The Truth About PETA? What Are Your Thoughts?

[Alpha1]

One man speaks out against PETA. I often wondered with many organizations like this if there donations really go to helping the animals. I'm sure they help some, but they seem to be too extreme from reports I've heard over the years. What are your thoughts on PETA? http://www.boredpanda.com/guy-sums-up-peta-twitter-calum-mcswiggan/

After recent investigations, PETA has come under fire for a lot more than just the scantily clad women they use for marketing. In a March 2017 press release, the Center for Consumer Freedom revealed that PETA euthanized more than 1400 cats and dogs at its Norfolk, Virginia shelter in 2016.

PETA defends their actions as ethically and economically necessary, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that their attention-grabbing media presence may be more important to them than the lives of animals.

McSwiggan’s thread, which has now attracted over 6 thousand respective likes and shares, is both shocking and resounding with Twitter users, most of whom had never dared to question PETA before.

[linda2147]

I've never heard anything good about peta, all I hear is how they'll go to places for animals looking for homes, promising they have homes all lined up for them then killing them before they are out of the driveway. I wouldn't donate one cent to them. They are a bunch of fanatics, they don't think dogs and cats should be kept "prisoners" in homes, should not be spayed and neutered because its not natural, don't want people drinking milk or eating any dairy products because its cruel to keep the cows pregnant to get milk. Don't even get me started on them.

[Alpha1]

I kind of feel the same way Linda. I admit I never followed all they do that closely, but they do seem to be extreme fanatics and I have donated to other animal organizations in the past but like you, wouldn't give a cent to PETA.

[linda2147]

there was an article a year or so ago about some peta people had gone to a vet's office that had a litter of kittens that needed homes. These peta people went and got the kittens saying they had good homes lined up for them, got them in their car and euthanized them right there and threw them in the dumpster.

[linda2147]

Dogs and Cats killed by PETA

Year	Received†	Transferred	Adopted		Killed
2016	1,963	478	57	2.9%	1,411	71.9%
2015	1,974	446	60	3.04%	1,456	73.76%
2014	2,631	252	39	1.48%	2,324	88.3%
2013	2,175	311	46	2.1%	1,792	82.4%
2012	1,843	130	19	1.03%	1,647	89.4%
2011	1,992	34	24	1.21%	1,911	95.9%
2010	2,345	63	44	1.86%	2,200	93.8%
2009	2,366	31	8	0.34%	2,301	97.3%
2008	2,216	34	7	0.32%	2,124	95.8%
2007	1,997	35	17	0.85%	1,815	90.9%
2006	3,061	46	12	0.39%	2,981	97.4%
2005	2,165	69	146	6.74%	1,946	89.9%
2004	2,655	1	361	13.6%	2,278	85.8%
2003	2,224	1	312	14.03%	1,911	85.9%
2002	2,680	2	382	14.25%	2,298	85.7%
2001	2,685	14	703	26.18%	1,944	72.4%
2000	2,681	28	624	23.27%	2,029	75.7%
1999	1,805	91	386	21.39%	1,328	73.6%
1998*	943	125	133	14.10%	685	72.6%
Total	42,401	2,191	3,380	8.21%	36,381	85.8%

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† Other than spay/neuter animals
» Skeptical? Click here to see the proof.

[linda2147]

anyone with any doubts about peta can read this article, only one of many

https://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/

[Dog Force One]

As an ex-vegan (one full year, around 2003) who learned the hard way (I got very sick and still pay a price today), I am doubly wary of any choice that smells like absolutism. Most decent people do not wish to make animals suffer or stand by and do nothing when they suffer. Maybe one day we can live in a perfect world where animals do not suffer because of us. But the world is complicated. Life is complicated. Right now all we can do is push here, push there, do what each of us can. But when people get obsessed that an idea is absolutely true under all circumstances, they can quickly turn crazy, dangerous, and themselves destructive to the original cause. Veganism and animal rights activism can easily go too far and turn into true brainwashing, like in a cult, with everything that goes with that. Personally I will not engage vegans or PETA types at all now. It is completely useless and dangerous, like trying to have a conversation with Moonie recruiters who are inviting you to spend the weekend at their Happy Farm in the countryside. I will not talk with them. I will not respond to their brainwashing questions.

[Alpha1]

Veganism and animal rights activism can easily go too far and turn into true brainwashing, like in a cult, with everything that goes with that. Personally I will not engage vegans or PETA types at all now. It is completely useless and dangerous, like trying to have a conversation with Moonie recruiters who are inviting you to spend the weekend at their Happy Farm in the countryside. I will not talk with them. I will not respond to their brainwashing questions.

Well said Dog Force.

[CatMom1994]

there was an article a year or so ago about some peta people had gone to a vet's office that had a litter of kittens that needed homes. These PETA people went and got the kittens saying they had good homes lined up for them, got them in their car and euthanized them right there and threw them in the dumpster.

I can't believe an organization that calls itself People for ETHICAL Treatment of Animals would do such a thing. That is the exact opposite of "ethical treatment of animals" by anyone's definition.

[CatMom1994]

Ugh, I hate it when the only way to comment on websites is use a social media account like Facebook or Twitter. I have a lot to say about PETA but have no interest in using such websites.

Someone explain to me how it is possible for an organization to claim it exists to help animals and does the exact opposite. All of those people know helping animals means saving lives, not ending them.

[Cat001]

PETA is the biggest face of the Animal Rights agenda, a philosophy I personally do not agree with. Animal Rights is a flawed ethic and most who claim to be an Animal Rights supporter, under closer inspection are actually Welfarists who do not fully understand the ethos of Animal Rights.


On the surface it doesn’t sound so bad, they hold the belief that humans and animals are both equally subjects of moral concern and that humans do not posses a greater importance than animals as one animal is not more important than another. Fair enough but what does this mean? They believe that animals should be granted the same rights as humans in order to gain this status of equality.


Humans are afforded certain legal rights which allow for the protection of an individuals basic interests. This requires understanding of such rights to know when one is entitled to compensation, if ones rights are violated and to recognise that interference with another’s rights leaves the individual liable to punishment. Animals cannot be afforded the same rights as humans because animals cannot justly make claims to such rights nor understand the rights they may be given, nor recognise the rights of other animals. However, their life and well-being can be made secure by laws that confer on them certain moral rights such as the right to subsistence, i.e. sufficient food and shelter and other rights to physical necessities of biological survival. Animals are outside the community of rights, but it is still recognised that we have duties towards them.

Animal Welfarism deems any sentient animal to be worthy of moral consideration, that is animals with the capacity to suffer or creatures that have a perspective or point of view of its own. The ‘Five Freedom’ under the Animal Welfare Act legally obligates individuals to care for animals and protect them from undue stress or suffering. This is the Welfarist approach.

Animal Rightists assume what an animals interests are but this can never be known as we cannot communicate with them. Animal Rights is more about imposing a theology than doing what is actually best for the animal. The interests of the animal is not assessed, it's all about fulfilling the interest of the human, for this reason I view animal rights as wholesomely selfish. PETA believe that death is preferred over "slavery" as they view pet animals equal to slaves, this view is, however, ridiculous and distorted. I also very much dislike PETA's tactics to advertise. A lot of what they do and what they facilitate is in my view morally wrong.

Animal Rights tactics focus on the outcome of an action rather than how that outcome is achieved. The moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to the agenda, whereas Welfarism strives to achieve the desired ends by reasonable means. I do not agree with manipulating emotion or persuasion with threat in order to gain attention and recruitment towards the cause. (Radical Flank Effect caused by extreme opinions or actions expressed by movement; effect can increase awareness along with extremism with added negative connotations i.e. scare people away).

The use of threat or intimidation is terrorist tactics and I do not agree with the deployment of such tactics as is common methodology with AR protests, which is partly why I do not agree with the AR movement in general. I am of the opinion that it is not morally justifiable to shock or otherwise threaten people into conforming to your ideology.

As animals are viewed to all be of equal concern they do not tolerate prioritisation of conservation and have been a problem for environmentalists and conservationists. For example, the Universities Federation for Animal Rights delayed the eradication of rabbits on Round Island in 1976 for several years, viewing the culling of the rabbits as unjustifiable. However, there is no way to satisfy the needs of both endemic and invasive species simultaneously. If the native species were to survive the invasive threat must be removed. As the invasive species were responsible for the destruction of endemic plant life creating competition for resources and diminishing numbers of already rare animals and plants, humane culling was the only real viable option to aid the survival of the endemic species.

Animal Rights started as a misquotation when Jeremy Bentham described animals as being equal to each other, he did not say they were equal to humans as it is recognised that there is an issue with affording legal rights to animals, despite this animals are still subjects of moral concern.


Animal Rights assume the wants of animals, they assume animals would prefer life without human intervention although this cannot be know as we cannot communicate with them. Animal welfare makes no such assumption and judges appropriate actions towards animals based on known needs and requirements of that animal.