I used to be a supporter of PETA but their misogyny just became too much to bear. I do agree with them on one thing though - nobody should buy animals from a pet shop. Get them from a rescue or a reputable breeder, but not a pet shops. No reputable breeder will sell to a pet shop, so the animals found in the shops have dubious heritage and the new owner will have no idea about potential illnesses etc. It undoes all the good work done by private breeders who breed for the love of the animal, to improve the health and temperament of the species as a whole, rather than seeing them as an easy way to make money.
Rachel
· 1 year ago
I agree with PETA on some stuff such as not wearing fur or buying animals from pet shops but they take things too far. The have done many things that I could never agree with and their add campaigns tend to be distasteful.
wakemenow
· 1 year ago
As someone who's never cared for PETA and therefore ignores them, I had no idea they were putting out ads like that. Wow. Talk about sending mixed messages! This only aids in reaffirming my feelings about PETA being a hokey, nutty organization. Especially the video of Alicia Silverstone. She's pretty I suppose, but I could have gone without a nudey clip promoting vegetarian eating. How weird.
My only thing is I would caution people about going so far as to label PETA as a "terrorist" group. The word "terrorist" is tossed around too dang much, IMO. And if history has taught us anything, it's that our rights and civil protections are precious even (or perhaps especially) in times of dissent. If PETA and ELF are labeled as terrorist organizations, anyone who contributes money to them may be viewed as contributing to and supporting terrorist activities. Now that might not matter much to those of us who don't plan on giving PETA any money, but the labeling won't stop with PETA, ELF and ALF. It never does. And eventually we might find ourselves in the precarious situation of supporting an organization that has been branded with this label.
There's a place for political dissent. Granted, PETA behaves stupidly more often than not. But calling them terrorists and lumping them in the same category as people who fly planes into buildings waters down the very definition of "terrorism." Does all organizational violence qualify as terrorism? If not, where do we draw the line? And what if select members of a given organization engage in violence on their own free will? Is the organization responsible for part of the blame just because their name was dragged into it? A more pressing question: are antiwar protesters who engage in civil disobedience terrorists? I'd say not, but that line is being seriously blurred.
The Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is so vague in its definition of "homegrown terrorism" that many groups may be assigned the label in due time. It's really uncomfortable to hear us using this sort of language casually considering the potential ramifications.
I may not like PETA and believe their minions ought to have their asses severely whooped for throwing paint on people's possessions (real fur or not), but I wouldn't go so far as to call them terrorists.
Bas
· 1 year ago
I wish another organisation would step up and take over from PETA. Their philosophy's good, but the way they carry it out is awful.
dotlizard
· 1 year ago
the worst thing about PETA, beyond their blatant exploitation and twisted body-image messages, is that they could be doing something constructive and good with all the money they apparently have (those ads ain't cheap!), rather than act like terrorist hypocrites. they could do actual good for animals. they could support rescue organizations and low-cost spay/neuter clinics and use that ginormous PR budget to educate people on being rational, caring, responsible pet owners. as to the fur/skin issue, they could easily hire a good agency that is skilled in influencing public opinion and convince people that it is uncool to wear fur without sinking to the oldest trick in the book -- "hey, let's use a naked chick". it's been done people, it's been done and done and done some more, it's the ad agency version of the no-brain campaign. they have enough money to be more creative.
but instead, they are using their money, power, and influence to perpetuate stereotypes, insult women, and contribute to the already overwhelming pressure young girls feel to attain an unrealistic body image. for shame, PETA, for shame.
as for myself, i don't wear fur but i do wear leather, because i also eat cows. i'm an omnivore by birth, and i'm ok with that. i have a lot of pets, all but one lizard and the toads are rescues, i believe in rescuing, and i do what i can to support local rescue agencies.
and the pig image pisses me off beyond all belief. omg. omg. those assholes.
Katie
· 1 year ago
That ad for Amanda Beard came up in talk in the Olympics. That really makes a statement since its so eye grabbing.
Music instruments
· 1 year ago
I do agry with Peta. I wish another organisation would step up and take over from PETA. Their philosophy's good, but the way they carry it out is awful.Thanks for sharing.
Kat
· 1 year ago
Just now getting to this post. I love your arguments and couldn't agree more. I also have not been a fan of PETA and never knew about their advertising but I'm appalled by these. PETA is the reason that I have the rule against organizations who use violence or acts of terrorism to further their cause cannot appear on www.givecheerfully.com (my site for charities and nonprofits). I just can't get behind an organization that puts animals over human beings. Don't get me wrong, I love animals, my pets are all from humane societies and I have worked with Husky rescue for years... but I still would choose a human life over my pet.
Thanks so much for the article, I digg it :)
bearded dragon
· 9 months ago
i guess they aren't too aware of the fallacies their statements make.. just because you couldn't wear fur doesn't mean you have to go bare...
sure the ads are creative conceptually, but it takes too much of bending practical reason to say that the statements are logical....
i'm not undermining their cause or ideologies, i just think that you should not compromise your logic for creativity in an attempt to attract attention.
plus... why go vegetarian when meat tastes good?...
All Comments
I used to be a supporter of PETA but their misogyny just became too much to bear. I do agree with them on one thing though - nobody should buy animals from a pet shop. Get them from a rescue or a reputable breeder, but not a pet shops. No reputable breeder will sell to a pet shop, so the animals found in the shops have dubious heritage and the new owner will have no idea about potential illnesses etc. It undoes all the good work done by private breeders who breed for the love of the animal, to improve the health and temperament of the species as a whole, rather than seeing them as an easy way to make money.
My only thing is I would caution people about going so far as to label PETA as a "terrorist" group. The word "terrorist" is tossed around too dang much, IMO. And if history has taught us anything, it's that our rights and civil protections are precious even (or perhaps especially) in times of dissent. If PETA and ELF are labeled as terrorist organizations, anyone who contributes money to them may be viewed as contributing to and supporting terrorist activities. Now that might not matter much to those of us who don't plan on giving PETA any money, but the labeling won't stop with PETA, ELF and ALF. It never does. And eventually we might find ourselves in the precarious situation of supporting an organization that has been branded with this label.
There's a place for political dissent. Granted, PETA behaves stupidly more often than not. But calling them terrorists and lumping them in the same category as people who fly planes into buildings waters down the very definition of "terrorism." Does all organizational violence qualify as terrorism? If not, where do we draw the line? And what if select members of a given organization engage in violence on their own free will? Is the organization responsible for part of the blame just because their name was dragged into it? A more pressing question: are antiwar protesters who engage in civil disobedience terrorists? I'd say not, but that line is being seriously blurred.
The Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is so vague in its definition of "homegrown terrorism" that many groups may be assigned the label in due time. It's really uncomfortable to hear us using this sort of language casually considering the potential ramifications.
I may not like PETA and believe their minions ought to have their asses severely whooped for throwing paint on people's possessions (real fur or not), but I wouldn't go so far as to call them terrorists.
but instead, they are using their money, power, and influence to perpetuate stereotypes, insult women, and contribute to the already overwhelming pressure young girls feel to attain an unrealistic body image. for shame, PETA, for shame.
as for myself, i don't wear fur but i do wear leather, because i also eat cows. i'm an omnivore by birth, and i'm ok with that. i have a lot of pets, all but one lizard and the toads are rescues, i believe in rescuing, and i do what i can to support local rescue agencies.
and the pig image pisses me off beyond all belief. omg. omg. those assholes.
Thanks so much for the article, I digg it :)
sure the ads are creative conceptually, but it takes too much of bending practical reason to say that the statements are logical....
i'm not undermining their cause or ideologies, i just think that you should not compromise your logic for creativity in an attempt to attract attention.
plus... why go vegetarian when meat tastes good?...