Honestly, who REALLY sides with PETA???

Question

how can you? they're crazy!

but, that's my opinion i would love to see yours

Answer 1

Let me begin by expressing my opinion regarding someone saying that the situation with Michael Vick is a race issue. As far as the protesters are concerned, PETA and other animal rights activists aren't the ones who are motivated by race. All it takes is a little bit of common sense and research to know that animal rights activists protest anything related to animal cruelty and animal usage.

Animal rights protests/demonstrations have nothing at all to do with race, and claiming otherwise is nothing short of ignorant. (By the way, they're not all white. Duh.) As far as law enforcement and the legal system are concerned, well, they're not motivated by race either. Consider the obvious: Who do the authorities work for? Who do the prosecutors work for? Who do the judges work for? Who is at the head of the legal system? THE GOVERNMENT. And the government isn't going to risk throwing away the many, many, many tax dollars they collect from rich people, including rich black people such as Michael Vick, for the sake of collecting court costs and fines that are small by comparison and/or for the sake of seeing a black person "go down". They would much rather use their energy by picking on the poor who can't afford decent representation and who, in their eyes, have nothing to offer them. Claiming that Michael Vick is being targeted simply because he's black is taking attention away from cases in which race truly is an issue.

And please- Do some research before suggesting that most whites who are convicted of dog fighting (or any other form of animal cruelty) receive light sentences. The sentencing guidelines for crimes involving animal cruelty are a joke. Punishment is seldom severe REGARDLESS OF RACE. Seriously, do some research before spewing useless racially charged nonsense. Vick has evoked incredible public outrage- outrage that would be every bit as present if he was a white man.


Now to answer the question:

Firstly, I would like to comment on petakillsanimals.com since someone posted the link to that website. Petakillsanimals.com is run by Richard Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom. The CCF is just as biased against PETA as PETA members are biased in favor of PETA. The CCF and the animal industries have each other in their back pockets, so they are definitely not going to offer unbiased opinions. Visiting the petakillsanimals.com website (or any of the other sites maintained by the CCF) will leave you as empty handed as if you visit PETA's websites. You'll find sites littered with biased information posted by people who are simply trying to sway you in one direction or another.

Secondly, to comment on the belief that animal rights activists value non-human life over humans-- Nothing could be further from the truth. To concern one's self with the welfare of non-humans doesn't negate the importance of human life. Someone gave an example involving a homeless child and a homeless puppy. I've heard this example and many others like it. Such examples are ridiculous. There's no reason why anyone should have to choose. We can be just as concerned for both the human and the non-human and try to help them in whatever way we can. The fact that there are humans in need doesn't obligate us to make that our only focus in life.

Someone once asked me what I would do if I was on a boat in the middle of the ocean with my mother and my cat, both fell overboard, and I could only save one. Of course I would choose to save my mother since my mother is higher on my list of priorities than my cat. However, should I have to choose between saving my cat and saving a human with whom I have no bond, I would save my cat. Such illustrations are meaningless and don't make a point in favor of anyone's arguments.

The only fact that differentiates animal rights activists from others is that they care about non-humans just as much as they do humans. If faced with the opportunity to help humans and non-humans, they will choose to help both if it's within their capabilities. If they can only help one or the other, they will base their decision upon criteria that has nothing to do with placing more value upon the lives of non-humans than the lives of humans or vice versa.

That being said, I do NOT agree with PETA on every issue. I am firmly against Ingrid Newkirk's position on pit bulls. Likewise, I am against BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) and euthanasia (except extreme cases, such as when the animal's quality of life would be extremely diminished if permitted to live). However, I am very well aware that PETA wants us "to stay out of their business completely," as someone else put it, and I fully support their position on this. We have no reason to interfere in the lives of non-humans. We don't need them for food. We don't need them for clothing. We don't need them for testing. And we certainly don't need them for entertainment. Anyone claiming that we need animals in any way has been terribly misinformed.

Spare me the research and documentation. For every scientist, doctor, researcher, etc... you name, I can name another, and another, and another who will back MY claims. Our bodies can survive without consuming animal products. And our biological make up is NOT similar enough to non-humans to yield accurate test results. There have been more failures in animal testing than successes, but science and big business certainly isn't going to tell us that. It wouldn't be in their best interest. Why do you think clinical trials (studies that are carried out with human volunteers) are conducted?

Are most products made using non-humans? Yes. But I would love to know what the point is in someone mentioning this. The fact that non-humans are so widely used has nothing to do with necessity and everything to do with money and greed. Is there any way to completely avoid using animal products? Nope. There most certainly is NOT. The only choice that animal rights activists can make regarding this matter is to try their best to minimize animal usage as much as possible; in much the same way as, at one time in the U.S.,slavery abolitionists could only minimize their support of slavery. To merely participate in the economy is to support anything and everything that you're against. So, again, what's the point in bringing this up?

With regards to companion animals (pets): Yes, they do need our care. But this is due to human interference. Animals didn't become domesticated via natural selection. They were domesticated by us (via artificial selection). Therefore, I fully support PETA's desire to phase out domestic animals. Where I disagree with them is, like I said, on the issue of euthanasia. I maintain that gradually phasing out domestics via mandantory spay/neuter laws and the illegalization of breeding is the best route.

And, before someone brings up our level of intelligence, our rights to choose, and other such issues, I'll go ahead and "cross that bridge".... Why not use babies/children or the mentally handicapped? Sound depraved? Well, then, what's the difference between that and using non-humans? After all, there are different levels of ability and intelligence among humans, not just between humans and non-humans. And regarding our right to choose: Our right to choose should never interfere with the rights of others to live free from harm or the forceful hands of others. What's the difference between choosing to murder a human as opposed to murdering, let's say, a pig? The fact that we have the ability to consider morality while making conscious choices obligates us to not interfere with the lives of other animals regardless of species. If such were not the case then no such obligation would apply with regards to other humans.

Additionally, Raychael made an excellent point in saying that animal rights activists fight for the rights of ALL animals. In other words, we're not just fighting for the betterment of the lives of non-humans but also for the betterment of the earth and humanity. I couldn't agree with her more.

I would like to further add that PETA is not the end all be all of the animal rights movement. There are many of us who embrace the movement, and we don't all have the same beliefs and opinions. Anyone who is interested in learning about the animal rights movement should not restrict all research to that which involves PETA.

Answer 2

Now, why would you say PETA is crazy? All they are doing is helping the animals around the world. And in doing so, they are helping humans. And when you really think about it, not siding with PETA is crazy. Which makes you crazy. "But, that's my opinion, I would just LOVE to see yours."

I side with PETA.
I side with one.org.
I side with wwf.org.
I side with RED.
I side with FMSC.
I side with many things. Some animal, some for humans. We are all living beings on this earth who deserve a full life. Maybe not happyness....but to the extent of a joyess life. I, as well as a lot of people, want to give animalsa full life they deserve. Now some people might see it as me just wanting to help and animals and not humans. But in reality, siding with PETA benitis humans too. Because if you help out PETA by, lets say becoming a vegetarian, then you can help reduce polution because of factory farming. Just doing little bits at a time can help this earth. And PETA is trying to help the earth and animals at the same time. It has to do with what you believe. If you beleive that poor defencless creatures should be slaughterd for your hunger needs, then you need to re-think things. Now, I am not saying that you NEED to become a vegetarian and this second, but what I am saying is, think about it. Reserch it. Do the math. Try giving up chicken for a week. And so on so fourth.

Or, people side with PETA because they want to stop animal abuse. I am with PETA for all reasons. Animal abuse is huge in the world today, and siding with PETA, as well as many other groups who are helping animals all over the world, can help put animal abuse to a rest. PETA has evolved for many reasons. Some you may not agree with.

I say check PETA out. It's not just to stop eating meat to help animals, it's to, in general, HELP animals. By doing little things at a time.

http://peta2.com

Check it out.
Do your part.
Live your life.

:)

Answer 3

PETA is a group that stands up for animals when no one else bothers to help them. Animals have just as many rights as humans and no one bothers to give PETA or the animals they help any credit! And Katrina quit being a racist!

Answer 4

I agree with them. PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals.

Answer 5

Pseudo Environmentalists Touting Anthropomorphism

Answer 6

They care about animals than a human. If they saw a homeless child and a homeless puppy, they'd forget the child and take the puppy.

See many of them think people(even babies) can fend for themselves, but the POOR POOR puppy has know one. They are crazy. The only reason this is such a big deal is because Micheal Vick is a rich black dude, that isn't liked by a lot of whites because he is one of few black quarterbacks in the League.

Many people of all races abuse dogs, but whites seem to make everything a race issue. If he abused dogs he should be punished, if he didn't then people should leave him alone.

I think all they should do to him anyway is fine him, or make him do community service, that's what they do to most average everyday white people anyway.(Since most people that own dogs are white.)

Answer 7

hey, i hate cruelty to animals but i still dont side with PETA. they're view is obviously any means to an end - but instead of getting their point across effectively - the point is overshadowed by their over-the-top methods. they are anarchists using an authentic cause as an excuse to act like inhumane psychopaths.

Answer 8

PETA to me is nothing more than a big bully that claims to do good, but fail badly at it. They had good intentions but now they just go to far.

They are crazy that is for sure!

Answer 9

Fools, I can't stand them. I agree they are crazy and extremist. They attack anyone who wears fur out on the street. I love fur and animal skin. Obviously they are stupid because most products are made from animals like shoes, glue, medicine,etc. And animal testing, we need animals for testing. 99.8% of our molecular structre is simlar to most animal such as cats, frogs, and apes. We test products like birth control pills and diabetes medicine on them so they can be deemed safe for our use. Obiviousl y all of these PETA idiots don't know much.

Answer 10

PETA does, and people who don't understand their real agenda. They want animals equal to people and want us to stay out of their business completely. Obviously, animals are a big part of the market and food. Wool. etc. They are just too extreme. We can treat them humanely and protect their rights, but PETA asks too much. And then the psychos decide that animals are better off dead than as pets. Please! Our pets like us.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Answer 11

What do you mean? Why does it seem so unbelievable to be of the mindset of PETA?