PeTA Hypocrisy

Skeptico points out an awesome bit of hypocrisy from PeTA spokesloon and founder Ingrid Newkirk. Apparently she recently broke her wrist, and was very thankful for the IV drips and painkillers. Yip, those would be the same medical tools and drugs tested on animals. And this would be the same PeTA that urges its followers to eschew any form of medical assistance that was a result of animal testing, including hypothetical AIDS cures.

I would say I was surprised at Ingrid, but really I’m not.

17 Responses to “PeTA Hypocrisy”

  1. However hypocritical the people in the proanimal movement are it doesn’t invalidate the real need for reform in the way animals are treated. Checkout this video to see what I mean: http://meat.org

  2. shake, i’m sorry to say but you’ve fallen for a nice bit of PeTA propoganda right there. Videos like the one at meat.org, and the classic ‘Bea Arthur KFC’ video, are nothing more than marketing pieces for PeTA, cleverly filmed and filled with half truths. Sure, if I went and filmed in third world countries, or took footage from 30 years ago and pretended it was recent, I could also make you think the meat industry was torturing animals for our food.

    The real truth is that PeTA uses strawman arguments to convince you that the entire meat industry is represented by the worst farm they can find. Yes, there are farms and abatoirs out there that are sloppy and cruel, but getting people to go vegetarian and release their pets into the wild is not the solution. The real potential for impact lies with the meat industry, and the big name companies that buy the meat. KFC for example completely shut off one supplier when it was discovered that their chicken farms operated below KFC’s very high standard for animal treatment, and have never used that supplier since. That supplier lost a hell of a lot of money, and that is how you communicate with these people – where it hurts. The fact is, the meat industry has its own checks and balances, and making blurry videos of farms that are operating outside of that industry is just plain dishonest.

    If you really want to help fight cruelty to animals, contact your local meat industry or meat farmers association and ask them how you can help them to enforce their guidelines in your country.

  3. If PETA doesn’t stand up for animal rights who will?

    You?

    Oh, I see, animals have no rights, except the right the right to be slaughtered on a massive scale having lived in horrendous conditions according to ‘official guidelines’?
    Perhaps you should actually go spend a day at an abatoir moonflake, go visit rainbow chicken and then come back and tell me how humane they are.
    Go learn about compassion.
    The meat industry has it’s own checks and balances? The meat industry has only one concern: profit… that is it. I’m afraid I just don’t believe your KFC story, back it up? http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/

    I also found this peta related blog post, which indirectly relates:

    http://joelus.blogspot.com/

  4. George: how about you go visit http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ and then come back and tell me exactly how it is that PeTA is standing up for animal rights?

    PeTA, ALF and the like are some of the worst criminals against animals. Animal rights is a noble cause, but the sooner you realise PeTA isn’t interested in animal rights, the sooner you might actually find a cause that is.

  5. hmmm ok….
    You send me to a site run by the “Center for Consumer Freedom”?
    The same Center for Consumer Freedom which was set up by Richard Berman with a $600,000 “donation” from tobacco company Philip Morris. A front basically for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. They would tell you smoking doesn’t cause cancer if they could get away with it. They run media campaigns against any scientist, doctor, health advocate or environmentalist who get in the way of their members PROFIT. Against groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving! I suppose you support http://www.obesitymyths.com/ too, run by the same company…

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

    The blog link I gave you in my first post deals with the PETA kills animals debate…

    Thing is I’m not saying I necessarily support PETA, I don’t honestly know if I do, but I do support what they stand for. Animal rights. I don’t think the tactics they use are always good, sometimes they hinder the cause they fight for, rather than helping it, by alienating people, like you, who probably actually do care about animals…

  6. I’d rather quote true statements from an organization of questionable agenda than lies from organizations with an equally questionable agenda. The problem with PeTA is that they don’t stand for animal rights at all, which means you and me and anyone else who actually dislikes torture need to speak out against them. If you want to do something, I’m sure there are lots of animal rights organizations that are honest, and a lot of them don’t like PeTA or ALF either.

    The thing is, i want to find a way to continue to do things like have pets and eat meat and cure cancer while still making sure that the animals involved only experience the minimum of suffering required. In reality, the way to do that is to work with the meat industry and the doctors and the animal shelters, not against them.

    For example, Rainbow chickens comply with the South African Poultry Association animal welfare Code of Practice, created with the help of the SPCA, and they are subject to random and frequent audit by the SPCA. If you have personally witnessed behaviour or treatment on Rainbow Chicken farms which does not comply with these guidelines, please contact the SAPA or the SPCA. That’s how you get results. Not by randomly posting links to anti-farming propoganda sites all over the internet.

  7. I like PeTA. They let us do fun adds where we abuse animals, and get celebrities to take their clothes off.

    Oh, you mean they stand for something? Really?

  8. Dean Richards Says:

    “I’d rather quote true statements from an organization of questionable agenda than lies from organizations with an equally questionable agenda.”

    That’s funny. :-)

  9. PeTA may be for the animal rights but that doesn’t mean they are for the animal welfare – I think alot of people get confused between the two, they are very different. SPCA is for animal welface and do not campaign for the rights of animal.

    It’s a great idea to fight for a cause but why not look at the reason for the cause and do something about that. Yeah, people are cruel to animals but has anyone every taught them how to look after the animals in the first place?

  10. residentRSole Says:

    I’m just waiting the day that we can grow pieces of an animal, rather than the animal, for consumption. Imagine a cubic metre of meat in a vat with the equivalent of an umbelical cord getting bigger and bigger everyday. Not visually appealing but not cruel either.

    Even better, once cloning becomes common place, I am going to clone my leg, roast it and serve it to guests. I am sure that I am not the first person to conceive of these ideas – which is a good thing. Hopefully it will become the zeitgeist very soon. And it will make some great Sci-Fi as well. This is truly the Golden Age.

  11. residentRSole: have you ever read Oryx and Crake by Margret Atwood? It’s awesome.

  12. residentRsole Says:

    nantalith: I have not read that book but I did read the synopsis. I find it disappointing that sci-fi too often depicts genetic research and the resulting bio-technology in a negative light. Although the film G A T T A C A tries to present a Dystopian world, I view it as a utopia. I am a big believer in designer babies, eugenics and technology based on genetics. Basically, I have pretty much the same views that James Watson has. I know that this outlook will annoy many people but I find their arguments to be irrational. Oh well, I probably just started a shit-storm. :-(

  13. residentRSole: negative light… hmm… I think that is so the general public will be scared of it. I’m indifferent to designer babies but I do think people need to be screened before they are allowed to breed. And I think people have WAY too many rights. Don’t get me wrong – you do need some; I just think that everyone having equal rights regardless is incorrect.

  14. residentRsole Says:

    nantalith: I am delighted to meet another person who thinks more or less the same on this issue. I do take it a little further than most people but I am just glad that you believe in screening people before allowing them to breed.

  15. nantalith, that logo you have looks like child cruelty to me, where did you get it?

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: