Discussion came up on comment wall, and it seemed appropriate as a topic on its own.


1.  Does PETA use fake blood in protests?  Yes.  "Peta:  Using Fake Blood To Make You Feel Awkward Since 1980"


2.  PETA website here.  PETA is famous for outragous ads, as demonstrated here.  They like to use sexual exploitation in their ads.

'Veggie Love': PETA's Banned Super Bowl Ad


3.  PETA is confrontational, they use sex, holocaust imagery, slavery imagery, and imagery of abused animals for attention.


4.  PETA does euthanise animals that they deem unable to be cured of disease or unable to be 'rehabilitated.


5.  PETA has attempted to get towns to change their names - such as Hamburg NY, and Fishkill NY,


6.  There's more - see the wikipedia article.


Questions that can be asked, would include -


Are these tactics effective at reducing animal cruelty? 


Do these tactics conver people to the cause of PETA, and to vegetarianism?


Would these tactics be convertable to an antireligious campaign to counter religious abuse?



Tags: PETA

Views: 581

Replies to This Discussion

I agree that PETA should be recognized for what it has accomplished and for the attention it has brought to the Animal Rights Issue, but I think PETA deserves heavy criticism for a lot of the mixed messages it puts out. I especially like Francione's quote about PETA: "Combine this with PETA’s sexism, and its giving awards to slaughterhouse designers and grocery chains that sell “happy” meat and animal products, and it is clear that PETA is nothing but a joke, albeit, for the animals, a most tragic one." ("This" refers to the euthanasia of 2352 companion animals in 2009 and the adoption of a mere 8).
Sorry- I was trying to decide both where to put and how to phrase my post (and check that no one had said exactly that already...)
It's difficult to evaluate because it seems the only exposure some people get to animal rights is through PETA and it seems like it's difficult for a lot of people to take PETA as an organization seriously. The kill policy is not my only beef with PETA (pun intended). To me, animal rights is a visceral and emotional ethical issue, but the majority of people are alienated from it. For the most part, doing anything about it requires a lifestyle change. This is where I believe PETA does not make a clear point. PETA makes non-vegan lifestyles seem guilt free. I was a vegetarian for 4 years before I became vegan, and PETA did not really influence my shift to veganism. It came more out of reading the arguments from animal rights abolitionists, such as Gary Francione, and meeting/talking to other vegans about animal rights issues. I am aware that this is totally anecdotal, but I think there is something to be said about PETA's mixed messages in their actions and campaigns.
With respect to the point in your earlier comment about PETA hopefully moving to bigger issues and different advertising and policies, I would like to hope for that as well, but I just don't see it happening. I want to be wrong about this, but with PETA's track record..I'm concerned. With respect to Newkirk, it's also a problem that she has supported the ALF, who utilize violent acts to promote messages of animal welfare, because that makes sense- promoting nonviolence through violence?? So in this case PETA has given itself this somewhat almost extremist image, yet has failed to really achieve much in terms of Animal Rights policy changes. It's frustrating, because I think PETA has the resources to accomplish so much more, but then again, some of those resources come from companies which have an agenda far from Animal Rights. I think PETA needs to focus more on outreach and education because consumers have the most impact, rather than trying to implement minor animal welfare policy changes which really don't accomplish anything in my opinion.
PS- I hope this comment made sense.
Apart from the fact that Keith was pied with pepper laced cream, the juvenile attack has vaulted her book "The Vegetarian Myth' from below 2000 on Amazon up to 554! Not bad for a few minutes of discomfort and a few seconds of humiliation!

I am and continue to be a vegetarian, but a more thoughtful one after reading Lierre Keith's book. I think more vegetarians (and vegans) should read her arguments, if only to understand the issues facing us as a society today. Being on the Atheist Nexus is one step in the right direction.

For me, my deconversion was as a result of a dietary change to vegetarianism, outlined here...

Matthew Scully said it best in his book 'Dominion'. Canadian philosopher, Michael Fox writes about the psychology of meat eating in 'Deep Vegetarianism' and it's links to dominance. It was all about the power and early Christians must have known that if they had too many dietary restrictions on 'delicious' meat (like pork) they would not gain many converts.

I have had my share of hate mail after I accused Catholics of being cannibals. After all, they eat human flesh and drink human blood every Sunday. And if you think I'm kidding or they say it's just symbolic, google Transubstantiation
The comment about Christians loving meat is so depressingly true. I once mentioned my veganism at work and someone actually said "Well God put the animals here so we can eat them." I was too shocked to reply.
I prefer the rhetoric and the methods of Vegan Outreach:

I personally advocate for VO, contribute to their funds, distribute booklets and recommend their book "Animal Activist's Handbook" to everyone who wants to maximize their positive change for animals. The fact of the matter is that the "do something, do anything" approach still taken by Peta and other organizations is ineffective. When we choose to do one thing, we're choosing not to do something else. Putting naked women in plastic and throwing fake blood on them may get a lot of attention, but quietly handing out booklets and having calm, rational conversations with college kids and concert goers is going to create immediate, lasting, genuine change in our society.
But, honey is not vegan.  How about maple syrup?
I  think PETA is not radical enough.  But as for your arguments, I think you're bringing other issues into the conversation as givens, such as what is and isn't sexist.  if you have a problem with methods of advertising, i think they deserve their own topics, probably in a different message board.  what you should be addressing is whether or not one supports PETA's agenda.  Again, I don't think they go far enough.
I am grateful to PETA.  They have brought many individual animal abuses before more people than has any other group.  I don't think they go far enough.  Happy Meat?  No thanks.  Vegan Outreach is very effective and focused.  But, they don't teach about rodeos, zoos, circuses, hunting, animal labs, pet breeding, etc.  PETA does.  Animal Rights is a difficult concept for me.  So is human rights.  Rights is an idea only.  We asign them to each other in documents like, "The Bill of Rights" .  If these rights aren't given us by our fictional creator, what are they?  I believe in Absolute Abolition of animal slavery.  I believe in Animal Liberation.  I believe that other animals don't belong to humans, and that we have no right to use them at all.  What do the rest of you think?
I'm a vegetarian, and PETA really rubs me the wrong way.  I do think that they do some good things, but they have also come under heavy fire for controversial practices and attitudes, especially Ingrid Newkirk.  I think they're diluting their message by being too radical, and not moderate enough to win sustainable support from some non-vegans/vegetarians.  I used to support them, naturally, when I first when vegetarian several years ago.  But over the years, their antics started to leave a real distaste with me. 


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service