The Hypocrisy of PETA

[jaguarr]

Be as that may, i still support their underlying agenda.

Whether one see's there antics as nothing more than stunts for publicity or whatnot, they still bring the truths/horrors of animal cruelty to the media attention and get ppl talking, as we're doing now, about it whereas any other day it would probably be the last thing on our minds.

No, they don't. They actively spread disinformation and lies, my friend. They CONFUSE the issues, not help to bring greater understanding and consideration from the masses.

I often hear this saying "If the message is right, what does it matter who the messager is? Well i think this applies to PETA. Knock the messengers all you want, the message is still the right one, and needs media coverage.

Their message isn't the right one, though. They've become more about subversive activity and encouraging other people do do the same, particularly through the use of disinformation, than they are about the actual cause of animal conservation. They get the message wrong and the deliver it even more wrongly as far as I'm concerned.

Doing positive very rarely gets ppl media coverage in the world today and it's sad. There's so much good being done by many and they get overlooked because negative news is 'ratings worthy news'. So if doing the outrageous get them on the news (in this day and age, that's one of the few things that does), then so be it....

That's the worst excuse for condoning this type of behavior, frankly.

jag

 

[bored]

We shall teach the animal the ways of the wild... By having it hunt down several PETA members on the frozen tundras of northern Canada.

 

[Kyalesyin]

We shall teach the animal the ways of the wild... By having it hunt down several PETA members on the frozen tundras of northern Canada.

That would be the best kind of reality TV

 

[Golgo-13]

No, they don't. They actively spread disinformation and lies, my friend. They CONFUSE the issues, not help to bring greater understanding and consideration from the masses.

This thread is causing ppl to talk. Don't see how you can argue with me there.

Their message isn't the right one, though. They've become more about subversive activity and encouraging other people do do the same, particularly through the use of disinformation, than they are about the actual cause of animal conservation. They get the message wrong and the deliver it even more wrongly as far as I'm concerned.

Here's their mission statement:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 1.6 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.

PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.

Besides the bad apples they apparently have in their organization (and any and every organization has bad apples)..their mission sounds sound to me.

That's the worst excuse for condoning this type of behavior, frankly.

That's why i said it was sad that only negative media gets attention. I'm not condoning bad behaviour whatsoever, only bringing light to what does or doesn't get televised/published for the world to see...

 

[jaguarr]

This thread is causing ppl to talk. Don't see how you can argue with me there.

You said the bring the "truth" about animal cruelty to the forefront. They consistently lie and spread disinformation, man. Sure, they've got people talking....about what a bunch of a-holes they are...NOT about the real issues.

And I don't give a damn about their mission statement because they obviously don't either, going by their ongoing behavior. They get negative press because they deserve it, and all it does is detract from their cause and make people think that environmentalists and conservationists are a bunch of goddamned nuts, and frankly, I don't like to see that happen.

jag

 

[hippy fascist]

REDNECKS!​

 

[Kyalesyin]

REDNECKS!​

Is that Tai, over to the left?

 

[Golgo-13]

You said the bring the "truth" about animal cruelty to the forefront. They consistently lie and spread disinformation, man. Sure, they've got people talking....about what a bunch of a-holes they are...NOT about the real issues.

And I don't give a damn about their mission statement because they obviously don't either, going by their ongoing behavior. They get negative press because they deserve it, and all it does is detract from their cause and make people think that environmentalists and conservationists are a bunch of goddamned nuts, and frankly, I don't like to see that happen.

jag

OOOOOO-Kay

You weren't by chance a past member that got booted out were you? t:

 

[hippy fascist]

Is that Tai, over to the left?

no, that's tai's hunk of beefcake

 

[hippy fascist]

You said the bring the "truth" about animal cruelty to the forefront. They consistently lie and spread disinformation, man. Sure, they've got people talking....about what a bunch of a-holes they are...NOT about the real issues.

And I don't give a damn about their mission statement because they obviously don't either, going by their ongoing behavior. They get negative press because they deserve it, and all it does is detract from their cause and make people think that environmentalists and conservationists are a bunch of goddamned nuts, and frankly, I don't like to see that happen.

jag

Peta are just as bad as the pro-lifers. Peaceful protest. The only way to truly bring about support for a cause of this nature :

 

[Kyalesyin]

no, that's tai's hunk of beefcake

Wow... I gotta find out where he picks up his guys...

 

[jaguarr]

OOOOOO-Kay

You weren't by chance a past member that got booted out were you? t:

My points still stand. No one has refuted them in this thread. At all. *shrug*

jag

 

[StorminNorman]

Be as that may, i still support their underlying agenda.

Whether one see's there antics as nothing more than stunts for publicity or whatnot, they still bring the truths/horrors of animal cruelty to the media attention and get ppl talking, as we're doing now, about it whereas any other day it would probably be the last thing on our minds.

I often hear this saying "If the message is right, what does it matter who the messager is? Well i think this applies to PETA. Knock the messengers all you want, the message is still the right one, and needs media coverage.

Doing positive very rarely gets ppl media coverage in the world today and it's sad. There's so much good being done by many and they get overlooked because negative news is 'ratings worthy news'. So if doing the outrageous get them on the news (in this day and age, that's one of the few things that does), then so be it....

Supporting PETA simply because you want to stop animal cruelty is comparable to supporting the Nazi's because you wanted to encourage German nationalism. While neither idea is by any means a bad cause, the means at which they try to obtain their goal completely destroys their merit and credibility.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love eating meat, I ate a burger last night.

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

That baby bear is too damn cute! **** PETA. My aunt is leaving her estate to PETA when she dies, and I am pretty soon they are planning to kill her soon.

 

[Sgt Philatelica]

PETA? Do you mean People (for the) Eating (of) Tasty Animals?

 

[Calvin]

Somebody please give that bear a bottle of cola.

 

[Corey]

Sexy PETA Ad Banned From Super Bowl

posted: 7 HOURS 34 MINUTES AGO


(Jan. 28) - NBC has deemed a PETA commercial featuring lingerie-clad models demonstrating their fondness for veggies too sexy for the Super Bowl, the animal rights group said.

The spot, titled 'Veggie Love,' shows the beauties relishing their passion for produce in a series of steamy scenes. One suggestively rubs asparagus down her bare torso, another lovingly caresses a spear of broccoli, while a third enjoys a vegetable bubble bath.

The pro-vegetarian ad features lingerie-clad models displaying their passion for produce by licking and fondling a variety of veggies.




The tagline at the end reads, "Studies show vegetarians have better sex. Go veg."

A PETA spokeswoman said the animal rights group received an e-mail from NBC saying the ad "depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." PETA said NBC asked it to edit some of the sexy scenes out of the ad but the organization refused.

In a statement, PETA said it had hoped the commercial would "add balance to the traditional onslaught of Super Bowl commercials for meaty, greasy, and factory-farmed fast food."

An NBC spokeswoman told WashingtonPost.com's 'The TV Column' that the ad was "rejected because it did not conform with our standards."

PETA Senior Vice President Lisa Lange said the decision is unfair, considering some of the other spots that air during the big game.

"PETA's veggie ads are locked out while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed -- even though these foods make Americans fat, sick, and boring in bed," she said in the statement.

PETA has garnered controversy for sexual ads in the past, such as its famous 'I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur' ads, which debuted in 1994.


http://news.aol.com/article/peta-ad-super-bowl/321302

 

[Raiden]

I do admit that I like to look at their ads, but that's about it. I like to support causes that help animals, but I do not like nor support PETA.

 

[Immortalfire]

Sexy PETA Ad Banned From Super Bowl

posted: 7 HOURS 34 MINUTES AGO


(Jan. 28) - NBC has deemed a PETA commercial featuring lingerie-clad models demonstrating their fondness for veggies too sexy for the Super Bowl, the animal rights group said.

The spot, titled 'Veggie Love,' shows the beauties relishing their passion for produce in a series of steamy scenes. One suggestively rubs asparagus down her bare torso, another lovingly caresses a spear of broccoli, while a third enjoys a vegetable bubble bath.

The pro-vegetarian ad features lingerie-clad models displaying their passion for produce by licking and fondling a variety of veggies.

The tagline at the end reads, "Studies show vegetarians have better sex. Go veg."

A PETA spokeswoman said the animal rights group received an e-mail from NBC saying the ad "depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." PETA said NBC asked it to edit some of the sexy scenes out of the ad but the organization refused.

In a statement, PETA said it had hoped the commercial would "add balance to the traditional onslaught of Super Bowl commercials for meaty, greasy, and factory-farmed fast food."

An NBC spokeswoman told WashingtonPost.com's 'The TV Column' that the ad was "rejected because it did not conform with our standards."

PETA Senior Vice President Lisa Lange said the decision is unfair, considering some of the other spots that air during the big game.

"PETA's veggie ads are locked out while ads for fried chicken and burgers are allowed -- even though these foods make Americans fat, sick, and boring in bed," she said in the statement.

PETA has garnered controversy for sexual ads in the past, such as its famous 'I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur' ads, which debuted in 1994.


http://news.aol.com/article/peta-ad-super-bowl/321302

I'm all for seeing this, but the fact that it's PETA makes me not care.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Too bad. I wouldnt mind seeing that!

 

[SuperFerret]

I do admit that I like to look at their ads, but that's about it. I like to support causes that help animals, but I do not like nor support PETA.

GRAMMAR POLICE!

The word "but" is inappropriate, as it implies that the second half of the sentence ("I do not like nor support PETA") is in contrast to the first half ("I like to support causes that help animals"). The words "so", "therefore" or "and" are far more appropriate.

 

[Majic Walrus]

GRAMMAR POLICE!

The word "but" is inappropriate, as it implies that the second half of the sentence ("I do not like nor support PETA") is in contrast to the first half ("I like to support causes that help animals"). The words "so", "therefore" or "and" are far more appropriate.

English humor. Most excellent.

 

[Spider-Who?]

GRAMMAR POLICE!

The word "but" is inappropriate, as it implies that the second half of the sentence ("I do not like nor support PETA") is in contrast to the first half ("I like to support causes that help animals"). The words "so", "therefore" or "and" are far more appropriate.

I can only assume you're being sarcastic, because he was in fact grammatically correct...

If not...well...you're just weird.

 

[moraldeficiency]

After they kill the bear humanely, can I eat it? I mean not too would be kinda a waste and that's just wrong. Plus nothing tastes so delicious as a nice fattened up, hand fed endangered species.