago

PETA is the reason that the general public even knows what animal rights is to begin with.

[–]maybesociallyawkward 5 points6 points ago

I think they have a positive influence on people who are already inclined towards vegetarianism but for people who are even neutral towards it they might turn them off

[–]xexers 8 points9 points ago*

Tough to say. For example, when it comes to preaching atheism... you have barbed guys like Richard Dawkins who call religious people "Delusional" ... or you have nice guys like Neil D. Tyson. At the end of the day, results are king. Which one of those two guys is getting more converts to atheism?

I think when spreading a message, some people respond to gentle reasoning and others respond better to a tough stance (like PETA). I guess PETA just finds they get more converts with the tough stance.

My point is nicely summed up here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[–]2amSoapIce 3 points4 points ago

I guess PETA just finds they get more converts with the tough stance.

My perception is that their stance works well for PETA itself, not the animals for which they're advocating. They grab headlines when they do something crazy like propose a George Clooney flavored tofu (seriously, google it if you think I'm making that up). It makes people think vegetarians are preachy idiots, but it works in that if you ask someone to name an animal rights organization, and they'll probably say PETA, not Vegan Outreach or the Humane Society of the US.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]rooktakesqueenOvo Lacto Vegetarian 5 points6 points ago

It wasn't atheists burning those churches, and it wasn't because the victims were too Christian. It was Christians burning them and it was because the victims were too black.

[–]I_am_Kyle 2 points3 points ago

Don't like PETA? Here is a much more sane group: http://www.veganoutreach.org/

[–]Dr_Legacy 2 points3 points ago

PETA pisses me off too, but not as much as the meat industry does.

[–]kloober 5 points6 points ago

my whole family always criticizes me for it, even though I never bring it up.

It's not PETA's fault that your family are assholes. Reasonable people don't act that way.

[–]philogos0 12 points13 points ago

PETA is fighting the good fight. Respect.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points ago

SO BRAVE.

PETA helped me turn vegetarian in high school 10 years ago and revealed the truth about factory farms to me. What kind of activism have you done to change people's mind?

[–]NeinNeinNein 0 points1 point ago

I think it's good that they are the reason so many people consider going veg but it stops there for me.

They're responsible for the euthanization of countless animals, many of whom they took from other shelters who euthanize in fairly inhumane ways but also many who were perfectly healthy and would have had a better chance in a pound than in the hands of PETA. They go on and on about compassion through euthanasia and such but the figures speak for themselves.

Just a quick google search and you can see PETA defending euthanasia (Which is of course the right option when an animal is in a lot of pain/very sick) but they've euthanized countless easily adoptable kittens and puppies just because they didn't want them to be in a world already overpopulated with companion animals. That's disgusting.

PETA: 1 2 3

Reports on PETA euthanasia: 1 2 3

I'm aware there are often "surplus" animals. That in itself is really sad. That's down to people breeding their animals, not neutering/spaying, general idiocy. Strays come into it too but again, why are they stray in the first place? People. Unless something changes it's a really sad reality that animals are being put to sleep that are perfectly healthy. I can't stand it.

But let's be honest. The figures speak for themselves.

In 2009, PETA euthanized 2,301 dogs and cats -- 97 percent of those brought in -- and adopted only eight, according to Virginia state figures. And the rate of these killings has been increasing. From 2004 to 2008, euthanasia at PETA increased by 10 percent. Not all of those articles are from the most fantastic sources but the figures aren't untrue. It's not just unadoptable, feral and ill animals they euthanize, it's healthy puppies and kittens too, just to save them from being introduced to an already overpopulated world of pets. They've also been found disposing of the carcasses in dumpsters and such, which is very poor practice. They recommend euthanasia for certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers also. Ridiculous.

I think they do a lot of good work too, don't get me wrong. I just can't support a group that uses many of the methods they use and is hypocritical in some of their practices/opinions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I don't think they are hypocritical at all. As their statement says, they are treated as a shelter of last resort, of animals were going to be put to sleep any way. Millions of animals are euthanized each year, it's just the nature of the system. You can't avoid it. If there were restrictions on backyard breeders and penalities for negletful owners, then maybe this country wouldn't have millions of unwanted pets. If PETA decided to keep the 2000 animals they euthanize each year, than within 10 years they would have 10,000 unwanted dogs and cats in their shelter. This is a financial burden on them, and the animals would be living in horrible, deprived conditions.

And all thse pages of people thinking it's PETA's shame should then take on the burden of taking the 2000 animals each year and putting them in no-kill shelters.

But that's not how no-kill shelters work. They refuse many animals each year if they're not adoptable or if they don't have enough space. Those healthy, adoptable animals are euthanized any way.

You don't have to agree with their stance, but they're not being hypocritical and they are doing in their eyes what's humane.

[–]NeinNeinNein 0 points1 point ago

I see your point but I still don't agree with it. Also, not all of those animals were transferred shelter animals. I remember reading about a cat and kittens who were given to them and were immediately euthanized. Ah found something on it:

"Among the bodies in the dumpster were a cat and two of her kittens, given to PETA by veterinarian Patrick Proctor of Ahoskie Animal Hospital. According to Proctor, the two kittens were very adoptable, and he said the PETA employees claimed they would have no trouble finding homes for them."

You make a good point.

they are doing in their eyes what's humane.

Yup.

I just went with their euthanasia numbers as a reason to argue on here but it's not the only one. They've supported people who've done terrible terrible things, I think they gave one guy who was burning down labs close to 100,000 dollars. I could be wrong there but if I'm not, that's insanity.

And some of their campaigns targeted towards children? Absolutely unacceptable in my opinion.

Some of their campaigns in general are just unacceptable with the comparisons they make.

Ingrid Newkirk is also just a maniac in general and I just can't agree with or support an organization that is run by someone like that. Have you ever heard her talk? You watch her talk and listen to some of the things she's proposing. The woman is batshit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

"http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/1379/NC/US/" It looks like they were cleared of all charges, and that PETA has always made it clear that most of the animals they accept are euthanized.

They gave a guy money for legal fees, to pay for his lawyer. Nothing is immoral or illegal about that. And that man was burning down labs that experimented on animals. I don't agree with his methods, but he believed that a lab that tortured animals should be burned to the ground. Unethical, but morally debateable.

The campaigns, most of their campaigns really, use shock to change people's minds. It's their strategy. Obviously it works because they are the biggest animal rights group in the country.

Ingrid Newkirk is a radical idealist who has extreme ideas about animal rights and welfare. It makes people uncomfortable. I don't think I could hate someone whose life's work is to protect animals from harm.

I think the point I'm making is that PETA is by definition, a radical extremist group because society believes that factory farms are normal and animals are here to be used in any way by humans. But in short, PETA has the moral high ground over the average meat-eater who professes they love animals, yet turns a blind eye to factory farms, pet overpopulation, experiments on animals, and animal cruelty.

[–]NeinNeinNein 0 points1 point ago

That's what it was, legal fees. My mistake. It's still supporting an extremist arsonist though. I feel like that money could have gone elsewhere, many members of PETA would have no idea that they're funding such a thing and I'm sure many wouldn't have been okay with it either.

Regardless of the fact those labs were doing animal testing (Which I really hugely dislike and would love to see abolished but realistically, it seems to be a necessary evil in many cases, without which we'd be nowhere close to where we are now with medical advances) it's still not right and really doesn't change anything other than people's views on those who support animal rights/welfare.

I understand the shock tactics PETA use and it's not always wrong. Many people have seen these videos/campaigns and have switched to vegetarianism. But I do not think that it's right to target young impressionable children with things messages such as "Your Mommy Kills Animals" and "Your Daddy Kills Animals" with accompanying graphic imagery.

I don't even know what else to say about Ingrid. She is a radical idealist. It makes people uncomfortable because some of what she says and campaigns for is ridiculous. The way some people seem to blindly follow her is insane. Listen to what the woman is saying. That alone has made me question many of my own beliefs and how some of them sound when I'm explaining them to others.

Funnily enough, before I had done my research, long after I had become a vegetarian, I signed up for PETA's newsletter. I was spammed day in/day out with graphic imagery, campaigns, articles etc. I received emails from PETA, peta2, Ingrid Newkirk and various others on more than a daily basis (Sometimes a few a day). Eventually I got sick of it. I (and many other members of animal welfare groups) do not need to be repeatedly shown horrific shock imagery and videos. I'm already aware of much of it. I've educated myself, watched countless horrific videos. I'm very aware of the problems in this world. I got sick of that very quickly.

I would also agree that yes, they do have a certain moral high ground over "the average meat-eater who professes they loves animals, yet turns a blind eye to factory farms etc" but at the same time I think it's important to realise that realistically, we are an omnivorous species. It's not wrong that people eat meat. It's wrong how it is sourced and how the animals are treated. Many PETA/ALF members think it's completely wrong to eat animals at all, disregarding factory farming. That's an opinion. It's not right. There's nothing wrong with people eating meat. Eating eggs. Drinking milk. Many of the emails I recieved over a number of years would have had you believe otherwise however, simply presenting the fact that MEAT IS MURDER.

Anyway, I consider myself a huge animal lover. I do think people should continue to campaign for animal welfare (within reason when it comes to some tactics). I just think there are better groups out there than PETA who don't come with so much baggage and are working to make real differences.

[–]UnoriginalMike 12 points13 points ago

I have to agree with you. Angry shouting kids will lose my support. Even if I would have otherwise supported the cause.

[–]thejoewoodsVegan 9 points10 points ago

I find that anger attracts me to learn more about someone's position: "wow, this person's super pissed, I wonder what about."

But if they can't listen to rational argumentation or explain their position calmly, then I quickly ignore them.

Also,

angry shouting kids

fuck you PETA

No offense or anything, but that kind of rhetoric is going to get us nowhere, except to further rile up the choir that you're preaching to.

[–]UnoriginalMike -3 points-2 points ago

That may be where you and I differ. I have yet to find an angry shouting kid that could listen or argue rationally. However if you can approach me in a mature manner, I am far more apt to actually listen to you.

[–]bobbaphetVegan 1 point2 points ago

Smart people look it up and find out for themselves.

[–]UnoriginalMike -1 points0 points ago

My plate is a tad full to go looking up everything I see a protester for.

[–]bobbaphetVegan 0 points1 point ago

If you are interested in an issue, you go look it up. If you are not interested, then who cares what you think anyway?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

If you are not interested, then who cares what you think anyway?

Are you trying to convert more vegetarians, or preach to the choir?

[–]bobbaphetVegan -1 points0 points ago

Neither, I'm just voicing my opinion. Is that allowed?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Sure. But your opinion supports PETA's tactics, which currently turn a lot of people off of meat-lite or vegetarian lifestyles.

[–]bobbaphetVegan -1 points0 points ago

which currently turn a lot of people off of meat-lite or vegetarian lifestyles.

[citation needed] (and not anecdotal evidence either because that is useless)

[–]UnoriginalMike 3 points4 points ago

Well, if you are out on the street shouting at me while holding a sign, I have to assume you want me to take interest. Call me crazy...

[–]bobbaphetVegan -2 points-1 points ago

Not necessarily. Some people are simply not intellectually capable of believing in animal rights to begin with, which is why PETA does not care if they are offended and does not care what they think. Those people were a lost cause before it even started.

[–]UnoriginalMike 1 point2 points ago

Oh, I gotcha. I have rarely encountered any people like that, and when I do, they act just like PETA members.

[–]bobbaphetVegan -1 points0 points ago

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. I meant that most people just walking by are not the target audience so it's doesn't matter what most people walking by think because you would never be able to convince those people that animals have right by any means, radical or conservative.

[–]Uberche 1 point2 points ago

You can hate them all you want but like every movement two sides are needed, you need the assholes screaming and throwing paint and making documentaries to show just how fucked some of stuff going on is, but you also need the gentle "I'm not like that!" people to attract those who are like them.

Every successful movement has both the pacifist, gentle side and the more active, aggressive side. Even Gandhi's movement wasn't all peace and non-violence...

[–]telfoid 1 point2 points ago

I think PETA's obsession with naked women is probably quite alienating for a lot of people who would be interested or sympathetic to PETA's message.

I really disliked their ads saying there is something wrong with human body hair; wearing fur is as bad as not shaving your body. I really think that is something that doesn't need to be perpetuated. There are other problems with human society besides the mistreatment of animals.

[–]esliceOvo Lacto Vegetarian 1 point2 points ago

When did they do this in an ad? I don't remember seeing anything about shaving.

[–]telfoid 2 points3 points ago

[–]qemqemqem 5 points6 points ago

I'm glad ALF makes people think vegetarians are terrorists. That makes me seem like a bad-ass.

[–]falafel1066Vegetarian 3 points4 points ago

I find that PETA's exploitation of women in their ads is as repulsive as the meat industry exploiting animals. Why would you objectify one group of living things (women, who are super objectified in media) to promote not objectifying another group?

[–]catsclaw 15 points16 points ago

The fact that you can get informed consent from one group, but not the other?

[–]bobbaphetVegan 6 points7 points ago*

Are you aware of the fact that these women willingly volunteer to appear in these ads? Supermodels certainly don't need the cash. Some of them do it for free... So you are saying having someone's picture in an ad is the same as slitting an animals head with a chainsaw? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[–]esliceOvo Lacto Vegetarian 4 points5 points ago

There are ads with men in it too, like this one with Jamie Bamber. The people who model for those images have made a career out of being "objectified." It's what they do. Animals are exploited unwillingly. There's a difference.

[–]falafel1066Vegetarian 3 points4 points ago

A naked woman in an ad does not objectify just that model. It objectifies all women. Yes, there is a difference with animals, sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[–]thomasthomas 1 point2 points ago*

women can choose to participate, animals are forced

[–]roger_ 1 point2 points ago

So PETA should ignore the fact that sex sells?

You're also disregarding the fact that they use men in ads too. Even if that wasn't try, they're not objectifying women worse than any other company, and at least they're doing it for a good reason.

[–]bloodsexsugarmagik -1 points0 points ago

I agree, I really dislike being automatically associated with PETA because I am a vegetarian.

From this article.

"PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,900 animals in 2003 alone -- that's over 85 percent of the animals it received. In fact, from July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five animals every day. On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 expense for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims."

[–]jonmlm 3 points4 points ago

Members of /r/vegetarian quoting the Center for Consumer Freedom? What is this world coming to?

[–]roger_ 5 points6 points ago

They don't run shelters. They take in terminal and un-adoptable animals that other places won't, and often have to euthanize them.

BTW you're referencing an article from a lobby group for the meat and tobacco industries (among others).

[–]ChatGarou 0 points1 point ago

That's why I prefer Defenders of Wildlife. They do what they can to bring about change through legislation.

[–]SpectreOfMalta 0 points1 point ago

My girlfriend is a vegetarian and before she discovered PETA, I told her who they are and that they kill more animals than helping them.

Also the half-naked chicks that they use for their advertisements really irritates me.

[–]masonmason22 0 points1 point ago

They've done some cool stuff, but I just can't fathom why they want to alienate females with their incredibly sexist ads of late.

[–]Qender -5 points-4 points ago

PETA is a cult of charlatans. It's a group of fanatics with extreme beliefs who do inappropriate things for attention which gets them more money and followers. It's all about publicity for them.

They say owning pets is slavery, but then they kill all the animals people give them for adoption, something like 80,000 animals are euthanized every year by PETA and they don't actually try to get them adopted. Why? Because they can take money when people drop off the animals and they only care about their image and making money.

They do sexist ad campaigns to get attention for the donations, which seem to be the only thing they care about.

They make all vegetarians, vegans, animal-rights groups, and environmentalists look like Westboro Baptist Church or something, when most of the other groups are actually level-headed and respectable.

[–]CannaeLoggins -4 points-3 points ago*

WHO IS DOWNVOTING THIS? IT'S THE FUCKING TRUTH!

Seriously guys. PETA kills animals inhumanely. It's a straight up fact. No amount of downvotes will change that.

[–]Qender -1 points0 points ago

Hmm, that's weird, normally people agree with me on that one. Perhaps they think I'm being critical of vegetarians or activists as a whole. No, I'm a vegetarian, and PETA is the #1 reason people don't respect me when they find out I'm a vegetarian.

[–]RandallDangerStevens[S] -1 points0 points ago

Dr. King knew that breaking laws and being rude to people outside of your cause would not help you accomplish your ultimate goal. Him, Gandhi, Harvey Milk. These people knew how to work the system. You present the calm, rational facts and people will listen.

[–]kloober 1 point2 points ago

Okay, now you're just trolling us, right? King worked within the system? Didn't break the law? Gandhi worked within the system? Didn't break the law?

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

[–]bnerb2323 0 points1 point ago

Key words in the person's argument "outside of your cause."

[–]kloober 1 point2 points ago

Breaking laws

and

being rude to people outside your cause

There's no "breaking laws... outside your cause", that's nonsensical.

[–]bnerb2323 0 points1 point ago

King's cause was equality, battery and assault was definitely outside of their cause. They broke any law pertaining to Jim Crow laws, anything outside of that he tried not to. Of course you could argue that not everyone fighting for equality decided to not break laws outside of their cause.

[–]jeddles -4 points-3 points ago

What I worry about is the old scifi scenario of the medical reasearch lab. PETA, or equivalent, breaks in and releases the poor, sick animals infected with some superbug.

I know it's usually restricted to fiction....but.......

[–]RandallDangerStevens[S] -2 points-1 points ago

Ever seen 12 Monkeys?

[–]jeddles 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, great movie, but the disease in 12 monkeys was released by the scientist, travelling the world to spread the infection all the more.

The reports of the extremist group releasing infected monkeys was wrong, if I remember correctly. Still, scary concept.

[–]RandallDangerStevens[S] -2 points-1 points ago

Haha yeah, I remember. It just seemed apt for the situation haha

[–]telfoid 0 points1 point ago

Or 28 days later.

[–]VinceThe3rd -5 points-4 points ago

Which is why I almost never bring up my vegetarianism. I KNOW RIGHT!!!

[–]necromundus -5 points-4 points ago

...you don't hate PETA for practicing mass euthenasia and firebombing animal research centres?