Another Reason to be Skeptical of PETA

Is it just me, or does Tyra Banks really look like an alien in this picture?

Is it just me, or does Tyra Banks really look like an alien in this picture?

Just to state my bias right here, I have a deeply ingrained distrust of PETA.  It may begin with the fact that I don’t believe eating animals is morally wrong.  I can concede to a point AJ alluded to in my article from last week on vegetarianism; I would like it if animals that were to be slaughtered were treated more humanely.  But honestly, I like meat.  I don’t eat it every day, I don’t eat it every week, but I do eat meat sometimes and I don’t feel bad about it.  Until we somehow genetically engineer the ability to perform photosynthesis for ourselves, I think it’s a fine way to get chemical energy.  But the real reason why I don’t trust PETA is that I feel they are an intrinsically dishonest organization.

I recently saw a PETA spot all about keeping your pet dog in a car when it’s hot outside.  There was nothing wrong with the spot except for the fact that, according to PETA, it’s wrong to actually own pets.  Maybe “wrong” is an oversimplification, but certainly looking at this statement from their website, you get the feeling that their perspective on pet ownership is slightly… confusing.  Nevertheless, they market themselves towards “animal lovers,” many of whom are pet owners and would probably not like their pets to urinate wherever they would like in the house, as that seems to be one of the issues PETA takes umbrage with.  PETA is against testing pharmaceuticals on animals, I can’t get behind that because… well… I like medicine and can see no better way to make sure it won’t kill people, or that it works.  As to their thoughts on zoos, I think that PETA tends to forget that zoos and the organizations that fund them, are some of the most active and successful animal conservation groups on the planet.  Where would many endangered species on the planet be today without groups like the World Wildlife Fund?

And all this leads me to my topic.  I am not at all surprised that PETA has decided to use Michelle Obama’s image in their latest anti-fur campaign without Mrs. Obama’s actual endorsement of said campaign.

Ingrid Newkirk, founder and president of PETA, even acknowledged that Michelle didn’t en

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

2 comments to Another Reason to be Skeptical of PETA

  • +1

    PETA is, collectively, a fanatical organization, and fanatics of any variety are worrying and problematic. We need reasoned discourse and reasoned dissent, not fringe elements who throw “blood” on fur wearers… and not, as with other organizations with other topics, those who park boats in front of whaling ships and then complain when they get rammed, those who bomb medical clinics because they disapprove of the procedures done there, or those who stage upsetting protests at the funerals of soldiers.

    In a sense, I think fanaticism is exactly the opposite of skepticism.

  • PETA bother me because they will commit criminal acts in order to promote their own agenda. This to me makes them no different from the anti-abortion groups that blow up abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors.
    I agree with some of the things PETA say, that animals should not be killed solely for their fur to be used in clothing for instance. I am all for the ethical treatment of animals and believe that if animals are to be used for food that they are raised and killed in a humane way. However, I am not going to go out and commit criminal acts to promote my view point.
    PETA would do a lot better if they didn’t antagonize the exact people whose views they are trying to change.

Like us? Support Us!

CHOOSE MEMBERSHIP LEVEL


Archives