Peta Kills Animals?
- Thread starter wedigfood
- Start date
Yes, it is true, and definitely not a good thing that they decide to spend the money they receive from donations on often senseless activism that is merely publicity, buying TV ads during the superbowl or other inane things, instead of caring for the animals that are handed over to them.
However, ask yourself what that website wants you to do. Are they really concerned about the animals or do they want to throw dirt on PETA to justify their meat-eating ways?
For better information on this, visit Gary Franciones abolitionist approach website or google for Nathan Winograd.
Best regards,
Andy
However, ask yourself what that website wants you to do. Are they really concerned about the animals or do they want to throw dirt on PETA to justify their meat-eating ways?
For better information on this, visit Gary Franciones abolitionist approach website or google for Nathan Winograd.
Best regards,
Andy
To further elaborate: The website that you linked that asks you to donate for "exposing Peta's lies" and to "lobby to make PETA lose their tax-exempt status" has been set up by the "Center for Consumer Freedom", (formerly the Guest Choice Network), an American lobbying group founded by Richard Berman that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries.
Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Calliegirl
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 5,816
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a horrible group. They actively campaign against any group that wants better animal welfare laws, healthier food, and any laws restricting alcohol or tobacco use.
They have websites similar to the Peta Kills one for Mother's Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) , the Humane Society (HSUS), Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in an attempt to discredit them.
The information they use on those website is borderline factual and used completely out of context. The HSUS one (Humanewatch) tries to make them look bad by putting up all kinds of charts showing how little money is spent on animal shelters. The HSUS is a lobbying group and their money is supposed to be spent trying to pass anti-cruelty laws and laws for better animal care, not on shelters (although they do donate some and support the fund for animals sanctuaries). But most people see the name humane society and automatically assume they are committing fraud when they see that website showing the money isn't going to shelters. Sadly, those websites are effective.
They have websites similar to the Peta Kills one for Mother's Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) , the Humane Society (HSUS), Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in an attempt to discredit them.
The information they use on those website is borderline factual and used completely out of context. The HSUS one (Humanewatch) tries to make them look bad by putting up all kinds of charts showing how little money is spent on animal shelters. The HSUS is a lobbying group and their money is supposed to be spent trying to pass anti-cruelty laws and laws for better animal care, not on shelters (although they do donate some and support the fund for animals sanctuaries). But most people see the name humane society and automatically assume they are committing fraud when they see that website showing the money isn't going to shelters. Sadly, those websites are effective.
OP
OP
Thanks, Andy_T and Calliegirl, sounded like propaganda to me from the "other side". Although I did look up Nathan Winograd and on his site it said "Since 1998, PETA has killed over 30,000 animals, roughly 2,000 animals a year including kittens and puppies." In a debate between Nathan and a peta attorney, PETA argued that animals were better off dead.
See link peta
Actual peta members, employees, kill the animals.
See link peta
Actual peta members, employees, kill the animals.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
PETA sucks. Ask any pit bull. They wanted the Vick dogs killed and spent member donations going to court to try to block Best Friends from taking them. They also want any pit bull brought into a shelter to leave in a body bag and not be put up for adoption.
PETA sucks in many ways. Fat shaming, sexism, just plain making a mockery of vegans.
PETA sucks in many ways. Fat shaming, sexism, just plain making a mockery of vegans.
From how I interpret the statistics of PETA's adoption vs. kill numbers, that is exactly how they treat most other animals, too :-( .
That is very valid criticism brought up by Nathan Vinograd (who dedicated his life to running no-kill shelters for a very long time) and Gary Francione.
All of this. Plus, you are forgetting their involvement in single-issue-campaigns (Let's all boycott KFC until they promise to kill their chickens in a different way, then applaud them for it, yay!)
I am paraphrasing the words of Gary Francione: Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did not strip naked to get on television to further their cause. How does PETA think that this would help veganism? Do you really think that this is what a rights movement (that respects non-speciesm and non-sexism) should do to get attention to their cause?
Best regards,
Andy
Scorpius
The Lizard Queen
kibbleforlola
Lola Worshiper
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 2,597
Like others said, the CfCF is pretty devious,so take what they say with a grain of salt.
That being said, PETA is evil. Sexist, racist, speciest scum that makes the rest of us look like nut jobs. You cannot end one oppression while upholding another.
That being said, PETA is evil. Sexist, racist, speciest scum that makes the rest of us look like nut jobs. You cannot end one oppression while upholding another.
Calliegirl
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 5,816
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
PETA does do some good, but sadly that's overshadowed by their stupid 'shock' pr stunts. Hopefully, someday someone will be able to take over and turn them around. They have the money and power to do some great things, but they need the right person running it to do that.
I like Vegan Outreach. They're making a difference and they do it quietly, reaching one person at a time, and no outrageous stunts.
I like Vegan Outreach. They're making a difference and they do it quietly, reaching one person at a time, and no outrageous stunts.
Scorpius
The Lizard Queen
I'm pretty sure it was one of those starter kits from Vegan Outreach that was the final deciding factor in my leap from ovo-lacto veg to vegan. Good stuff.
OP
OP
WoW!!! When I started the thread I had no idea what the responses would be. Thanks for all the important and enlightening information. A lot of wool, or it would be more appropriate to say the skins of innocent animals, has been pulled over the public eyes. Its horrid that the ones who possibly could benefit would be the animal and dairy industries who might be getting more support and deserve nothing less than complete condemnation.
OP
OP
Posted January 4th by Professor Gary L. Francione. Not entirely related to the current subject I originally posted but I think its very important.
VEGANISM, PETA, "PERSONAL PURITY," AND PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
PETA says:
>>Being vegan is about helping animals, not maintaining personal purity. Boycotting products that may contain trace amounts of animal products can actually be harmful to animals in the long run. For example, by refusing to eat a veggie burger from a restaurant because the bun may contain traces of milk or eggs, you are discouraging that restaurant from offering vegan options because it is seems too difficult a task. So use our list as a guide, and do your best to avoid animal ingredients.<<
Animal Ingredients List | Cruelty-Free Beauty & Cosmetics | Living | PETA
This is speciesist. A social movement that seeks justice for nonhumans says that we should *never* choose to participate in animal exploitation. Period. We should not decide to eat the product with milk or eggs to make the owner think it's easier to serve vegans. That is like saying that we ought not to object to "small" instances of misogyny or racism because we don't want racists or misogynists to think that the equality of woman and people of color is "too difficult."
And what's a "trace"? How much is "okay"? And what if it's a "small" amount of meat? How is that different from a "small" amount of egg or dairy? Answer: it isn't. So if you buy this nonsense, go ahead and eat the pork sprinkled on your dish as well--as long as there's not a lot.
A number of “animal advocates” support this approach. For example, Bruce Friedrich, formerly of PETA and now with Farm Sanctuary, says:
>>We all know that the number one reason why people don’t go vegan is that they don’t think it’s convenient enough, and we all know people whose reason for not going vegan is that they “can’t” give up cheese or ice cream.
But instead of making it easier for them to help animals, we often make it more difficult. Instead of encouraging them to stop eating all other animal products besides cheese or ice cream, we preach to them about the oppression of dairy cows. Then we go on about how we don’t eat sugar or a veggie burger because of the bun, even though a tiny bit of butter flavor in a bun supports significantly less suffering than eating any non-organic fruit or vegetable, or using a plastic bottle, or about 100 other things that most of us do. Our fanatical obsession with ingredients not only obscures the animals’ suffering—which was virtually non-existent for that tiny modicum of ingredient—but nearly guarantees that those around us are not going to make any change at all. So, we’ve preserved our personal purity, but we’ve hurt animals—and that’s anti-vegan.<<
http://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/…/read-essa…/effectiveadvocacy/
Peter Singer, considered by some to be the “Father of the Animal Rights Movement” says:
>>I think it’s more important to try and produce a change in the right direction than to be personally pure yourself. So when you’re eating with someone at a restaurant, and you ordered something vegan but when it comes there’s a bit of grated cheese or something on it, sometimes vegans will make a big fuss and send it back and that might mean the food is wasted. And if you’re in company with people who are not vegan or not even vegetarian, I think that’s probably the wrong thing to do. It’d be better off just to eat it because people are going to think, ‘Oh my god, these vegans…’<<
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/singer.html
I agree that being vegan is not about "personal purity." But I *don't* see not exploiting vulnerable beings--human or nonhuman--as being about "personal purity." I see it as a matter of caring about fundamental justice and acting on it. To call that a matter of "personal purity" is simply to say that justice should not be a matter of clear moral principle. And I could not disagree with that more.
So if the restaurant won't give you a vegan meal, don't eat the non-vegan meal just because you think it will help animals. It won't. What it will do is to send a very clear message that you do not regard animal rights as a matter of moral principle.
And that is very harmful to animals.
People are more likely to embrace veganism if they agree that there’s something serious and important at stake. And as long as you choose to eat any amount of meat, dairy, and eggs, they will never see veganism as a matter of fundamental justice.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
VEGANISM, PETA, "PERSONAL PURITY," AND PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
PETA says:
>>Being vegan is about helping animals, not maintaining personal purity. Boycotting products that may contain trace amounts of animal products can actually be harmful to animals in the long run. For example, by refusing to eat a veggie burger from a restaurant because the bun may contain traces of milk or eggs, you are discouraging that restaurant from offering vegan options because it is seems too difficult a task. So use our list as a guide, and do your best to avoid animal ingredients.<<
Animal Ingredients List | Cruelty-Free Beauty & Cosmetics | Living | PETA
This is speciesist. A social movement that seeks justice for nonhumans says that we should *never* choose to participate in animal exploitation. Period. We should not decide to eat the product with milk or eggs to make the owner think it's easier to serve vegans. That is like saying that we ought not to object to "small" instances of misogyny or racism because we don't want racists or misogynists to think that the equality of woman and people of color is "too difficult."
And what's a "trace"? How much is "okay"? And what if it's a "small" amount of meat? How is that different from a "small" amount of egg or dairy? Answer: it isn't. So if you buy this nonsense, go ahead and eat the pork sprinkled on your dish as well--as long as there's not a lot.
A number of “animal advocates” support this approach. For example, Bruce Friedrich, formerly of PETA and now with Farm Sanctuary, says:
>>We all know that the number one reason why people don’t go vegan is that they don’t think it’s convenient enough, and we all know people whose reason for not going vegan is that they “can’t” give up cheese or ice cream.
But instead of making it easier for them to help animals, we often make it more difficult. Instead of encouraging them to stop eating all other animal products besides cheese or ice cream, we preach to them about the oppression of dairy cows. Then we go on about how we don’t eat sugar or a veggie burger because of the bun, even though a tiny bit of butter flavor in a bun supports significantly less suffering than eating any non-organic fruit or vegetable, or using a plastic bottle, or about 100 other things that most of us do. Our fanatical obsession with ingredients not only obscures the animals’ suffering—which was virtually non-existent for that tiny modicum of ingredient—but nearly guarantees that those around us are not going to make any change at all. So, we’ve preserved our personal purity, but we’ve hurt animals—and that’s anti-vegan.<<
http://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/…/read-essa…/effectiveadvocacy/
Peter Singer, considered by some to be the “Father of the Animal Rights Movement” says:
>>I think it’s more important to try and produce a change in the right direction than to be personally pure yourself. So when you’re eating with someone at a restaurant, and you ordered something vegan but when it comes there’s a bit of grated cheese or something on it, sometimes vegans will make a big fuss and send it back and that might mean the food is wasted. And if you’re in company with people who are not vegan or not even vegetarian, I think that’s probably the wrong thing to do. It’d be better off just to eat it because people are going to think, ‘Oh my god, these vegans…’<<
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/singer.html
I agree that being vegan is not about "personal purity." But I *don't* see not exploiting vulnerable beings--human or nonhuman--as being about "personal purity." I see it as a matter of caring about fundamental justice and acting on it. To call that a matter of "personal purity" is simply to say that justice should not be a matter of clear moral principle. And I could not disagree with that more.
So if the restaurant won't give you a vegan meal, don't eat the non-vegan meal just because you think it will help animals. It won't. What it will do is to send a very clear message that you do not regard animal rights as a matter of moral principle.
And that is very harmful to animals.
People are more likely to embrace veganism if they agree that there’s something serious and important at stake. And as long as you choose to eat any amount of meat, dairy, and eggs, they will never see veganism as a matter of fundamental justice.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
Blobbenstein
.......
OP
OP
I'm honestly not a fan of this trend of members posting the same articles and responses on similar forums.
OP
OP
In my opinion its extremely important that as many people as possible discuss and be educated in the vital subject of veganism. As clearly pointed out in "Cowspiracy", its not only a critical health and animal rights issue, going vegan will do more to "save" our environment than if we could instantly switch to renewable energy sources. That is why I post in all three of the "top" vegan forums. I, and hopefully others, will have access to 3 times the information and the responses are different in all three forums.
Not to sound condescending, you could ignore the information in the other two forums, although I hope you don't. For example during the French Crisis, I watched various news channels, listened to public and commercial radio and of course scanned the web as much as I could. Sometimes it appeared as if I was being informed about many entirely different crises although it was really the same one.
Not to sound condescending, you could ignore the information in the other two forums, although I hope you don't. For example during the French Crisis, I watched various news channels, listened to public and commercial radio and of course scanned the web as much as I could. Sometimes it appeared as if I was being informed about many entirely different crises although it was really the same one.
Calliegirl
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 5,816
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
It depends on the sites. I don't trust information from 'for profit' sites. I don't mind the ones trying to support themselves, but I steer clear of the ones who are only in it for the money, and the subject matter is only as important as the amount of money it can bring in.
I doubt you're going to get 3 times the information when so many of the same posters visit the same sites. I suppose I could simply copy and paste my responses as you have copied and pasted yours; I find it especially interesting that this is the subject you choose to bring up on numerous sites. 
Last edited:
