You are here

GENERAL OPINIONS ON PETA???

I'm very curious. Personally, I think that they make the veg community look bad.

I doubt that in the south their parents would learn to feed them a balanced diet sans meat.

Wow.  Not to get off topic too much, but that's a bit judgmental, don't you think?  I see you live in SC (as do I).  Surely you've run into at least a few intelligent people here. 

I don't believe it was judgmental, to be quite frank.  I've certainly met (quite a few) intelligent people here, but most of them still eat meat. I was not inferring the people here are stupid, just that the culture here is very unforgiving to vegetarianism / veganism in general.  My comments stands on its own that most people here do not eat a balanced diet even with meat; this can be verified by statistical data concerning obesity and diet in the south in general and South Carolina specifically. It is certainly easier to obtain healthier foods and meat alternatives in the larger urban centers of Columbia, Charleston and Greenville for example. Once outside of these areas however, progress has been slow and even fresh produce in some of the most disconnected areas is limited to what people grow themselves.

I apologize for the tone of my post if it was offensive (it was not intended that way) and hope I've clarified the scope now so it makes sense. In a way, it goes further to prove my point against PETA. When you take into consideration a culture that in general frowns on eating a healthy, balanced diet and is grossly made up of a very conservative mindset that is resistant to change(both politically and religiously) a group such as PETA using such openly offensive tactics causes more harm than good...the goal, at least in the south, should be educating on a healthy lifestyle first and moving out from there. Even though PETA tries to do that, the message is not heard because the majority of people here consider them unpatriotic wackos and a danger to society. This makes the good elements of their message less than nil and then we as vegetarians & vegans are negatively associated with that.

0 likes

I doubt that in the south their parents would learn to feed them a balanced diet sans meat.

Wow.  Not to get off topic too much, but that's a bit judgmental, don't you think?  I see you live in SC (as do I).  Surely you've run into at least a few intelligent people here. 

You know as well as I do, Lotus, that we are the minority here!  :)
The smart minority.
I think its OK to bash the eating habits of the south. Although, I don't believe it's much better in the north.

0 likes
0 likes

Hahah....oh goodness.
That was a great video.

I think it's great that PETA is against exploiting animals but they're fine with exploiting woman. Of course they exploit women to convince people to not exploit animals (???) but it has just became another reason I strongly disagree with the organization.

0 likes

I doubt that in the south their parents would learn to feed them a balanced diet sans meat.

Wow.  Not to get off topic too much, but that's a bit judgmental, don't you think?  I see you live in SC (as do I).  Surely you've run into at least a few intelligent people here. 

I don't believe it was judgmental, to be quite frank.  I've certainly met (quite a few) intelligent people here, but most of them still eat meat. I was not inferring the people here are stupid, just that the culture here is very unforgiving to vegetarianism / veganism in general.  My comments stands on its own that most people here do not eat a balanced diet even with meat; this can be verified by statistical data concerning obesity and diet in the south in general and South Carolina specifically. It is certainly easier to obtain healthier foods and meat alternatives in the larger urban centers of Columbia, Charleston and Greenville for example. Once outside of these areas however, progress has been slow and even fresh produce in some of the most disconnected areas is limited to what people grow themselves.

I apologize for the tone of my post if it was offensive (it was not intended that way) and hope I've clarified the scope now so it makes sense. In a way, it goes further to prove my point against PETA. When you take into consideration a culture that in general frowns on eating a healthy, balanced diet and is grossly made up of a very conservative mindset that is resistant to change(both politically and religiously) a group such as PETA using such openly offensive tactics causes more harm than good...the goal, at least in the south, should be educating on a healthy lifestyle first and moving out from there. Even though PETA tries to do that, the message is not heard because the majority of people here consider them unpatriotic wackos and a danger to society. This makes the good elements of their message less than nil and then we as vegetarians & vegans are negatively associated with that.

I don't mean to be argumentative either.  I just don't like generalizations.  I agree that it is more difficult to find convenient and healthy options outside of the urban centers in SC (or the south in general), but I'm pretty sure that it's the same in most rural parts of the country. 

Aside from that, I noticed your zip code.  Are you in Lexington?  I'm in Columbia. 

0 likes

I don't mean to be argumentative either.  I just don't like generalizations.  I agree that it is more difficult to find convenient and healthy options outside of the urban centers in SC (or the south in general), but I'm pretty sure that it's the same in most rural parts of the country. 

Aside from that, I noticed your zip code.  Are you in Lexington?  I'm in Columbia. 

I don't have a problem with generalizations, but I spend a lot of time around numbers and statistics so I forget that others can see the whole "people as numbers" thing as offensive. So, my apologies there...I'll need to be more mindful of that in the future.

I would agree with the rural assessment, but for the bulk of the populated rural areas within the US are in the south (that are not necessarily agricultural centers).

And I'm actually in Cayce but am moving into a new house just outside of Lexington in the next couple of weeks, so I put my soon to be zip code. I've actually lived in and around Columbia mostly for the last 20 years.

0 likes

I like PETA. I'm glad they take extreme media-measures to promote an opinion that is - with or without PETA - often highly marginalized.

Corporations often scoff at the idea of animal rights. The idea of PETA protests or campaigns at least make them think twice. Their methods and stances are not for everyone, but that is by design. They take the extreme voice to insure it's represented.

0 likes

Exactly! They have a pretty decent message, one that I agree with on quite a few points, but their way of going about doing things makes me sick to my stomach. I have a friend who told me that PETA members once showed up to a festival she was doing and let all the farm animals into the wild. Farm Animals? In The Wild? Where they'll almost certianly get eaten or starve to death. How ethical of them. The make all vegans look like fanatical idiots. Of course, the crazies in every group have a tendency to do that.

Word. They are totally out of touch and live in a world where whatever they do is "ethical treatment" of animals. Here in Europe they mostly put up posters, and release animals into a hostile environment. I always wonder where all that donated money actually goes.

But see, we complain when people assume that PETA represents the animal rights movement as a whole and vegans as a whole, while they do not. But many people assume that PETA members = PETA. Things that qualify one as a PETA member:
donating at least $16 a year to PETA
holding a sign/wearing clothing with a PETA logo on it
and often, just being an animal rights advocate
an activist is not tantamount to PETA's position/s just as PETA is not the same as the ALF. PETA does not release domesticated animals in the wild (nor does the ALF, though one cell had that screw up with minks one time...). Stupid people do. (standing for animal rights or not)
I haven't always agreed with what PETA does, and I think it sucks that an animal rights organization spends a lot of its time on animal welfare issues (praising fast food joints after they adopt better welfare standards... what happened to the successful campaign to get a veggie burger at Burger King? Why not do that for all the fast food chains instead?). But, even if some of their stances are "extreme," it's the extremists that shift the middle ground their direction. i.e., when we hear about PETA throwing "blood" on fur-wearing models, people adopt a position more radical than before (wearing fur is ignorant and fur is cruel), but while still decrying the vandalism/assault. Or in regard to the ALF, people might decide they're ok with animal liberation, but not arson.

0 likes

I think that we know the difference between ALF, PETA, veganism, and other animal rights causes and contnigencies, but I don't think the general public does.  Most people think, "vegan, that's like peta, right?"  I know that I assumed that peta was THE organization for vegans right up to the time where I became vegan, and I was vegetarian during all that time before.  People don't know the subtleties, in general.  They just think, animal rights is animal rights.  

I also don't agree with the "any publicity is good because it gets people to think" stance.  I feel like I see that a lot on vegweb.  What a pitifully low bar for an organization with such resources!  I don't care about the bikini girls (I don't think that's a big deal), but I can't believe that peta is so out of touch with what makes for effective advocacy--and that DOESN'T include making people feel guilty, annoyed, belittled, threatened, scared, or ignorant!  What crude tactics!  Most of peta's campaigns look like something a high school sophomore threw together for his marketing class project the night before it was due.

I can't think of any other causes where going out and acting batshit crazy is desirable or effective.  I mean, look at Ingrid Newkirk, she's more than slightly loony.  PETA needs to plant a foot firmly in reality.  

PETA does represent the animal right movement, in effect, whether we like it or not.  People (omnis) think animal rights, they think PETA.  

0 likes

When people say, "Well, at least it gets people to think animal rights," what do you all mean?  Like, think about it in what way?  Think about the fact that it exists?  And do you feel like scare/shock tactics which pummel and disrespect their audience are the only way to spark that thought?

I'm just not convinced that the same effect (and a much greater effect, at that) couldn't be had via more positive, respectful methods aimed at the appropriate audiences.

0 likes

I agree with this totally.

I don't like extremism of any form. PETA falls into this category for me.

0 likes

Exactly! They have a pretty decent message, one that I agree with on quite a few points, but their way of going about doing things makes me sick to my stomach. I have a friend who told me that PETA members once showed up to a festival she was doing and let all the farm animals into the wild. Farm Animals? In The Wild? Where they'll almost certianly get eaten or starve to death. How ethical of them. The make all vegans look like fanatical idiots. Of course, the crazies in every group have a tendency to do that.

Word. They are totally out of touch and live in a world where whatever they do is "ethical treatment" of animals. Here in Europe they mostly put up posters, and release animals into a hostile environment. I always wonder where all that donated money actually goes.

But see, we complain when people assume that PETA represents the animal rights movement as a whole and vegans as a whole, while they do not. But many people assume that PETA members = PETA. Things that qualify one as a PETA member:
donating at least $16 a year to PETA
holding a sign/wearing clothing with a PETA logo on it
and often, just being an animal rights advocate
an activist is not tantamount to PETA's position/s just as PETA is not the same as the ALF. PETA does not release domesticated animals in the wild (nor does the ALF, though one cell had that screw up with minks one time...). Stupid people do. (standing for animal rights or not)
I haven't always agreed with what PETA does, and I think it sucks that an animal rights organization spends a lot of its time on animal welfare issues (praising fast food joints after they adopt better welfare standards... what happened to the successful campaign to get a veggie burger at Burger King? Why not do that for all the fast food chains instead?). But, even if some of their stances are "extreme," it's the extremists that shift the middle ground their direction. i.e., when we hear about PETA throwing "blood" on fur-wearing models, people adopt a position more radical than before (wearing fur is ignorant and fur is cruel), but while still decrying the vandalism/assault. Or in regard to the ALF, people might decide they're ok with animal liberation, but not arson.

with reguards to ALF, if someone was to break slaves out of a campw here they were inprisoned, would that be the same but with animals?
Do ALF have in their message "all means necessary" e.g. harming humans, or do they just advocate the release of animals from farms etc. and the possible burning of the farms to help prevent, if even for a little while, the use of the farm for enslaving animals?

0 likes

omg that video.

the ad it showed "i'd rather be raped by an animal than wear it's fur" seems pretty over the top. that's a real news story and not just a gag?

also the statement that they won't stop and don't care about women's status until animals are equals is pretty backwards. many (examples - blacks, women, poor) in the past were considered "animals" by "white humans" and were treated differently. treating exploitation with more exploitation is just kind of fucked up IMHO

0 likes

I think that was an Onion video and meant to be satirical.  Goes to show what some people think of PETA.

0 likes

yeah, parts seems like that (esp the "free range women") but other parts were kinda like, well, i wouldn't put it past PETA. cause they do some crazy shit.

i think a cupcakes and sweets approach would be better to get people to veganism. people might not care about animal rights but i think health (veg diet = better health) AND education on what a vegan diet is really like (we eat more than carrots and wheatgrass juice) could go a long way. many of my omni friends are like VEGAN?! until they see me eat or i talk about the foods i eat. then i think they see it as less radical and more, oh, yeah, i could see eating like that without much effort.

0 likes

I definitely agree.  I don't think any lasting change is brought about by inciting fear, guilt, or annoyance.  Vegans need to be positive influences!  Not negative people who can't get their minds off animal suffering.  PETA gives the impression that vegans are angry all the time, when really it's being vegan that increases our happiness and peace of mind.  It's about opening minds, and I think PETA closes way too many minds for its own good.

PETA, you're doing it backwards.

0 likes

When people say, "Well, at least it gets people to think animal rights," what do you all mean?  Like, think about it in what way?  Think about the fact that it exists?  And do you feel like scare/shock tactics which pummel and disrespect their audience are the only way to spark that thought?

I'm just not convinced that the same effect (and a much greater effect, at that) couldn't be had via more positive, respectful methods aimed at the appropriate audiences.

Because when something makes you angry, you often are forced to examine why you feel that way. A good portion of meat eaters get angry when confronted by PETA ads, and if you ask them "Why", they won't know... they'll have to examine their anger, and their reasons for it. On a subconcious level, it works. PEople are at least considering the arguement, if only to solidify their arguement against it.

Yes, positive is nice... but it often gets dismissed as such: "Positive" becomes "Nice" leads to "hippy dippy" to "ha ha" to dismissal, and zero reflection.

Eating meat is so engrained into our society (and such a huge, profitable industry) that one needs to be loud and aggressive to even be heard on the subject.

Again, I give PETA credit for making the voice of animal rights at least heard. For every laughable stunt about animal rights we dismiss as horrible, there are 100,000+ McDonalds ads... So we need something, right?

Thus goes my opinion, anyways.

0 likes

Personally, I agree with the main goal to end animal cruelty but they go overboard.
The whole point of being a veg*n is to prevent violence from our daily lives but some of peta's actions are pretty damn violent. Some of it is propaganda but I agree with most of it, maybe it's just a way to raise awareness...Shock and strong actions generally brings it across.

0 likes

Because when something makes you angry, you often are forced to examine why you feel that way. A good portion of meat eaters get angry when confronted by PETA ads, and if you ask them "Why", they won't know... they'll have to examine their anger, and their reasons for it. On a subconcious level, it works. PEople are at least considering the arguement, if only to solidify their arguement against it.

I guess this just isn't what I have observed.  People shut down or turn away when they're made angry or made to feel like bad people.  They're not going to go home and reflect upon it in great depth, in all likelihood.  Again, just my experience with other people's reactions.

I don't think simple awareness is a valid goal anymore.  That might have been the case when the movement first emerged.  Now, most people are familiar that veg*nism and animal rights exist.  We are beyond the stage where we need to shout at people to tell them that we exist.  We are at the stage where we need to make a good impression.  Again, I think associating veg*nism with anger, hate, aggression, and rigidity is just bad all around and becomes the take-home thought.

To me, an animal rights activist throwing paint on a coat is akin to a gay rights activist throwing paint on someone's wedding dress.  Just.....not OK.  Not effective.

I guess what I gather from this is that a whole ton of more research needs to be done on this type of marketing.  It doesn't seem like PETA does much.

0 likes

To me, an animal rights activist throwing paint on a coat is akin to a gay rights activist throwing paint on someone's wedding dress.  Just.....not OK.  Not effective.

i like that comparison.

i was going to comment on something else and got distracted

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments