Vegetarians/vegans...love or hate PETA?

vegan and neither love nor hate, but very much dislike. I hope they will abandon some of there more pathetic aspects sch as the ubiquitous use of nudity to sell completely unrelated messages, the use of people for campaigns who should be targets of others (eg dita von teese) and of course killing all those unwanted pets.

Not sure how long you've been on the scene, but back in 2004/5 whenever when they got caught illegally dumping euthanised animal carcasses they chose to address this by publishing a four page spread on why no-kill shelters were the worst thing in the world in their members magazine. So basically since many of their members only get info from peta they would have been thinking no-kill shelters are terrible when in fact they should be the standard. So with that they harmed the cause and it will be hard for me to forgive them for that.

I'm nowhere near as active as I was back then, still get involved in a few campaigns but I never hand out peta leaflets.

I don't hate PETA, I think they try to do good things, but sometimes - ok many times - I think their methods are wrong. We should save animlas and not treat them cruelly, but that doesn't give us permission to be cruel to human beings in the process. I also wonder if they care as much about cruelty to humans, like children who are abused or babies who are aborted every day. But there does need to be some protection for animals, and it's not a perfect world. My main thing I would like to tell rabid peta members is that the end does not justify the means.

PETA is no good. they are trying to control how people eat and take over the human rights. Don't you think Kroger would be a little strange if their were only vegetables? I do. Why should someone try to change how the world revolves. Its sick how they manipulate people that are just as clueless as PETA itself and brainwash them into attacking hunters.

First of all it's retarded for a meateater to be outraged at PETA for exploiting animals. Sounds like someone thinks they're God just cuz they're "fasting"... ;-P

Secondly I don't necessarily like PETA either because of things I've heard, whether they be true or not. Their euthanization of animals on the streets and disapproval of pet ownership unknowing in comparison what kind of life they'd lived otherwise.

I don't know much about PETA. However, the thing to remember about organisations in general, is that they're made up of people. And those people will likely have different opinions on the best way to run the organisation, what actions are the best to take to achieve their aims and indeed, on what exactly their aims are.

You can decide pretty easily that "Hey, I don't want to be a member of the "Whale Hunting Society"

Whereas, PETA would not be as clear cut for you. "I don't agree with everything that is done, but do I agree with enough. And do I feel, that as a member, I will have an opportunity to change how the organisation works?"

I don't "hate" anyone, but I think the group is over-the-top, as well as sexist. I think it's awful to show graphic slaughterhouse images to very young children who aren't equipped to make sense of it. Also they sell naked photos of women to raise money. Just check out their website. Exploitation and objectification much?

Animal rights groups can - and do - make a difference without those sorts of cheap, disrespectful tactics.

I'm vegan.

I whole-heartedly support PETA, but don't "love" them, per se.

Millions of people have turned vegetarian and vegan due to their campaigns.

Laws have been changed, and millions of animals have benefited from public pressure on corporations sparked by their undercover footage insides industries.

That being said, their methods are not mine, either philosophically or pragmatically:

Despite their more radical beginnings, they have become more associated with animal WELFARE than animal RIGHTS, even giving Temple Grandin (a LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY CONSULTANT) an award for working to improve animal conditions. Welfarist philosophies and initiatives only perpetuate animal cruelty and exploitation, since they only serve to make people feel better about using sentient creatures as THINGS, despite the fact that practices denoting welfare standards BETTER than the dismal minimums required by animal protection laws would nevertheless be considered TORTURE if committed against a human being. So long as sentient individual creatures are PROPERTY, they will be subject to cruelty, some of which is truly horrific.

As far as pragmatics, PETA is not nearly radical enough for my taste. I'm a much more passionate supporter of the ALF and other direct-action groups which break the law in order to physically rescue animals being subjected to cruelty and neglect, and to inflict economic damage on the corporations making money from their abuse. Ironically, even PETA is declared "terroristic" in mainstream circles, and even by some ethical vegetarians, despite the fact that their most "radical" shows of activism are usually a bunch of carefully-selected pretty women taking their clothes off, and a few old ladies' fur coats getting ruined. You can imagine, then, how the ALF is perceived- they've been put on the FBI's list of the most dangerous domestic terror groups- it truly shows the ethical paradigm we're living in when "terrorist" is a label applied to those who risk their freedom and lives to rescue animals, harming not one PERSON in the process, as opposed to the profiteers of the torture and deaths of billions of sentient creatures.

I am a vegan in support of PETA. I used to be skeptical of them, but I have actually worked on a few of their legal cases and have seen all their records. While I understand why many people are against them, many are misinformed about the facts of peta and only see what makes the headlines, and we all know only the outrageous gets reported. While some peta campaigns are more controversial than others, its usually the only way to get people to listen. They rely on free advertising and unless you're interesting, no one will give you time, and apparently animal cruelty isnt interesting enough, so they must do more, and it has paid off. Such is the case with their naked campaign. Before that, magazines refused to run their ads. But Peta didnt start the campaign with that in mind. It just began with a few people walking behind a banner that said we'd rather go naked than wear fur. That grabbed headlines and it was actually celebrities who reached out to peta to participate. It may not sit right with some people, but if controversial campaigns are the only way to get people to listen, then I think its worth it (and yes i know other organizations have made progress in animal rights without such methods, but nothing that compares to the amount of progress peta has made, not even close). I know many people think peta was crazy with the paint throwing thing (and they were), but that actually wasnt PETA as an organization acting, it was individual members. However, peta has noted that some of the acts by it and its members were extreme at times and has chosen to change its actions and focus more on education. Notice how this year's fashion week was the fist one in a while where there was no peta protest.

As for euthanization, yes, peta must euthanize animals, as must any shelter that cannot house all the animals they have. However, this is not hypocritical as many people claim. Peta works to stop cruelty to animals, but humane euthanization, while never desired, is sometimes necessary when there is no where to house the animals, which is why peta also runs campaigns for spaying and neutering. And while peta does have some high euthanization rates, sometimes higher than other shelters, this is because they do mass amounts of rescuing, so they deal with more animals. Also, other shelters, many kill shelters in particular, actually sell their animals for use by medical schools. So while they dont report killing the animal, they actually sell it to be tested on over and over again til it dies, often without any anesthetic. It was a Peta campaign that recently got several shelters to stop selling its animals to schools for a painful death, and it was also Peta that got Texas Tech to close its cruel cat lab and NASA to stop using monkeys in ineffective radiation experiments. They are also the ones who got the first ever cruelty conviction of an animal experimenter, the first raid of a farm for cruel conditions and treatment of ducks used for foie gras, has convinced hundreds of companies to stop animal testing and also convinced major fast food chains to improve animal treatment.

Aside from campaigns, the majority of peta's money goes to education, investigation and rescue, including the infiltration of factory farms. without peta's work, most of the world would not know of the horrible conditions and tortue on these farms. some people may not think peta is doing a great job, but they are the single most effective group for gaining rights for animals and preventing cruelty. I support that.

I have a love/hate relationship with PETA. Some of the stuff they do is great, but a lot is just stupid and hypocritical. A lot of the members are kind of crazy too(I am a member of their street team, but that's only because i want free stuff... lol)

I do not *hate* anyone. But I certainly do not like, nor do I support PETA in any way. They give vegans a bad name with their violent messages and have even privately killed many animals. I have seen documented proof of this online. While I do appreciate their message in general and some small things from them, like their helpful website, the bottom line is they are a questionable group. If I were you I would do some extensive online research on them before continuing your support.