Are most people here PETA supporters or fans?

[LukethePrettyGood]

I do know what you mean. and I don't want to attack you. but I am a defender of PETA.... so...

Ask some vegans about where they learned about eating vegan and many of them will say PETA. Maybe this isn't as true as it was 20 years ago. But 20 years ago I got my Free Vegan Starter Kit by sending a postcard to PETA. And now all you got to do is send them an email.

Order Your FREE Vegan Starter Kit With Recipes and Tips | PETA

Request a copy of PETA's free vegan starter kit, which is packed full of recipes, tips on making the compassionate switch, and more.

www.peta.org

Back in the day they were the best source for nutrition and recipes and stuff. I think now there being so many other sources they have taken a bit more of a back seat. But they still have an online bookstore.

PETA | Shop | Books

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Clothing and apparel to support ethical treatment of animals. Gifts, memberships, peta2, best sellers, books, gifts cards, T-Shirts, Sweatshirts, Hoodies, hats, caps, key chains, buttons, pins, home, office, accessories, and books.

shop.peta.org

What?! you mean stuff like this

Cows, Chickens, Fish, and Other Animals Used for Food | PETA

Animals used for food endure constant fear and torment. Learn how animals suffer on today's industrialized farms, and find out how you can help them.

www.peta.org

What Is Animal Testing? Facts and Humane Alternatives | PETA

What is animal testing? How do animals suffer in experiments? What alternatives exist? Learn more about the problems with testing on animals.

www.peta.org

Are PETA members all vegan?​

​

​

No, but since the best thing anyone can do to help animals is not to eat them, we encourage everyone to go vegan. Most people—not just animal rights activists—no longer have an appetite for animal flesh, milk, and eggs after learning about the suffering of animals in the agricultural industry.​

The reason they go "over the top" is based on several thing. I'm not sure I even know them all but to my best understanding....

Controversial ads create buzz. They get covered in print and on TV. They get people talking about them. I'm pretty sure there is a good analogy out there somewhere but I can't think of one. but it's like this. You buy a billboard and then the billboard is covered on the nightly news. It's like more bang for your bucks.

Shock and fear work. How many of you still remember that Driver's Ed video, Blood on the Pavement? You may turn off some people but you get everybody's attention.

Also you can't argue with success. Forty years ago PETA members consisted of the Cat ladies that lived at the end of the street. Now PETA has nine million members.

How PETA Won Its Messy Fight and Took a Seat at the Table (Published 2020)

Turns out if you throw enough red paint, eventually they’ll listen.

www.nytimes.com

PETA's 'human' leather campaign is horrifying, but is it effective?

PETA's gruesome and fake online shop, Urban Outraged, is stirring controversy. But do these scare tactics actually help the animal rights agenda?

www.usatoday.com

Thank you for your detailed reply. I don't disagree in any way, of course, but I remember their stunts seemed to work against them, several years ago. My goal would be to have everyone on a vegan diet, stop exploiting animals in any way at all, and breed livestock back to a wildlife form, so they could be set free in appropriate locations. I just acknowledge that's not where we're at as a people though, and would prefer that people do 'less harm' if they are not going to do 'no harm.'

I agree they are still an invaluable resource, and I did learn most of my information from them (I actually gave up meat when I was 12, but still didn't know how serious the issues were).

It is shocking to me the level of cruelty a person can simply ignore, because it's uncomfortable.

Thank you again!

 

[Sax]

I remember their stunts seemed to work against them, several years ago.

Did they though? I'm sure some were pushing that narrative.

Some campaigns or tactics will be failures. No one's achieved animal liberation before so it's not like we know what will and won't work. Except being afraid to try new things that disrupt the status quo, that won't work. Audacity is key IMO.

 

[Lou]

“There's no such thing as bad publicity,..”
- P.T. Barnum (1810-1891).

I wonder if PETA has focus groups that test their campaigns before they launch them. I assume they do. but they might not care.

Like I said earlier, you buy a billboard and then its message ends up on the 6 o'clock news. It's like free advertising.

However, I can think of several instances where PETA may have regretted their technique. The holocaust on your plate got lots of criticism. (and banned in Germany). Although critism is maybe not something PETA regrets. It's people talking about it animals which is good. However, the goal is for people to talk about animal rights, not just the orgainzation PETA.

Maybe their worst blunder wasn't something calculated. It's the leaked "Animals Lives Matter" email message.But even that one has some good results. There was buzz for days about why some people don't think animal's lives Don't matter.

 

[Andy_T]

PETA Kills Animas is a front group operated by Berman & Co. Berman & Co. operates a network of dozens of front groups, attack-dog web sites, and alleged think tanks that work to counteract minimum wage campaigns, keep wages low for restaurant workers, and block legislation on food safety, secondhand cigarette smoke, drunk driving, and more.

Here's the thing ... Rick Berman and anything he is connected to is horrible.

However, PETA's track record when it comes to taking care of animals in their shelters vs. killing them is dismal, too.

PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals

The organization, which claims to be dedicated to the cause of animal rights, can't explain why its adoption rate is only 2.5 percent for dogs.

www.theatlantic.com

Would it have been possible to care for more animals, to keep the animals they have a little longer, to improve this in any number of ways?
Of course. But they decided instead to spend lots of money to run expensive advertisements, as they think this is a better service to animals.
(Disclaimer: I tried to find out what % of their budget goes to their shelters, but I could not find any figures.)

Mind you, that's a very old article, but it seems there has not been any improvement ...

Newsweek: PETA has killed “tens of thousands of animals” – Nathan J. Winograd

www.nathanwinograd.com

BOTH right-wingers and PETA can be horrible ... you don't really have to choose either one.

 

[Lou]

However, PETA's track record when it comes to taking care of animals in their shelters vs. killing them is dismal, too.

I think you have to take those numbers in context.

If you have an open mind, you might want to read one of the articles that PETA has on their website defending their approach to shelters.

One of their pieces start with this

Consider this parable about “no-kill” policies: You’re walking next to a river and you see a kitten floating past. You jump in and save the kitten. Then another one floats by, so you save that one, too. Then another and another and another float by, and you soon realize that you can’t save them all. So you run upstream to see who’s throwing kittens into the water—and you stop that person.​

​

The Deadly Consequences of 'No-Kill' Policies | PETA

"No-kill" policies often do more harm than good in ending the cycle of companion-animal homelessness. Find out how we can truly help end this crisis by getting to the root of the problem.

www.peta.org

I do suggest reading the whole thing.

This whole PETA controversy actually has increased my respect for PETA. This is obviously a very unpopular stance. But PETA believes that they the better solution. Their stance has probably hurt them in both popularity and revenue. But they persevere because they believe they have the solution that causes the least harm.

In fact, in trying to decide who is right on this issue, you might want to consider motives. Why would PETA choose such a philosophy? I think it is because they are committed to doing what is right for the animals.

Homeless dogs and cats are considered by some as an epidemic. and the similarities do fit.

Besides PETAs articles you might be interested in a more neutral opinion. There was one I really liked but now I can't find it. but I recommend that you sample some of the articles that are published by major news services.

I like this one by Slate which appears to be more informational than opinioned

Animal Rights Advocates Are Fighting Like Cats and Dogs Over No-Kill Shelters

New York City developed a grisly solution to its stray dog problem in the 1870s: It locked dozens of dogs at a time inside an enormous iron cage and...

slate.com

stats

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/pet-adoption-statistics/#:~:text=Animal%20abandonment%20facts&text=Roughly%2C%2070%20million%20cats%20are,be%20reunited%20with%20their%20owners.

​

 

[Lou]

PETA is back in the headlines.

How PETA Infiltrated Major Fashion Shows This Season

An inside look at how and why the animal rights activists returned to disrupting the runways.

www.nytimes.com