# PETA Hypocracy... don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.



## MA-Caver (Jan 6, 2010)

> *PETAs use of First Lady in advertisement angers White House*
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1047
> Wed Jan 6, 1:14 pm ET
> ...


Me thinks this organization is going to be in a lot of trouble. 

Then *THIS* turns up! 


> *PETA's Dirty Secret*
> http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm
> Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.
> *PETA kills animals.* By the thousands.
> ...



I've a mind to go to the next PETA protest rally with a couple of cans of red paint and toss it on the PETA folks ... while eating a triple bacon cheese burger... and scream at them "Murderers!!" 
Serves them right I think... 

The whole mess is probably going to hurt the organization either way. Lots of supporters will end up disillusioned and disappointed. 
For all their guilt tripping ads... it serves them right. 

Going out for a big juicy steak tomorrow!! Yeehaw!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2010)

PETA are on my dumbass list, been there a long time.


----------



## Carol (Jan 6, 2010)

I don't think this is going to hurt PETA at all.  Their followers strike me as folks that care more about their ideology than their actual actions.  Because, ya know, PETA cares about animals.  They say so themselves.  

Its only other people's actions that are the problem.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 6, 2010)

Carol said:


> I don't think this is going to hurt PETA at all.  Their followers strike me as folks that care more about their ideology than their actual actions.  Because, ya know, PETA cares about animals.  They say so themselves.
> 
> Its only other people's actions that are the problem.



PETA, MOVEON, I get them confused sometimes.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 6, 2010)

Not that I'm a fan of PETA. But I am a supporter of the ethical treatment of animals. And for some reason, it doesn't surprise me that the Obamas don't want to be associated with this. They don't care about people, why would they care about animals.

omg, did I say that out loud?


----------



## girlbug2 (Jan 6, 2010)

"Ethical Treatment of Animals" may be their title, but it's not their reality.


----------



## bookworm_cn317 (Jan 6, 2010)

PETA shouldn't stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; PETA should mean People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area.

Their headquarters is next door to my mom's office. 


Can you tell where I live?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 6, 2010)

Tames D said:


> Not that I'm a fan of PETA. But I am a supporter of the ethical treatment of animals. And for some reason, it doesn't surprise me that the Obamas don't want to be associated with this. They don't care about people, why would they care about animals.
> 
> omg, did I say that out loud?


The Obamas probably would be supportive... what the trouble is they used Michelle's face WITHOUT PERMISSION... and that is what causing them to be mad about it. We're talking about the first lady here...  true folks are using the images and such all over the net but they're not endorsing anything, just jokes and all that but to say she actively endorses without prior agreement is what the trouble is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2010)

> But the White House maintains that PETA had no right to use the image of the first lady in its new ads.
> 
> 
> PETA president Ingrid Newkirk insists her organization wouldn't have sought Obama's consent for the ad because it knows that she can't make such an endorsement.



http://omg.yahoo.com/news/white-house-peeved-michelle-obama-is-in-new-peta-ad/33479

Question #1: Where did PETA obtain the photo they used?
#2: Do they have a signed release from Mrs. Obama? 
#3: Did the photographer obtain one?

Looking at the image used, it appears to be a publicity or posed shot, not a paparazi shot. 

So, you have a case of someone using the image commercially without permission, IMO.

Public figures, while not having as much "right to privacy" as non-public types, still do maintain usage rights to their likenesses.

PETA can quote her all they want, but using her image without permission is going to cost them I expect.


----------



## xJOHNx (Jan 7, 2010)

As a vegan and an animal rights activist, this makes me sick.
The dirty secret has been known for quite a while, didn't know they still did it.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 7, 2010)

I too support the _ethical_ treatment of animals. I am a HUGE animal lover. I can't stand to be without a pet or to see animal cruelty. I cannot stand PETA. They're a bunch of hypocritical morons, IMO. I eat meat. I get angry over any sort of animal cruelty. Animals can be slaughtered humanely. I have no issue with that.

Fur? I'm not for clubbing baby seals to death on the ice, but I don't have a problem with people who choose to wear fur. If you want to own a mink farm and humanely put down the mink for it's fur, I can't complain. I'd rather that than trapping. 

Unfortunatley, there are animals that are abused. There are children and people that are abused as well. That's the world we live in people. Support a good cause, raise awareness to cruelty. 

But...

PETA is a blind rampage. They'd be much better off raising awareness of _how_ animals are slaughtered for the use of their meat or fur, than attacking anyone who eats meat or wears fur. Expose the slaughterhouses using inhumane methods of slaughter. Don't bash the person buying a pound of ground beef. 

PETA doesn't even want fish to be kept in an aquarium. For this is cruel you see.   They don't think dogs or cats should be kept as pets either. Again, more cruelty. I guess they should wander the streets rather than be well fed in a warm home with human companionship? 

They pass out their propaganda to kids. They pass out coloring books that depict mommy as a killer because she wears fur, with pictures of mommy killing animals! WTF??? (It's been a couple years since I've seen it so I don't know it it's still out there. But still...)

Anyway, I think you all know how I feel about PETA. Heh.  

Signed,
An Animal Lover


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2010)

Jade Tigress said:


> PETA is a blind rampage. They'd be much better off raising awareness of _how_ animals are slaughtered for the use of their meat or fur, than attacking anyone who eats meat or wears fur.



With all due respect, PETA doesn't attack anyone that eats meat or wears fur.  They only attack people that they think are vulnerable targets.

PETA is loves to attack women.  One of their favorite targets is the lady in the fur coat....yet the men in leather biker jackets are given a pass.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 7, 2010)

I remember back in my college days, I had a psych professor who said in class that he would not buy ANY product from a company that claimed that they did not use any animal testing for their product.  He said that they were the worst hypocrites because they allowed other companies to do the testing and then used their research for their products.

I agree with that.  If testing an animal will lead to a better quality of life or help cure a disease for us humans, then I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 7, 2010)

Carol said:


> With all due respect, PETA doesn't attack anyone that eats meat or wears fur.  They only attack people that they think are vulnerable targets.
> 
> PETA is loves to attack women.  One of their favorite targets is the lady in the fur coat....yet the men in leather biker jackets are given a pass.



True dat. I was using hyperbole.


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2010)

I wish PETA would protest Bike Week.  

http://www.laconiamcweek.com/

Oh to be a fly on the wall......  :lol2:


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 7, 2010)

Carol said:


> I wish PETA would protest Bike Week.
> 
> http://www.laconiamcweek.com/
> 
> Oh to be a fly on the wall......  :lol2:



LOL! Going to Sturgis this year, would love to see them there too!


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 18, 2010)

I despise PETA, much as I hate animal abuse, I love animals myself, but these people in reality dont care about the real abuse of animals. and they dont care what you think, or hat I think, or what Michelle Obama thinks, as shown by what they did with her pic.

Sincere organizations that really fight animal abuse dont get half the publicity or attention as these groups like peta do, because they are not interested in attracting attention. They are interested in helping animals. As an example, you dont hear about the SPCA or ASPCA as much as peta. 

PETA are sick. Remember the "sea kittens" incidents and when they suggested that human breast milk should be used to make ice cream?

PETA disgusts me.

BTW we dont kill baby seals. For everyone's info, its another lie by peta and those anti sealing thickwits. Hunting white coats has actually been against Canadian law since the 1980's!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 19, 2010)

I too am against animal cruelty... if an animal has to be put down or used for something then it needs to be done quickly and as painlessly as possible. 
I love a good steak and love fried chicken and love ham and bacon... Like I said, as long as they're killed painlessly as possible then okay. They're bred and raised to be our food. Their skins/furs can be used for our clothing along with plant by-products (cotton, et al). 

Would love a time machine and find the first person who came up with the idea behind PETA's inane philosophy/mission-statement and smack 'em up side the head and tell 'em to get a life.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 19, 2010)

Tames D said:


> Not that I'm a fan of PETA. But I am a supporter of the ethical treatment of animals. And for some reason, it doesn't surprise me that the Obamas don't want to be associated with this. They don't care about people, why would they care about animals.
> 
> omg, did I say that out loud?



Look, whether you agree with him politically or not, the Obamas don't want to be associated with it because PETA apparently are a bunch of nutters.
We have them too here, they are called 'GAIA' and are against anything and everything involving animals. They regularly protest at pharmaceutical companies because they experiment on animals. Apparently, testing whole batches of possibly lethal chemicals on humans is much better.

They have zero respect for actual people and see no qualms in abusing and insulting them, just to get in the news. Same as some of the greenpeace crowd.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 19, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> BTW we dont kill baby seals. For everyone's info, its another lie by peta and those anti sealing thickwits. Hunting white coats has actually been against Canadian law since the 1980's!



Apparently this is true. I was told by an environmentalist friend of mine (everyone has some shady friends . Baby seals haven't been clubbed in a long while. PETA just cashes in on the fact that a) noone knows and b) people can't see the difference between an adult and a baby seal.

As for the seals themselves: meat is meat. I can eat mince and steak, and wear leather shoes. A seal would be no different to me than a cow.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 19, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Apparently this is true. I was told by an environmentalist friend of mine (everyone has some shady friends . Baby seals haven't been clubbed in a long while. PETA just cashes in on the fact that *a) noone knows and b) people can't see the difference* between an adult and a baby seal.
> 
> w.


 
One thing groups like peta love is ignorance. If you dont know, they love it because it means you're easier to influence. I know this for a fact. I was elected to student politics in university along with this guy I know who is the president of a group just as crazy as peta and who told lies and deception just like peta. They try to do this to the uneducated. This guy and his group though, they never laid a finger on me. Why? Because I already knew all about them. and the issue and already knew what my thoughts were and what was true and not true. so pointless for them to try and work on me, and they knew it.

Thats why anti sealing groups like peta and the sea shepherd society were able to influence the european union like they have with our newfoundland seal hunt. Mostly urban, mostly uneducated, who saw the pics and because blood on white ice dont look so good. and there you have it. Groups like that play up to people's emotions rather than to bilogical and realistic facts and they do not care about what the 'truth', like its illegal here in Canada to hunt white coat seals, is.


----------



## Langenschwert (Jan 19, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> As for the seals themselves: meat is meat. I can eat mince and steak, and wear leather shoes. A seal would be no different to me than a cow.


 
And seals are basically vermin anyway. If they looked like lobsters no one would care.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Flea (Jan 19, 2010)

What perfect timing!  At least people in my home state got it right ...



> *Johnstown, PA  (GlossyNews)*  Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters, according to police officials.
> Something just went wrong, said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.



:bangahead:


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 19, 2010)

Flea said:


> What perfect timing! At least people in my home state got it right ...
> 
> 
> 
> :bangahead:


 
That was a satirical news story, Flea honey.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 19, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Look, whether you agree with him politically or not, the Obamas don't want to be associated with it because PETA apparently are a bunch of nutters.
> We have them too here, they are called 'GAIA' and are against anything and everything involving animals. They regularly protest at pharmaceutical companies because they experiment on animals. Apparently, testing whole batches of possibly lethal chemicals on humans is much better.
> 
> They have zero respect for actual people and see no qualms in abusing and insulting them, just to get in the news. Same as some of the greenpeace crowd.


 
Let's just say that I'm not a fan of PETA and the Obamas. They each have their own way of disrespecting people.


----------



## Flea (Jan 19, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> That was a satirical news story, Flea honey.



And a deadpan post.  Don't worry, I know satire when I see it.  :angel:


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 19, 2010)

There are extremists in every group.

PETA is no different from organized religion in terms of the way they spread their word (although a little racy in terms of their current marketing strategy), the way they are organized, and the pillars of "right" and "wrong" set by the leaders at PETA.

And then there are the crazies. They exist in every organization, carrying the proverbial "flag" to the eleventybillionth degree. And making a mess of what that org wants to do.

Not that I think PETA is an organization worth listening to, but they have a right to say what they want, and screw up when they do. In turn, we have the right to enjoy their protests, laugh at them, and ogle the models that are part of their marketing campaign (I hit on a protester once, and tried to get her to go to dinner with me... at a steak house.)

I don't think they'll get in too much trouble for using Mrs. Obama's image in one of their adverts. After a cease and desist letter (and possibly some media exposure-- the REASON why they used her image in the first place) they'll just stop using it.

What is she going to do? Sue PETA? I doubt the Presidency is going to spend time/money on something like that.


----------



## JDenver (Jan 19, 2010)

I'm with Nolerama.

Seems folks have a hard time not lumping a few hundred thousand people supportive of an organization in with a dozen loonies.

As for the 'hypocrisy'....I don't think so.  What, pray tell, is PETA to do with, say, a few thousand cats that no one will adopt?  The only 'ugly little secret' is that to this day folks still refuse to pony up $20 to fix their cats.  It's entirely cruel.

As for why PETA stands for ____ and not ____...again, folks seem to love masking the pain of their own inaction by expecting those who do commit to action to being saints.  With limited funds and resources we expect PETA to get behind EVERYTHING.  They should be puritan saints for being outlandish enough to demand that we don't test makeup in the eyes of rabbits.  

Nah, I think all the anger and vitroil towards PETA is horribly overdone.


----------



## Scott T (Jan 19, 2010)

I think it's time. Time to make a mock commercial extolling the virtues of PETA. People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. :headbangin:

Think it'll piss anyone off?


----------



## xJOHNx (Jan 20, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> I love a good steak and love fried chicken and love ham and bacon... Like I said, as long as they're *killed painlessly as possible then okay*. They're bred and raised to be our food. Their skins/furs can be used for our clothing along with plant by-products (cotton, et al).


They are not. In none of the slaughterhouses around the world. Not even the Hallal/Koosher ones. As the Muslim executive actually critised the slaughterhouses as not being in line with the rules for Hallal.

@ Bruno: if they had tested penecilline on Rhesus monkeys/ Urang Tangs before applying it to humans, it would have been dismissed as unuseable.
Same goes for Softenon. Monkeys were fine; humans were born with severe malformities. But let's not get to deep into that issue, as it would add another 10 pages to this topic.

To put it in someone else his words:
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 20, 2010)

Just to play somewhat of a "bad guy" in this thread....

Who cares what the animal feel when they die for my consumption?

When I go grocery shopping, do my thoughts drift towards how my packaged meat was killed? Nope. Do I feel the guilt over countless creatures that have some how, made it into my mouth, and into my belly, meeting their fate?

Not at all.

If animals are bred to feed us, then that's what they're there to do. My belly=manufactured animal heaven. They've been engineered for that.

The end of your last post John:

I'm happy to enjoy my roasted pork sandwich while watching PETA/Vegan slaughterhouse propaganda.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 20, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> They are not. In none of the slaughterhouses around the world.


 
Dr. Temple Grandin would disagree with that.


----------



## xJOHNx (Jan 20, 2010)

@ Nolerame: I care. And a great number of people, which only seems to get bigger in time. Please enjoy your sandwich while watching said video's.

@ Blade: It's nothing personal but after 10 years of animal rights activities, I can only cynically laugh at words like Humane and Welfare when used in sentences regarding slaughter. Unless you stress laughter in slaughter


----------



## Carol (Jan 20, 2010)

Nolerama said:


> . My belly=manufactured animal heaven.



So, in other words, you are saying...

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[yt]QQWpZxi5ix4[/yt]


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 20, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.



That's a fair enough point, I agree.  

I am not vegetarian and have not been for a lot of years but my experiences of working on a farm as a youth (which included visits to slaughter-houses) had a major part to play in my deciding to be one long before it became the fashionable 'art-student' thing to do.

I reasoned it through that it was a decision primarily motivated for health but I am positive that my emotions had a role to play in it.

Nowadays, I think if people want to not eat meat or use animal products then that is their choice (if a not very sensible one) but I would rather they don't try and prosleytise their views on me or act like a persecuted Holy-Man when they are in a restaurant ("Look at me, I am so pure because I don't rip flesh!").

As with anything else, people can do as they please just as long as they don't force the rest of society into their own mould.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 20, 2010)

xJOHN said:
			
		

> @ Blade: It's nothing personal but after 10 years of animal rights activities, *I can only cynically laugh at words like Humane and Welfare when used in sentences regarding slaughter. Unless you stress laughter in slaughter *


 
That's a reasonable thing to think, I agree, if you do believe that talking about 'animal humane and welfare' while simultaneously believing in killing and eating animals for food aka slaughterhouses is worthy of a Jekyll and Hyde.

Personally, I dont agree. I think one can be an omnivore while still crusading against animal abuse and neglect. Because properly preformed, killing an animal can be much more humane than when it happens in nature.

Just my belief.


----------



## JDenver (Jan 20, 2010)

I don't understand why things have to be so black and white.

I eat meat, mainly chicken.  However, I also know that my body doesn't want to eat meat full of steroids, mass produced on an environmentally toxic farm, slaughtered in a disease infested slaughterhouse that requires meat to be irradiated to 'clean' it.  I buy my chicken from a local butcher who gets it from a local free run farm.  It costs a whopping $1.50 more per kilo.  

Not so black and white.  Not so 'never eat meat' or 'yes, slaughter everything'.


----------



## xJOHNx (Jan 21, 2010)

@ Sukerkin: I no longer try to push my values on other people (if this still would be the case here, I apoligize). I did that 6 years ago, only to realise that it had the reverse effect. And I'm far from a holy man... whatever I have for the animals, I don't have it for most humans. 

@ blade: Yes, those words are to me just inventions so that the doubting people can sooth their mind. Yes, as an omnivore you can crusade against abuse and neglect. But it's a different thing to 'crusade' for animal liberation.  Also the difference lies in the fact that neglect of domesticated animals is not the same as the systematic slaughter of animals in factories. If you are against the later, it's a bit hypocritical to eat the products, no?

@ jdenver: that resembles most closely to the natural state which humans come from. Somethings in life are just black and white, the moment you add exceptions you are weakening the stance. Something which most animal rights activist can't live with. For example: I cannot be vegan and at the same time say I'm just going to eat chicken once every two months. If I would do that, the whole concept of being vegan is worthless.

edit: I know I sound very militantly. I am, but I'm able to discuss martial arts and other topics without the whole ethic polemics.
Just so you all know.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 21, 2010)

Not a problem at all, *John* - I certainly did not mean to sound as if I was addressing you directly other than for my opening words :tup:.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 21, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> @ blade: Yes, those words are to me just inventions so that the doubting people can sooth their mind. Yes, as an omnivore you can crusade against abuse and neglect. But it's a different thing to 'crusade' for animal liberation. Also the difference lies in the fact that neglect of domesticated animals is not the same as the systematic slaughter of animals in factories. If you are against the later, it's a bit hypocritical to eat the products, no?


 
I can see why you would say that. yes. I'm not vegan or lacto ovo but i see where you're coming from.


----------

