I Am An Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA
Posted by Kbone on Nov 21, 2007 · Member since Jun 2007 · 374 posts
I Am An Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA
Saw this on HBO this week. Quite an interesting documentary on the origins of PETA and its founder, Ingrid Newkirk. It's worth catching but be warned- there are some scenes that are difficult to watch (mostly PETA footage that you may have already seen).
Also, this article/study only takes into account the "agricultural footprint."
If we are talking about what's best for Earth on the whole, shouldn't we also take into account the "carbon footprint"?
There are many other environmental factors (air, water, energy, etc.) to take into account if one is going to debate which diet is best for the planet--a comprehensive study would have to be done to convince me--not just how much land is going to be used. And like Toffutibreak pointed out (thank you!), this study was only carried out taking into consideration one small state, compared to the rest of the land (and its resources/population) in the world.
One more thing...I may be wrong...but, what I'm hearing from this article is that, firstly, adding some meat/dairy production DOES still use up more land (so it's not necessarily better for the planet). It's just a method that feeds more people (it's more efficient for humans). Sounds like it's just another anthropocentric viewpoint to back up a reason to eat meat/dairy.
Secondly, maybe I'm off base here, but the article talks about how the "widely available pasture land" in New York that is perfect for grazing animals and not good for growing crops. Uhhh...why is there so much of that kind of land there in the first place? Why aren't there trees there? Because they were probably cut down already for farming? So why not use that land to regenerate growth of natural native vegetation? Why MUST it be used? Simply to feed a few more people? When there are people starving all over the world? The whole world could easily be fed on a plant-based diet--there are other studies. I don't know...no offense...really...but it all sounds like a bunch hooey to me.
You are right, it is a situation where it would be best to agree to disagree. And if I offended anyone, I do sincerely apologize. I just thought I would put in my two cents on the matter. As for the ALF, I will agree that they are far, far worse than PETA in their methods. I think PETA is just only getting investigated for questionable behavior, the ALF is already considered officially dangeorus.
Sincerely,
TheRadiantSeraphim
Sorry for the double-post, there was something I forgot to add.
PETA is not taking that angle because they believe that eating some meat and dairy creates a smaller footprint. They are pretty outspoken about this. PETA promotes veg*nism. But their actions speak the opposite. They do not make the effort to sink up their beliefs with their actions. They say they believe in eradicating all cruelty to animals, but then they hobnob with the meat/dairy industry.
You know, a lot of vegetarians and non-vegetarians have noted this. And maybe this new information is kind of supporting their argument. But now I understand even more why you might not favor them. I guess I had the impression that they were known for shocking people with naked celebrities showered in plants or dumping pig's blood (now -that- seems the opposite of what they believe in) on people during "meat events" and that was the counter productive side. I still find doing things like -that- are what turns people off from PETA.
On a less related note, I hope I did not ruin your good day. ^^
Sincerely,
TheRadiantSeraphim
You know, a lot of vegetarians and non-vegetarians have noted this. And maybe this new information is kind of supporting their argument. But now I understand even more why you might not favor them. I guess I had the impression that they were known for shocking people with naked celebrities showered in plants or dumping pig's blood (now -that- seems the opposite of what they believe in) on people during "meat events" and that was the counter productive side. I still find doing things like -that- are what turns people off from PETA.
Yes, I agree that the naked celebrities and silly antics (spray painting fur coats, etc.) definitely turn people off, not just from PETA, but from the animal activist movement overall (which is just another reason why they are counterproductive).
But more grievous than that, I find their hypocritical actions in support of "happy humane meat" far more egregious than any publicity stunt they could conjure up.
That's just how I feel. Personally. As someone who loves animals over chugging down a bottle of milk and chomping on a chunk of cheese. :P ::) ;D
On a less related note, I hope I did not ruin your good day. ^^
On the contrary. You have been very civil in presenting your points and no need to worry! My morning was so good, I'm not sure anything could ruin the rest of my day anyway. :)
I have this cued up to watch soon, Im sure itll be interesting.
As far as PETA, Im not the biggest fan, and like others here I believe alot of their campaigns are silly. But they have the ability and resouces to have topics brought to the mainstreams attention pretty quickly, and they also have the power to have coporations fear them for what they can boycott, research and discover. And that is a powerful powerful tool.
Joe Schmoe can discover some horrible form of animal abuse being done by some company, and he might never get enough exposure to force a change in what he has found out. But PETA has the power to do that.
Case in point, the Raccoon Dog fur from China. Ive known about this for awhile...most AR people have, but it never made any real news till PETA came forward with what the faux fur coast were made of.
So I wouldnt be too quick to dismiss them, I think they do alot of good....despite stupid naked celebrity stunts.
Of course naked chicks might be needed to get the attention of the million and millions of blunderheaded sheep walking around in our society.
My biggest issue w/ Ms Newkirk is her lack of filter between brain and mouth.
She has singlehandedly pissed off MANY MANY dog folks, many people whom in my opinion are people you want on your side..She's not shy about her hatred of the bully breeds and how she supports Breed Specific Legislation (for those who don't know what BSL is, it's the banning of breeds within a town and/or state, the lists can range from 1 breed to several different breeds that someone decided is "dangerous" I've seen lists that range from Pit Bulls all the way to Corgis. ).
I think the principle of PETA is fantastic, as animals need an advocate who will speak for them, change policies, make corps/people think twice about how an animal is treated/slaughtered/processed/kept etc etc...BUT..I think PETA is such a joke at this point that most people don't even pay attention to what their message is..Ingrid Newkirk talks out both sides of her ass so much, it's kind of hard to figure out what she really stands for.
The fact that she wants my dog taken away from me and euthanized because he's a rottweiler is enough for me to dislike her and not listen to a damn thing she has to say otherwise.
But they have the ability and resouces to have topics brought to the mainstreams attention pretty quickly, and they also have the power to have coporations fear them for what they can boycott, research and discover. And that is a powerful powerful tool.
I think if PETA is really as effective/powerful as you say...the corporations would halt the killing entirely...not just add a few more inches of cage space or establish more efficient profitable ways of killing factory farm animals (as with PETA's CAK proposals). The material/information in these two links speak loudly about what PETA truly stands for (NOTE that this unbelievable material is put out by PETA THEMSELVES!)...
http://www.peta.org/CAK/CAK+economic+synopsis+with+letterhead.pdf
http://www.peta.org/cak/
Joe Schmoe can discover some horrible form of animal abuse being done by some company, and he might never get enough exposure to force a change in what he has found out. But PETA has the power to do that.
Did you ever think that maybe the average animal activist has difficulty being heard BECAUSE of the way PETA's crap causes people to look at any animal activist as a radical, terrorist, or a kook? BECAUSE they are the most exposed animal organization, they unfortunately set the example and people end up thinking that that all animal rights activists are like PETA folks. And Ingrid Newkirk (the grand kook herself) is viewed as the typical animal rights activist. There are plenty of animal activists with integrity and purity of actions attempting to do things the right way, but they are the ones being immediately "DISMISSED" by the media/public/political outlets/legal system because they are erroneously lumped in with the PETA crowd.
Case in point, the Raccoon Dog fur from China. Ive known about this for awhile...most AR people have, but it never made any real news till PETA came forward with what the faux fur coast were made of.
They may have made headlines with their fur antics...but most people have overlooked the ultimate message because of the negativity surrounding their actions. Personally, I think PETA simply lacks integrity and conviction. People notice this, even if they don't consciously comprehend that that is exactly why they dislike PETA.
Of course naked chicks might be needed to get the attention of the million and millions of blunderheaded sheep walking around in our society.
That's fine. I find nothing wrong with nakedness. I just think there are far more effective methods in achieving peace for animals. I wouldn't want to stoop to the level of sheeple just to get my important message across.
She has singlehandedly pissed off MANY MANY dog folks, many people whom in my opinion are people you want on your side..She's not shy about her hatred of the bully breeds and how she supports Breed Specific Legislation (for those who don't know what BSL is, it's the banning of breeds within a town and/or state, the lists can range from 1 breed to several different breeds that someone decided is "dangerous" I've seen lists that range from Pit Bulls all the way to Corgis. ).
I have never gotten into this aspect of her cruel beliefs, just because welfare reforms are such a bigger issue (affects more animals). But, yes, as a pitbull mix owner, this is just yet another reason why I dislike her vehemently. Her ignorance about pit bulls is astounding. Instead of concentrating on sending out the message to stop breeding and for pit bull owners to take responsibility for their dogs, she just flat out blames pit bulls (one should NEVER blame a dog for any harm done to another dog/person--it is a dog owner's responsibility), she states that ALL pit bulls should be KILLED, invariably, without exception (how's that for compassion and love for animals?). For those who don't know this about bloody Newkirk, hear her own words on how all pit bulls should be euthanized: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/08/EDGDLD4G1S1.DTL&type=printable
On top of that, her policies on shelter euthansia (her apparent ease with killing perfectly healthy animals) is yet another disturbing side of her as well.
http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm
I have never gotten into this aspect of her cruel beliefs, just because welfare reforms are such a bigger issue (affects more animals).
well while I would love to get into the other evils that make this person up, the fact that she supports BSL stopped me right in my tracks from listening to anything else she had (has) to say. She could try and tell me the secret to ending world hunger and how to obtain world peace..but as far as I'm concerned, my fingers are in my ears when it comes to her and PETA.
I'm all for animal rights, I'm all for harsher penalties for animal abusers, but not at the cost of my own dog's and many of my friend's dogs lives.
Yes, her whole lets euthanize "bad" dogs idea is, for me, at odds with "let's save animals." I personally see a lot of inconsistencies in her beliefs. And if there is one thing that I don't like it's philosophical inconsistency. Especially since I have very fond memories of my dog (a pitbull) while I was growing up. We got him from a rescue when I was 10 and he was 3. He died right before I left for college and I still miss him. I still don't want another dog because of how wonderful he was.
Beyond that, and my dislike of their tactics, I just don't support such organizations because I'm not opposed to people eating meat. I'm opposed to people eating meat from factory farms - organic or otherwise. But, I'm all for small, local, sustainable farms.
And, unfortunately, most (if not all) animal rights organizations are against the sustainable farms too. So, it's always a problem for me - do I support them because they also want to see factory farms and animal cruelty disappear? Or do I avoid them because they don't like sustainable farms?
My tactic has always been to support organizations that push for ecological sustainability. Since no factory farm or feedlot - organic or otherwise - is sustainable on an ecological level, those organizations, by default, will get rid of inhumane treatment of animals.
But, I digress, lol.
I'm all for animal rights, I'm all for harsher penalties for animal abusers, but not at the cost of my own dog's and many of my friend's dogs lives.
Not sure if you thought this, but I'm not saying her stance on pit bulls is any less horrific or wrong than welfare reforms. All I mean, is that at the moment, I concentrate on exposing (railing on) her regarding her support of welfare reforms, simply because she herself is more of a forceful proponent of this than the extermination of pit bulls. Though you ARE right, she is monster when it comes to her views on bullies.
Yes, her whole lets euthanize "bad" dogs idea is, for me, at odds with "let's save animals." I personally see a lot of inconsistencies in her beliefs. And if there is one thing that I don't like it's philosophical inconsistency. Especially since I have very fond memories of my dog (a pitbull) while I was growing up. We got him from a rescue when I was 10 and he was 3. He died right before I left for college and I still miss him. I still don't want another dog because of how wonderful he was.
I do not mind paradoxes in ideals and philosophies. With my religious beliefs and my stance with my vegetarianism, I somewhat am guilty of that. However, paradoxical beliefs and hypocrisy are two different things. And even with my paradoxes, I make clear what they are, for I myself have value in consistency, as well. I do not think Ingrid Newkirk is consistent, or making a harmony with any of her beliefs, as far as my book is concerned. There are too many contradictions in her beliefs that have no sort of link to make them harmonized, if that makes any sense. For instance, I can rationalize believing in God and gods in the sense that I believe all gods are one God and the faces of one God with my own belief structure. I can support vegetarianism while being nicer to non-vegetarians since I take a more evolutionary aspect with moral leanings with the issue. Etc.
I do not see how compassion for animals and respecting life can be combined with euthanizing all pit bulls.
Anyone who knows just the basics of animal behaviors or even bother to look at a site such as the ASPCA website for tips on handling animals would know that a great contributor to the "dangerous pit bulls" is how they are raised, and the care done by their owners (or lack thereof). Animals need care and love, too. Instinct might have some influences (such as with "domestic wolves"), but in the end, nurturing plays a significant role. Life is still life. Those who really take care of their animals and do care for them would take classes and do research on how to make sure the most proper communication as possible could be done, thus the less harm and discord between man and animal can be done.
And this news about her beliefs on pit bulls is definitely news to me...I soooo cannot believe this!
I guess I am more concerned with Animal Welfare than with Animal Rights. I have a few Animal Rights leanings, but not many compared to Animal Welfare. As ShaolinBunny said, Animal Welfare affects the most animals. I do not support euthanasia on a whim, at all. To give an example of what I mean: I was visiting my relatives and in their neighborhood, stray cats were captured by the animal shelter and euthanized instead of given a chance to find a home - even the kittens!
As for harshening the penalties on animal cruelty, I am all for making it as harsh as cruelty to a human being is. A professor of Criminology from the city of my birth noted a developmental trend when people are allowed to get away with animal cruelty - serial killers have been known to start on animals before starting their cruelty on humans.
Sincerely,
TheRadiantSeraphim
Agreed.
Plus, it's like people ignore facts when it comes to these things. Because the greatest amount of dog bites recorded, every year, without fail, comes from labs.
And yet labs are "good" dogs and pit bulls are "bad" dogs. Gah, drives me crazy!
Ok, back on topic, lol. I'm just sensitive to the pit bull subject. I mean, there are some states and counties who will euthanize a pit bull immedietly when its found homeless or rescued from somewhere. They give it zero chance. It's a pit bull, so euthanization it is - regardless of character, temperment, circumstances, age, etc. I once watched one of those animal rescue shows where there were 10 pit bull puppies rescues. All 8 weeks of age, and the lady who rescued them said, "yes, we'll probably have to put them to sleep as they're agressive dogs." >:( 8 weeks is PLENTY of time for good socialization, good training, a loving home, etc.
This is something where I am not sure if PETA does anything about, but the ASPCA does. When Michael Vick did his damage when he had pit bull fights, the ASPCA tried to work with the law to get as many pitbulls rehabilitated as possible.
I do not think PETA is known for doing things like this, which I think saves more animals than not.
Sincerely,
TheRadiantSeraphim
Pages