I've never really paid any attention to PETA. I am all for the humane treatment of animals, but they see to be a little too hysterical for me. Also, I really like to eat food. I StumbleUpon'd this infographic and was interested at some of the findings.

Peta vs Animals
Via: Online Schools

Views: 172

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


I had come across the information previously from a site dedicated to outing them.
The Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode on PETA is also well worth seeing. Last time I looked it was on Youtube and several other vid sites. You can do the searching but.
Penn & Teller is gossip? I didn't provide a link because there is this thing called google, and aside from that, I doubt anyone here, apart from maybe you, needs to be told who Penn & Teller are.
Taking a look at the sources, I'm a bit skeptical.

Google Silver Springs monkeys. You'll see why most of these animals are euthanised.
I'm not surprised to see PETA being criticised. The criticism is specific, so it's easily checkable. It looks like it's been based on research.

Over the years, I have grown suspicious of charity or voluntary organisations. Especially, those that shout from the rooftops "Look what good people we are" don't sound sincere. I would very much like to know what proportion of voluntary organisations exist mostly to provide a high income for their top dogs. I suspect it's quite high.
Can't say I've ever been a huge fan of PETA, always found them a bit hypocritical though honestly I can't say much in the way of why, just sort of a feeling you get.

And honestly those Whale Boat attackers? They don't do anything at all helpful to whales or anyone though they have their own TV show where they talk about doing nothing.
I can't say I feel sorry for any whale boats being "attacked", although I think "saboteur" is a better word since they are nonviolent (unless PETA gives to some other whale boat attackers besides Sea Shepherd). Do they do any good? Well, it's hard to know what is the best thing to do, and people have different strategies which all seem to be small miniscule actions. When I first saw the TV show (Sea Shepherd is not the same as PETA although by the ad, maybe PETA gives them money?) I thought it would give them more publicity.

Apparently the whaling ship in question had a self-imposed quota of killing 900 whales a year, and because of Sea Shepherd's harassment, they ended up killing several hundred less. It sure made a difference to the hundreds that weren't killed.
"Whale boat attackers"...was that actually supposed to elicit sympathy?
Not actually, I more applaud that they take a much stronger stand against whaling vessels, take attacker as a term of endearment though I can understand the mistaken meaning. I can't say I watch much of the show since it gets quite a bit preachy ( I love the self rightousness...) but if they have lowered the numbers by hundreds then awesome work.

Yes, I hate the idea of whaling and I hate how the Japanese are still doing it for a false reason. These guys though... not exactly what I want representing who's there to help save the whales. They aren't the only ones out there rushing around to stop whaling, they're just the ones with the TV show and throw stuff around. There are people who are legally cutting down the whaling industry. I even found an article somewhere where some Japanese scientists themselves condoned the idea that killing whales was for science (which everyone but Japanese government seems to realize)

The one thing I can't really approve of is their tactic of boarding a Japanese vessel (pirate move indeed!) and then immediately stating that they were held hostage by the Japanese. A very very bad move especially since the Japanese would of had the right to aggressive force in international waters to repel them. Great move to attack with nonviolent means but crying uncle and asking for the Australian government to come save them doesn't exactly help since even if they did get taken hostage it wouldn't matter since legally the Japanese would have a right to detain attackers. Basically they lied about what happened since it would help their cause.. not exactly the right sort of message to send to people and no, any publicity isn't good publicity.

But eh, everyone will just counter my thoughts and that'll just get into an off topic issue so I'm just gonna agree to disagree. Hate whaling and Whale Wars is not the show for me. Also it is a well known though unstated fact what the Japanese do with the whales they kill after bloody well counting the rings in them.
PETA kills animals, that's entirely true. I'm still waiting for omnivores to suggest what they ought to do instead - turn them onto the streets, where most of them will die of some disease, or starvation, or abuse? Or keep them caged in the shelters forever, while not bringing in new animals that might be able to be adopted?

You may or may not agree with their ads, but personally, it seems like the obvious thing to do with their money is to try and stop the problem at its source - that is, trying to change people's minds and stop animals from being abused or put on the streets in the first place.
Some have mentioned the "capture, spay, release" strategy instead of euthanasia. I don't know how effective or ineffective it would be, I only know that some have mentioned it as a possible alternative. It seems like it would be much more costly, and it would probably take a lot more time to reduce pet population. It is also true that other organizations like the SPCA do the same thing.

Do you know anything about whether the other claims on this poster are true? Such as strong ties to the ALF and ELF, and advocating not "imprisoning" animals as household pets? If true, that would contradict their trying to get animals adopted, but maybe they only mean "exotic" pets and animals that have to be kept in a cage? I am against certain animals being pets, because they have to be in cages or because they were stolen from the wild. But housecats? Mine have a better life than I do!
I see a lot of posts of this site claiming that atheists (and nontheists in general) are rational and more intelligent than theists.

If that's true (which I believe it is), let's show it actually checking facts and pointing out logical fallacies. To start with:

8. They have long-standing ties to ALF and ELF.

Logical fallacy: Association fallacy. This is the same type of stunt that Fox News pulls every week with Obama and Islam.

Also, ALF is not a group. ALF is a label that can be used by individuals, provided that they follow they follow the credo of ALF.

"Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF."


Certainly, not everyone who puts themselves in the public light as a activist/philanthropist is an honest, selfless person. However, that doesn't mean we should instantly criticize them based on some fancy graphics and reality TV show 'facts'.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service