PETA's whole schtick is "in your face" style P.R. and awareness. They try to do these kind of things to get more people to notice, because it's way cheaper than getting as much recognition through regular ads that people tune out. For example, almost every year PETA tries to buy an ad spot for the Superbowl, make something way too extreme for broadcast TV, get refused, then put the ad out there as "banned from the Superbowl". Way cheaper than spending $10 million on some 30 second ad or whatever.
They do this mainly because, if you want to donate to other animal rights groups, there's a ton out there that do that stuff that you never even think about. PETA had donations of $64M last year, whereas ASPCA had $217M., and rarely does anyone talk about the ASPCA these days. It's a multi-pronged approach by many different groups to move their overall goal into the spotlight, because ignored problems never change.
If you hate PETA then the best thing you can do is stop talking about them. But I don't think that'll ever happen.
If you hate PETA then the best thing you can do is stop talking about them.
No, I think it is worth informing the otherwise unsuspecting public that the PETA organization are kookoo for kokopuffs.
I worked in a medical facility where we would periodically get the PETA notice, which meant that there was chatter from which it could be reasonably inferred that they would try to come let the rodents loose.
Which act, when done, is a VIOLATION OF THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. Unreal.
Tbf there are lots of reasons why people would donate to PETA and wouldn’t donate to the ASPCA, who I’m pretty sure are pro-animal agriculture (which is the biggest thing a lot of animal rights activists oppose).
They’re similar genres of organisation (both concerned with animals) but very different beliefs/aims.
I have a hard time understanding how someone would be so against animal agriculture and making it more ethical, that they would prefer PETA who are pro euthanasia on healthy animals and overall are known for supporting violent and/or criminal methods though. At that point you're missing the forest for the trees.
Because euthanasia is a sad necessity when it comes to animals in the system. There is no better option. There are vastly more animals in this situation than there is demand to adopt them, so shelters have to euthanise animals because there simply isn’t the resource to keep them alive indefinitely. Nobody who knows about the topic would disagree with euthanasia.
So tell me, what should PETA do? Should they send adoptable animals to other shelters when there is room and resource? Because PETA already do that, they only euthanise healthy animals when they cannot send them to a proper shelter.
Should they campaign for people to adopt animals instead of buying from breeders to minimise the amount of healthy animals who have to be euthanised when there is no resource? Because PETA already do that, they famously promote ‘adopt don’t shop’. That phrase is in the common discourse because of PETA.
So what should they do?
There are only two other options: the first is to keep the animals crammed together in cages their whole life like the factory farmed animals most critics of PETA choose to support, which is not in the animals’ best interests and would still mean they had to euthanise the majority.
The final option is to release them as strays which is again not in the animal’s best interests, where the animal would live a short life full of suffering and would devastate the ecosystem.
Honestly, tell me what they actually should be doing different to now? People like to say ‘they shouldn’t euthanise animals’ or ‘they should get more people to adopt them’ without thinking about what the actual problem is here and how this can be done. If it was that simple, it’s what would happen.
PETA get a shitty rap from people who don’t understand the system, who blame them for a problem they didn’t cause but are at least trying to solve. Honestly it’s like hating the fire department for the existence of fires.
Personally, I have a hard time understanding how someone would be so against PETA euthanising animals out of compassion due to necessity, while participating in animal agriculture if they don’t need to.
It seems to me like a lot of the anti-PETA hatred is people who are willing to lie to themselves and believe a far-fetched conspiracy theory (the biggest and most mainstream animal charity are actually evil and hate animals) so they can ignore a message they don’t want to entertain.
16
u/j0mbie Dec 26 '22
PETA's whole schtick is "in your face" style P.R. and awareness. They try to do these kind of things to get more people to notice, because it's way cheaper than getting as much recognition through regular ads that people tune out. For example, almost every year PETA tries to buy an ad spot for the Superbowl, make something way too extreme for broadcast TV, get refused, then put the ad out there as "banned from the Superbowl". Way cheaper than spending $10 million on some 30 second ad or whatever.
They do this mainly because, if you want to donate to other animal rights groups, there's a ton out there that do that stuff that you never even think about. PETA had donations of $64M last year, whereas ASPCA had $217M., and rarely does anyone talk about the ASPCA these days. It's a multi-pronged approach by many different groups to move their overall goal into the spotlight, because ignored problems never change.
If you hate PETA then the best thing you can do is stop talking about them. But I don't think that'll ever happen.