Why are some people against PETA?

Question

I see how people like people, for the correct treatment of animals, but why are some people against that? why are you against a group that wants to help animals?

Answer 1

PETA is not for the correct treatment of animals they are opposed to any use of animals for the betterment of humans. That includes food and medical testing. They are not for humane painless testing they are against all animal use.

So I say if you support PETA don't have your kids vaccinated against childhood diseases like polio because without animal testing the polio vaccine would not exist. And if you develope daibetes that requires insulin to control. Sorry sparky can't take it because the pharmaceutical companies use animals chicken eggs I think to make the insulin, a practice PETA opposes.

To show you what hypocrites they are, PETAs VP has diabetes and despite their stated opposition to insulin made from animals what do you think she uses to keep her own sorry @$$ alive. You have 3 guesses and the first two don't count.

Penn and Tellar did a segment on PETA on their show BvllSh!t. You can find it on YouTube. Give it a glance.

Answer 2

Against Peta

Answer 3

People Against Peta

Answer 4

Simply because they have resorted to violence and terror tactics. In some cases, this has even involved people who have NOTHING to do with animals at all.

Additionally, whilst many people would agree that testing animals for cosmetics is just plan wrong - many folks (dare I say the vast majority) WOULD sanction limited testing if it means life saving procedures and medical advances can be made.

Yes we know the one about the guinea pig and antibiotics - of course there are exceptions to the rule. (for those that don't know, there is a drug (penicillin I think) that may not have been given to humans if it had been tested on animals first - as it is fatal to guinea pigs)

For as long as people feel it is ok for an animal to be eaten by us - there will be people who feel that the death of even 100 animals is an acceptable price to pay for a new drug that will save tens of thousands of human lives.

Some tests of course are purely for treatments and vaccines for animals, I am not sure what PETA's stand is here, is it ok if only animals benefit - or is it still the logic that "the needs of the many never outweigh the needs of the few"?

A PETA member may argue that an animal has as much right to life as a human - while happily swatting the fly that keeps buzzing around the computer screen - other people - especially those who have had their life (or that of a loved one) saved through medical intervention would perhaps think differently.

(It is not only drugs that are tested, but also surgical procedures etc). Where possible, this is carried out on a dead animal - at which point I would think the objection could (rationally) be no stronger than someone killing an animal to eat it.

Not a popular answer I suspect, but probably a reasonable practical and realistic one.

Answer 5

Against. I accidentally kill worms when I'm digging in my backyard and feel sympathy for them when I cut them in half. When I kill roaches in my home, even though I hate them, I feel bad afterwards. I can follow the same values as PETA members in feeling sympathetic towards every animal, but they take it too far with forceful and often unwanted actions. Why don't they do what I do and just ignore the fact that animal cruelty exists? They dwell too much on whats happening outside of their homes. It isn't like I sit in my own home and ponder at how there are so many people dying miserable and horrible deaths. If I did, then I'd be severely depressed. The attention they bring to us about animal cruelty is almost as bad as them knocking on our door and saying, "Hey! Did you know that millions of people die each and every day?! Here, I'll show you a video of some of the examples." Now only that, but I think they're bagging in most of their profits.

Answer 6

This group is more on the radical side of things. When I was living in VT some years ago, PETA claimed that dairy farmers were 'racist' as they produced milk from cows and because a high percentage of blacks are lactose intolerant and cannot drink milk. PETA was claiming only Soy milk should be sold. It's idiot things like this where people lose respect for PETA.

Answer 7

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Why are some people against PETA?
I see how people like people, for the correct treatment of animals, but why are some people against that? why are you against a group that wants to help animals?

Answer 8

bcuz they're so radical.When I was 11 I visited peta's website for kids and the normal one and went vegan. I lost 17 pounds in 5 days and was living off chips and water and bread. I was a reck. I went to milksucks.com and after reading it my mouth tasted like sour milk and I got sick. I love animals and I really want to help but there'sonly so far people can go. I've been a vegetarian since I was 3 but I can't be a vegan

Answer 9

PETA is a very radical group, bordering on being extremist. They also have a tendency to put the welfare of animals above the welfare of humans. I've studied their website, read a lot of their pamhplets, watched their little videos. I do believe that causing an animal to suffer is wrong, and it should never be allowed. Animals should not fear us, and they should have no reason to. The way that people working in the meat industry treat some of these animals is deplorable.

However, PETA often uses outdated studies to back up their claims. A few years ago, I stumbled upon an article where PETA was trying to put together a campaign going into schools and telling children that drinking milk was making them sick and it was one of the causes of obesity. They were citing studies done back in the late 50s and early 60s to support this claim.

Okay, so here is where the problem came in. Firstly, no one, and I mean no one, has the right to try and teach someone's children that sort of thing, except parents themselves. If I don't want my children to drink milk, I will teach them that, not PETA. Secondly, milk back in the 50s and 60s wasn't low-fat like we have today, so of course it would contribute to being obese. Very few people drink whole milk nowadays. Also, they didn't have the same pasteurization techniques that we use today. I'm sure they did pasteurize the milk, but I highly doubt that its efficiency was even comparable to our current techniques.

One of their most recent claims is that Jesus was a vegetarian. I think they are trying to play on the fact that Christians are (supposed to be) caring and non-violent, and that we have been commanded to have dominion over animals. Yes, we are supposed to be the highest form of life on our world, and yes, I do believe that we were originally designed to care for animals and protect them, not eat them. In fact, we were originally intended to be vegetarian, even animals. It wasn't until the time of the flood that God allowed us to use animals as a food source. But to claim that Jesus was vegetarian is a gross error. Why would Jesus, who is (supposed to be) vegetarian, give fish to the crowds to eat? That would be highly hypocritical. Then again, PETA is quite often hypocritical.

Also, we've all read lately about the E. Coli found in spinach, correct? And what about the people who have died of botulism from drinking carrot juice? It just goes to show that PETAs claims that a purely plant-based diet doesn't give us diseases like that. It's all in how you prepare your foods.

I do have to say though, that I think meat is eaten in much larger quantities than should be. I believe that it is supposed to be a supplement to our diet, not the primary food in our diet. There are even higher quality proteins out there, most notably those found in beans. Meat-eating does contribute to our high incidence of obesity, but only because we've taken it to an extreme.

Oh, and I am an animal lover. I have three dogs, and they are very precious to me. I love them to bits. But I would never put their health and safety above that of a human being. That is just morally wrong.

Answer 10

Like many radical groups that have realized you can make a living by soliciting campaign funds if your name is always in TV or in the papers they have gone overboard. They are always against anything associated with animals and given a choice between people suffering for lack of medical research and animals suffering they are always on the animals' side.

Google them and see how extreme they are and what further extreme ideas they have supported.