Jump to content

What average people think of Vegans... I always wonder...


RAINRA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah turning people off and informing them can be quite different. Never tell them what to do give them the information and let them make up their mind. I would say in most cases they will not care and ignore it like it they got blinders on and they are super humans that disease won't get them and suffering is not something they think they are really part of. Kinda thinking the meat I eat is just meat no animals were involved... or the other view is oh there animals that are born to eat and there animals that we have as pets. This is just absurd, Nagging in anyway is annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why don't you both find some common ground, neither one is going to give in to the other. This thing is just going to go on and on. Resolve it.

I agree the only problem is that I resolve all of my fights with makeup sex which might be hard to do over the internets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you both find some common ground, neither one is going to give in to the other. This thing is just going to go on and on. Resolve it.
In defense of aryan, who is new to this website, josh has a history of flammng and starting fights here. You can't expect civility here, when the moderators and some members, on this barely moderated forum, give josh a free pass to be a dickhead because they are friends with the asshole.

 

.

Edited by Anonymous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In defense of aryan, who is new to this website, josh has a history of flammng and starting fights here. The moderators and some members, on this barely moderated forum, give josh a free pass to be a dickhead because they are friends with the asshole.

 

Nice post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In defense of aryan, who is new to this website, josh has a history of flammng and starting fights here. You can't expect civility here, when the moderators and some members, on this barely moderated forum, give josh a free pass to be a dickhead because they are friends with the asshole.

 

.

 

In defense of josh, he was not a dickhead, nor did he flame. He simply stated his opinion. I think he brings up a very good point. Vegans projecting their values on others in a judgmental way is half the reason most people do not like vegans. The 'holier than thou' attitude turns people off the idea of being a vegan in the first place.

 

Also, I found these posts rather ridiculous...seriously who is the one being a dickhead? Not josh, this time anyway.

I'm not projecting my value system onto anyone, in the way you probably do with rapists, kidnappers, thieves, and the like (narcissistic and judgmental, then, aren't you?). I'm simply making an observation.

 

That must be why you didn't feel any need to inconvenience yourself by taking 30 seconds to pull over and send him on his merry way.

 

Criticizing Rainra for not pulling over for a bug during rush hour traffic is a little extreme, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criticizing Rainra for not pulling over for a bug during rush hour traffic is a little extreme, imo.

 

I wasn't criticizing him, simply making an observation. I just find it odd that he was praying the bug would make it to his destination okay when if it really mattered that much to him he could have ensured that.

 

If someone were a neat freak, and praying that a piece of trash on the kitchen floor would make its way to the trash can, I would probably observe that I find it odd that he was praying the trash will do that when if it really mattered he could pick it up and put it there himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criticizing Rainra for not pulling over for a bug during rush hour traffic is a little extreme, imo.

I wasn't criticizing him, simply making an observation. I just find it odd that he was praying the bug would make it to his destination okay when if it really mattered that much to him he could have ensured that.

Pulling over on the highway in rush-hour traffic in DC is not a good move. It's dangerous to yourself and your fellow drivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I ever heard the word "Vegan" was on an episode of "America's Most Wanted". An activist who was destroying animal testing labs with explosives was the topic of one of their stories. I had no bad feelings about people who chose to be vegan, but wow was I exposed to some B.S Nonsense propaganda thanks to John Walsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I ever heard the word "Vegan" was on an episode of "America's Most Wanted". An activist who was destroying animal testing labs with explosives was the topic of one of their stories. I had no bad feelings about people who chose to be vegan, but wow was I exposed to some B.S Nonsense propaganda thanks to John Walsh.

 

I don't like John Walsh. He thinks he's some big hero for helping catch criminals? Come on dear, America's Most Wanted is just an entertainment show like any other.

 

Personally I hope that activist got away. If the government would take action to stop animal testing, rather than taking action to stop the people who take action to stop animal testing, our world would be in much better shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling over on the highway in rush-hour traffic in DC is not a good move. It's dangerous to yourself and your fellow drivers.
Blabbate is right... In the middle of rush hour traffic we have four to 5 lane highways going at full speed and very little room to pullover. I feel also pulling over on a highway to leave the bug on the ground would have not been a very good place for the green bug. :0) it's all good. I appreciate my fellow Vegan bodybuilding members. I think if we all had the same view point this forum might be too monotone. Variety is the spice of life just as long as you have respect for another's opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On animal rights, though, everyone seems to be pretty sensible. Very, very few PETA-level crazies. Instead, people are tempered and intelligent about the issue. I don't think others understand that we're not all out there picketing Bloomingdales and breaking into animal testing labs (not to say that I'm strictly against the latter).

Speak for yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Peta-level crazies," eh? Personally I love PETA; they've done a lot more for animals than any other animal rights organization. I don't agree with everything they say, but I sure do agree with a lot of it! Peta is like a healthy dose of common sense thrown at a merrily brainwashed society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aryan I agree that peta does do some good things not all just for campaign money. If not they would be in the meat industry where there is a heck of a lot more money. Sometimes they don't do enough. At least they are mainstream which is good news. I personally think the best way to end animal cruelty is the education of our children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aryan I agree that peta does do some good things not all just for campaign money. If not they would be in the meat industry where there is a heck of a lot more money. Sometimes they don't do enough. At least they are mainstream which is good news. I personally think the best way to end animal cruelty is the education of our children.

 

I completely agree. And yet, "targeting children" (as naysayers refer to it) is what creates the most controversy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree. And yet, "targeting children" (as naysayers refer to it) is what creates the most controversy.

 

Actually, I think that the controversy has more to do with their using KKK imagery in street-level campaigns (we had a recent discussion on this a few months back after that blunder), their extreme level of euthanasia for healthy, adoptable animals and low adoption rates via their center, their flip-flopping to give thumbs-up support to a chain like KFC just because they put a few veggie chicken sandwiches in 2% of their restaurants after having devoted a large-scale campaign devoted to KFC cruelty, etc. LOTS more that creates controversy than just their targeting children from time to time, but that's a whole new thread in and of itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aryan I agree that peta does do some good things not all just for campaign money. If not they would be in the meat industry where there is a heck of a lot more money. Sometimes they don't do enough. At least they are mainstream which is good news. I personally think the best way to end animal cruelty is the education of our children.

Well as a teacher I can assure you that PETA does more than anyone to help educate out childern..free videos, lesson plans etc. Their DEMOCS lessons are truly incredible and have allowed me to bring up the question of animal rights "safely" many times in class.

I know PETA have their down side..the big blunder for me was promoting Controlled Atmosphere Killing when they should have been promoting veganism!! Apart from that I don't have any problems with things they have done. A lot of people got their knickers in a twist about PETA putting down abandoned dogs...well WTF are they supposed to do with all the dogs? i know its tragic but we have to be realistic at the end of the day and not blame PETA but blame the people who abandoned their dogs in the first place!

I've had this discussion many times with vegan friends and I know all the arguments, but PETA are still out there big time putting the vegan message across! Personally however, I just can't wait for Ingrid to die so i can see if they really make a bbq out of ther and send parts of her body off to various people etc. THAT sounds cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally however, I just can't wait for Ingrid to die so i can see if they really make a bbq out of ther and send parts of her body off to various people etc. THAT sounds cool!

 

I heard the plan was that the staff was supposed to barbecue her and have a feast. Can't mail human parts out, biohazard status and all, you know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally however, I just can't wait for Ingrid to die so i can see if they really make a bbq out of ther and send parts of her body off to various people etc. THAT sounds cool!

 

I heard the plan was that the staff was supposed to barbecue her and have a feast. Can't mail human parts out, biohazard status and all, you know

Whatever..can't wait for that to be uploaded to youtube though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree. And yet, "targeting children" (as naysayers refer to it) is what creates the most controversy.

 

Actually, I think that the controversy has more to do with their using KKK imagery in street-level campaigns (we had a recent discussion on this a few months back after that blunder),

 

KKK imagery? You can make any word sound bad by putting the word "KKK" in front of it.

 

their extreme level of euthanasia for healthy, adoptable animals and low adoption rates via their center

 

I'm against euthanasia but sadly sometimes there just really isn't a choice. There are more animals than there are homes for animals, and sometimes euthanasia is the only way to save an animal from a life of misery. What do you think they should do with animals who have nowhere to go? Stuff 'em in a small, dark cage for years on end like many of the "no kill" shelters?

 

their flip-flopping to give thumbs-up support to a chain like KFC just because they put a few veggie chicken sandwiches in 2% of their restaurants after having devoted a large-scale campaign devoted to KFC cruelty,

 

I think you are misunderstanding... the KFC cruelty campaign is not because of the lack of veggie options, it's because of the horrible way in which KFC abuses their animals.

 

etc.

 

I'm sure.

 

LOTS more that creates controversy than just their targeting children from time to time,

 

Woah, hold on there. Don't imply that I said the ONLY controversy was "targeting children from time to time." PETA creates a lot of controversy but usually about things that in an ideal world wouldn't be considered controversial at all. Controversy is created when something goes against the majority opinion in a way that sparks outrage; I appreciate that PETA isn't afraid to tell it like it is just because people don't want to hear the truth.

 

Personally I think supporting the abuse that animals endure should be far more controversial than suggesting that abusing animals is wrong.

 

but that's a whole new thread in and of itself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KKK imagery? You can make any word sound bad by putting the word "KKK" in front of it.

 

Perhaps you're not acquainted with their use of the klan robes in protest of a major dog show? I'm not making this up just to make them look bad - they chose poorly with that one in trying to draw a comparison to the klan and purebred dog breeding. I'm not for breeding by any means, but sometimes, they make REALLY stupid moves that turn off more people than they reach. That was one of them.

 

their extreme level of euthanasia for healthy, adoptable animals and low adoption rates via their center

 

I'm against euthanasia but sadly sometimes there just really isn't a choice. There are more animals than there are homes for animals, and sometimes euthanasia is the only way to save an animal from a life of misery. What do you think they should do with animals who have nowhere to go? Stuff 'em in a small, dark cage for years on end like many of the "no kill" shelters?

 

I'm not at all saying that it's a perfect world and we can adopt out all animals. PETA just has a REALLY bad track record of only adopting out a tiny fraction of young, healthy dogs and cats they take in and will euthanize even kittens and puppies because they choose not to "bother" finding homes for them. People turn their animals over to PETA under the assumption that they'll work to adopt every one of them, but the sad fact is, they have a higher rate of euthanasia than most shelters across the country. Look up the info by Nathan Winograd if you want the cold, hard facts on PETA's lack of concern for adopting out healthy animals and choosing to destroy the majority of them first. Again, I'm not making these things up - they're the facts.

 

their flip-flopping to give thumbs-up support to a chain like KFC just because they put a few veggie chicken sandwiches in 2% of their restaurants after having devoted a large-scale campaign devoted to KFC cruelty,

 

I think you are misunderstanding... the KFC cruelty campaign is not because of the lack of veggie options, it's because of the horrible way in which KFC abuses their animals.

 

KFC still kills chickens by the millions every year. While I think that "more space is better" when considering the conditions of the chickens, I don't believe in patting a merchant of mass animal slaughter on the back just because they agreed to make the lives of prisoners a bit more "comfy" before killing them. If KFC were to stop killing chickens, I'd applaud them. I just don't think that we need to praise companies for making torture and eventual slaughter a fraction more humane. But, that's just me.

 

LOTS more that creates controversy than just their targeting children from time to time,

 

Woah, hold on there. Don't imply that I said the ONLY controversy was "targeting children from time to time."

 

I wasn't implying that at all. You only made mention of that one instance, and I merely said that there's a lot more beyond that.

 

PETA creates a lot of controversy but usually about things that in an ideal world wouldn't be considered controversial at all. Controversy is created when something goes against the majority opinion in a way that sparks outrage; I appreciate that PETA isn't afraid to tell it like it is just because people don't want to hear the truth.

 

I don't know of too many AR groups that are afraid to "tell it like it is." Rather, they don't have a fraction of the finances and high-profile visibility that PETA does, so they're overlooked and shuffled aside by people who want to ally with the loudest voice on the block. I don't agree that bigger is always better - there are plenty of groups who tell it like it is and accomplish exceptional things for the animals without needing to perform stunts to get attention. MFA, COK, FOA, etc. Plenty of them out there who are working for positive change, just in ways that are always practical because they can't spend thousands on exposure every time they'd like to get their name in the media.

 

I simply don't agree with the way they try to convey the vegan message on many occasions. I believe their heart is in the right place, but I question their heads on a frequest basis. There's a good deal of reason why they're pretty much the ONLY group that promotes animal welfare and/or rights that is scrutinized and has a detachment by a large majority of the vegan population. Many of us think that they spend money on campaigns that hurt the movement as much or more than it helps. You may see it one way, but try finding a vegan message board where you don't have people who will decry PETA's PR stunts and you must be on a PETA-run board

 

Personally I think supporting the abuse that animals endure should be far more controversial than suggesting that abusing animals is wrong.

 

Nobody said anything of the sort. You're subtly inferring that if you don't agree with/like PETA's methods, you're not anti-cruelty. That's just plain silly. You can love PETA or hate them with all you've got and STILL be pro-animal/anti-cruelty regardless of your stance. They AREN'T the face of the movement (but are perceived as so by the majority of Americans, which is really, really too bad), they don't speak for a large percentage of vegans, so in my eyes, I don't want them representing me even if we agree on many things. I follow the core beliefs of veganism, and I don't need to agree with or bow down to a group who does things that I find to be unsettling and detrimental to the movement just because we're "all in this together." There are plenty of people who also feel this way - ask around on other boards and you'll find people who are ready to take issue with PETA on some things.

 

As I've said before, do I think they do a lot of good in their actual work to help the animals such as undercover investigations? Yes, they do. But, I think that spending tons of money on stupid and often offensive PR stunts that hurt the vegan image is foolish and wasteful. Again, this is just one person's opinion here - you can agree or disagree, but you can't make me change my mind on what I feel about them, and you can't change the truth about things like the KKK-themed protest that drew plenty of negative feedback from vegans and non-vegans alike, or their track record with euthanizing an overwhelming amount of healthy, adoptable animals that could have a chance. That is, if they spent a bit more of their resources used on outlandish campaigns on actually HELPING animals in need vs. trying to get air time for some wacky attention-getting scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an addendum -

 

For the record, I don't want this to turn into an off-topic PETA-bashing thread. I just felt the need to reply to the inference that I was mistaken in regard to the KKK-themed protest and their record for euthanasia. All the rest is just opinion, but let's not drag this on for too long and get way off topic. That's not what this was all about - a new thread would be better suited if people want to discuss this further

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep..I agree with you..but the PR stunts and ingrids imagination are what have made PETA so big. They promote themselves using these media attracting stunts, in the same way that pop-stars, directors and actors often do. Like it or not it's VERY effective. It's just a shame other more viable organizations don't follow their cue and get the REAL vegan message out there in the mass media! Don't get me wrong, I find some of their stunts plain stupid, but they do achieve the desired results generally.

I think when talking about how people see vegans you have to look at how YOU represent youself. For many people you will be the only vegan they know and they will judge the way vegans are based on what they see in you more than what they see about PETA: That's why it's so important to be healthy and fit, educated, intelligent and a good communnicator so that you personally can show people what vegans are like.

Most people who ask me about veganism are attracted to it NOT because of the cruelty factor, but rather because they see me as far fitter and healthier and generally in much better shape than other non-vegans my age. I've had more than 1 person exclaim "f*ck me! If that's what you look like after not eating meat in 30 years I should do the same!"

Obviously, I prefer it if they do it for the animals, but there are a great many people in the UK now who adopt a vegan or vegeterian diet for health reasons..and really, if they stop eating animals, that's a worthwhile result isn't it? It's often easier to get someone to stop eating meat for health reasons, and when they are in a position that they don't eat meat, present them with anti-speciesist ideals. It's easier to accept these ideals when the natural defensive, guilty behaviour which arises from someone eating meat is no longer an issue.

We can go round in circles all day arguing about PETA but the reality is that generally most people form their opinion about vegans from the vegans who they know personally and we are all responsible for how the general population views us..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not at all saying that it's a perfect world and we can adopt out all animals. PETA just has a REALLY bad track record of only adopting out a tiny fraction of young, healthy dogs and cats they take in and will euthanize even kittens and puppies because they choose not to "bother" finding homes for them. People turn their animals over to PETA under the assumption that they'll work to adopt every one of them, but the sad fact is, they have a higher rate of euthanasia than most shelters across the country. Look up the info by Nathan Winograd if you want the cold, hard facts on PETA's lack of concern for adopting out healthy animals and choosing to destroy the majority of them first. Again, I'm not making these things up - they're the facts.

 

No they're not. The fact is that before euthanizing any animal they call the caretaker (if there is one) and ask if he or she would like the animal euthanized or returned.

 

KFC still kills chickens by the millions every year. While I think that "more space is better" when considering the conditions of the chickens, I don't believe in patting a merchant of mass animal slaughter on the back just because they agreed to make the lives of prisoners a bit more "comfy" before killing them. If KFC were to stop killing chickens, I'd applaud them. I just don't think that we need to praise companies for making torture and eventual slaughter a fraction more humane. But, that's just me.

 

I agree completely, but there has to be some incentive to treat the animals well until the world can wake up.

 

I don't know of too many AR groups that are afraid to "tell it like it is." Rather, they don't have a fraction of the finances and high-profile visibility that PETA does, so they're overlooked and shuffled aside by people who want to ally with the loudest voice on the block. I don't agree that bigger is always better - there are plenty of groups who tell it like it is and accomplish exceptional things for the animals without needing to perform stunts to get attention. MFA, COK, FOA, etc. Plenty of them out there who are working for positive change, just in ways that are always practical because they can't spend thousands on exposure every time they'd like to get their name in the media.

 

Huh? I've never heard of those. PETA started out small and made themselves big. The Humane Society (the only other AR group I actually have the name of memorized) may not offend anyone but they don't really get much done. The first thing people think of when they think about animal rights is PETA. The loudest voice on the block is heard by the most and gets the most done. The only thing worse than people saying bad things about an organization or public figure is people not talking about it.

 

I simply don't agree with the way they try to convey the vegan message on many occasions. I believe their heart is in the right place, but I question their heads on a frequest basis. There's a good deal of reason why they're pretty much the ONLY group that promotes animal welfare and/or rights that is scrutinized and has a detachment by a large majority of the vegan population. Many of us think that they spend money on campaigns that hurt the movement as much or more than it helps. You may see it one way, but try finding a vegan message board where you don't have people who will decry PETA's PR stunts and you must be on a PETA-run board

 

Appeal to majority. I don't blindly follow what other people, even other vegans, think is right.

 

Nobody said anything of the sort. You're subtly inferring that if you don't agree with/like PETA's methods, you're not anti-cruelty. That's just plain silly. You can love PETA or hate them with all you've got and STILL be pro-animal/anti-cruelty regardless of your stance.

 

That's not what I said. But PETA's MESSAGE is anti-cruelty. So any controversy they create is going to be based on that message.

 

They AREN'T the face of the movement (but are perceived as so by the majority of Americans, which is really, really too bad), they don't speak for a large percentage of vegans, so in my eyes, I don't want them representing me even if we agree on many things.

 

They don't CLAIM to represent you! They represent animal rights. It's not their fault if as a side effect of being so successful people turn to them for the AR-view on certain issues.

 

I follow the core beliefs of veganism, and I don't need to agree with or bow down to a group who does things that I find to be unsettling and detrimental to the movement just because we're "all in this together." There are plenty of people who also feel this way - ask around on other boards and you'll find people who are ready to take issue with PETA on some things.

 

I'm sure there are thousands if not millions of people who agree with you but it really doesn't mean a thing about whether what you say is right or wrong.

 

As I've said before, do I think they do a lot of good in their actual work to help the animals such as undercover investigations? Yes, they do. But, I think that spending tons of money on stupid and often offensive PR stunts that hurt the vegan image is foolish and wasteful.

 

Their PR stunts are what made them so famous. If they didn't do any PR stunts, no one would know who they are and there would be many fewer vegans in the world.

 

Again, this is just one person's opinion here - you can agree or disagree, but you can't make me change my mind on what I feel about them, and you can't change the truth about things like the KKK-themed protest that drew plenty of negative feedback from vegans and non-vegans alike, or their track record with euthanizing an overwhelming amount of healthy, adoptable animals that could have a chance. That is, if they spent a bit more of their resources used on outlandish campaigns on actually HELPING animals in need vs. trying to get air time for some wacky attention-getting scheme.

 

I'm not trying to change your mind or the truth, but getting air time and attention does help animals. Also, their campaigns only seem "wacky" and "outlandish" because society today is so brainwashed. In an ideal world, the messages of their campaigns would be met with a "well... duh...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going to go over everything, but just a few points -

 

No they're not. The fact is that before euthanizing any animal they call the caretaker (if there is one) and ask if he or she would like the animal euthanized or returned.

 

This is contradictory to what I've heard. But, neither side can prove it, so we can only speculate.

 

I agree completely, but there has to be some incentive to treat the animals well until the world can wake up.

 

Again, I agree to some extent, but I think that back-patting for the mass death merchants just because they concede and give another 2" in each cage is sending the wrong message in that too many people accept it as "Now my meat's more humane, so I feel better about eating from KFC!" I tend to think that many people equate more cage space to less guilt, which is backfiring in promoting AR. It promotes welfarism to a small degree, but not rights. Again, this is just my opinion, take it or leave it.

 

Huh? I've never heard of those.

 

HERE lies the problem. We have MANY groups devoted to animal rights in the strictest sense, who work tirelessly for the cause, and the vast majority of vegans don't know about them. These groups don't have the budget to pull stunts for media attention, send out mailers, put advertisements all over the place; they actually spend the bulk of their funds on operations to combat animal cruelty and can't afford to publicize themselves without cutting into funds necessary for something that will directly benefit the animals. They depend on our generosity to continue to do their work, and in turn, they're overlooked because the loudest voice gets the money and the credit. Mercy for Animals and Compassion Over Killing have been doing incredible work for a long time via their campaigns, undercover investigations, promotions of a vegan lifestyle, and yet they're still shrouded in obscurity. That's what really makes me sad. There's so many more groups out there who have accomplished a LOT, but could do more if we gave them the same support that the big one gets.

 

They don't CLAIM to represent you! They represent animal rights. It's not their fault if as a side effect of being so successful people turn to them for the AR-view on certain issues.

 

The problem is, they claim to represent AR while simultaneously tying AR in with their own tactics (i.e., inferring that the movement in general would condone their tactics that many people find offensive). It's like if Rush Limbaugh were to say he's the face of the Republican Party - just becuase he's loud and opinionated doesn't mean that he's the face of the party. Same goes for PETA - they're loud and in-your-face, but they tie in too much that doesn't mesh completely with AR (we could talk about the sexism that permeates the bulk of their campaigns as well, if need be), which means that they've taken AR and made it into something completely different, saying that the movement finds it acceptable to parade naked women around for publicity (where many AR folk do not agree with this), that we can offend people of color or others who have endured terrible human tragedies to get the AR message out, that it's somehow furthering the movement by trying to get the Green Bay Packers to change the name of their football team because it makes reference to meat packing. None of these things are relevant to helping the animals, but yet they're what PETA's known for just as much as anything.

 

I've met my share of people who have said "You vegans are a bunch of misanthropes. Look at those PETA campaigns. That's what makes me hate vegans - you talk about caring for the animals, but you rarely care about other people." One person I spoke with (who is vegan, mind you), who is Jewish, said that PETA's campaigns comparing the holocaust is about the most off-the-mark and blatantly offensive thing to put out to someone whose family had to endure that terrible tragedy (as his did). Does he want PETA being the face of the movement for AR when they aren't purely using AR fundamentals to promote the cause but instead, will use anything to get face time regardless of how offensive it may be to people? You have to remember, it isn't just offensive in making people say "Oh, look how terrible slaughterhouses really are", but that some of their campaigns are seen as trivializing to human suffering from those who endured it first-hand. Of course, the mission is to not differentiate between human and animal suffering, I just think that PETA hasn't yet found their calling in how to do this without being offensive by using one groups' plight to further their PR agenda.

 

Again, this is just my opinion, but it is shared by many in the AR community. You can love PETA, you can hate them (and, for the record, I don't hate them, I just think they're misguided), but I do NOT believe that they're the ideal spokesperson for animal rights based on their tactics and image that often backfires on the movement's overall mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HERE lies the problem. We have MANY groups devoted to animal rights in the strictest sense, who work tirelessly for the cause, and the vast majority of vegans don't know about them. These groups don't have the budget to pull stunts for media attention, send out mailers, put advertisements all over the place; they actually spend the bulk of their funds on operations to combat animal cruelty and can't afford to publicize themselves without cutting into funds necessary for something that will directly benefit the animals. They depend on our generosity to continue to do their work, and in turn, they're overlooked because the loudest voice gets the money and the credit. Mercy for Animals and Compassion Over Killing have been doing incredible work for a long time via their campaigns, undercover investigations, promotions of a vegan lifestyle, and yet they're still shrouded in obscurity. That's what really makes me sad. There's so many more groups out there who have accomplished a LOT, but could do more if we gave them the same support that the big one gets.

 

PETA started out small too, and got bigger.

 

The problem is, they claim to represent AR while simultaneously tying AR in with their own tactics (i.e., inferring that the movement in general would condone their tactics that many people find offensive). It's like if Rush Limbaugh were to say he's the face of the Republican Party - just becuase he's loud and opinionated doesn't mean that he's the face of the party. Same goes for PETA - they're loud and in-your-face, but they tie in too much that doesn't mesh completely with AR (we could talk about the sexism that permeates the bulk of their campaigns as well, if need be),

 

What sexism? You mean having women go naked rather than wear fur?

 

which means that they've taken AR and made it into something completely different, saying that the movement finds it acceptable to parade naked women around for publicity (where many AR folk do not agree with this),

 

They don't claim to represent everyone. By the way, they parade naked men around too. Personally I don't object to people wanting to show themselves naked, especially for a good cause. The human form isn't offensive to me. I don't see why it should be. Yet it's become socially unacceptable to show certain parts of ourselves, both physically and emotionally.

 

that we can offend people of color or others who have endured terrible human tragedies to get the AR message out,

 

It's not designed to offend. It's designed to reveal. Having something to compare it to helps people to understand the true horrible nature of factory farms in a way that they might not be able to without that reference point. Look at the photos; they are exactly the same. A holocaust is a holocaust. People need to stop living in the past and focus on the terrible things that are happening in our world RIGHT NOW.

 

that it's somehow furthering the movement by trying to get the Green Bay Packers to change the name of their football team because it makes reference to meat packing. None of these things are relevant to helping the animals, but yet they're what PETA's known for just as much as anything.

 

These aren't what PETA is "known for." These are obscure campaigns that you've selected out of hundreds. And it's these little stunts that bring them so much attention.

 

I've met my share of people who have said "You vegans are a bunch of misanthropes. Look at those PETA campaigns. That's what makes me hate vegans - you talk about caring for the animals, but you rarely care about other people." One person I spoke with (who is vegan, mind you), who is Jewish, said that PETA's campaigns comparing the holocaust is about the most off-the-mark and blatantly offensive thing to put out to someone whose family had to endure that terrible tragedy (as his did).

 

What about the pig's family, or the cow's family who are suffering the same thing? He needs to (and does, even if he doesn't admit it) realize that he is a HYPOCRITE, supporting the very holocaust he whines so much about even though he never actually even endured it. Just because he's Jewish he deserves sympathy? Forget that the majority of holocaust victims weren't even Jewish (another thread entirely).

 

It's one thing to accuse something of being "blatantly offensive," but it's quite another to explain why, and personally I'm offended that he's so preoccupied with a past injustice while animals are being brutally murdered on a daily basis RIGHT NOW.

 

Does he want PETA being the face of the movement for AR when they aren't purely using AR fundamentals to promote the cause but instead, will use anything to get face time regardless of how offensive it may be to people? You have to remember, it isn't just offensive in making people say "Oh, look how terrible slaughterhouses really are", but that some of their campaigns are seen as trivializing to human suffering from those who endured it first-hand.

 

It's not trivializing it. It's saying, "Look, what happened was so, so horrible... and look how it compares to what's happening now. What's happening now is horrible too."

 

Of course, the mission is to not differentiate between human and animal suffering, I just think that PETA hasn't yet found their calling in how to do this without being offensive by using one groups' plight to further their PR agenda.

 

I like that they aren't afraid to be "offensive." It's easier not to be, but if it weren't for offensive people our social conscious wouldn't progress very much.

 

I think any time people are afraid to talk about an issue for fear that they will offend someone, that's a problem.

 

Again, this is just my opinion, but it is shared by many in the AR community.

 

I don't care if it's shared by 99.99% of the world or just you; it doesn't make it any more or less valuable to me.

 

You can love PETA, you can hate them (and, for the record, I don't hate them, I just think they're misguided), but I do NOT believe that they're the ideal spokesperson for animal rights based on their tactics and image that often backfires on the movement's overall mission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...