In the Animal Right's Forum... there was a post regarding an article about PeTA / Ingrid Newkirk in the New Yorker, from CatMorisson's perspective.

and I quote

Ok here is a biased summary:

The most recent issue of the New Yorker magazine includes a 14-page essay on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) President and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. It is entitled "The Extremist: The Woman Behind the Most Successful Radical Group in America." Perhaps the article should instead have been titled "The Nutcase." It reveals Newkirk as simply, incredibly bizarre.

Newkirk on violence
"[People] need to understand that if they support the torture and misuse of other animals they will be made to pay. The animals are defenseless. They can't fight back. But we can. And, no matter what it takes, we always will."

Newkirk on former employees calling PETA "the cult of Newkirk"
"If you put the cult stuff in [your article] nobody will take what we do seriously."

Newkirk on the press
"We are complete press sluts."

Newkirk on being a press slut
"That Reuters reporter was so thrilled when I told him my position on hoof-and-mouth disease. Don't you need something like that [i.e., an outrageous quote for your article] too?"

Newkirk on what she strives to be
"The biggest nag on earth."

Newkirk's last will and testament
"That the meat of my body, or a portion thereof, be used for a human barbeque...my skin, or a portion thereof, be removed and made into leather products...my feet be removed and umbrella strands or other ornamentation be made from them...my eyes be removed, mounted and delivered to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency..."

Newkirk on Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Sanders
"Why not find out when his birthday is, call the newspapers, and go dance on his grave?"

Newkirk on drooling
"People drool when they look at [Pamela Anderson, who poses for PETA ads]. Why wouldn't we use that? We need all the drooling we can get."

Newkirk on her divine mandate
"I am just trying to make the best case for animals. That is clearly what I was put on this earth to do. Even after I am gone, I will try to continue."

Newkirk on having children
"I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity."

A few of the author's observations are also worth recounting.

On PETA's press strategy
"PETA's publicity formula -- eighty percent outrage, ten percent each of celebrity and truth."

On Newkirk's view of Seeing Eye dogs
"She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use."

On Newkirk dreaming
"Ingrid Newkirk told me once, with genuine conviction, that McDonald's -- which feeds hamburgers and chicken nuggets to twenty million people a day in the United State alone -- would stop serving meat in her lifetime."

On attacking Seinfeld's Jason Alexander for appearing in KFC commercials
"Then PETA's Dan Matthews spoke up again. 'Do you know that fat little guy from Seinfeld? He has become the main pitchman for KFC, Jason Alexander. And beginning in May he is going to star in the West Coast production of 'The Producers.' It's made for us. We can be slamming him as the play opens. If we do this properly, he will wish he never saw a chicken."

On mad cow disease
"Next on the agenda: the case of Charlton Heston. Heston has fallen ill with Alzheimer's, a disease with symptoms that can resemble those of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or CJD, the human form of mad-cow disease. Deer have a chronic wasting syndrome similar to that found in cattle, and, tenuous though it is, the link presents PETA with an opportunity to, as Newkirk put it, 'toy with the idea that both Alzheimer's and CJD are related to meat consumption.'" (The Center for Consumer Freedom wrote a white paper on activists raising unwarranted fears about mad cow disease.)

On PETA supporting violence
"Its leaders wholeheartedly defend and encourage guerilla groups like the Animal Liberation Front. In fact, Bruce Friedrich, one of PETA's most prominent leaders, says in a speech readily available on the Internet [CCF caught and recorded Friedrich saying this at a 2001 convention] 'I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow.'"

On PETA's success
"PETA is by far the most successful radical organization in America, raising more than fifteen million dollars a year, most of it in small contributions from its seven hundred and fifty thousand members and supporters. Newkirk believes in spending as much of that as she can."

On Newkirk's extremism
"She told me, in the most unequivocal terms, that the world would be an infinitely better place without humans in it at all."

It boggles my mind that people will listen to the philosophies of such an obvious lunatic as Ingrid Newkirk. Almost singlehandedly, PeTA is responsible for the fact so many people associate AR and veg* with extremism and write the whole group off as AR whackos.

What started off as perhaps an organization with good intent is now pretty much a farce.

ETA: Let the flaming being :)

LOL Robert,
Well I was thinking that if Ingrid felt so strongly about the absence of humans, being good for the earth, why doesn't she lead by example?

I found some of her answers very telling, esp the one about

eighty percent outrage, ten percent each of celebrity and truth."

Which is consistent, I think, although 10% might be a bit generous..:eek:

quote:
It boggles my mind that people will listen to the philosophies of such an obvious lunatic as Ingrid Newkirk.

how is she a lunatic??
everything makes sense except the seeing eye dog thing
although seeing i dogs at my work seem pretty lonely all day

Fuzzpuddle... really.. do you honestly think this woman is really playing with a full deck?

This part alone makes me wonder about her:

Newkirk on having children
"I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity."

I guess she must be on some other planet then. How many children are you aware of that are not "purebred" humans?

none that i am aware of arent purebred humans
that part doesnt make sense (must have missed that line)
but i am against childbirth
this planet is overpopulated
if people cared the would stop breeding!!

the people that should realize this the most are vegetarians and especially vegans
harm ye none
well havin a child is harming everything and continuing our current human disease of the earth

did you know that more species have become extinct in the last 400 years (mainly from people taking land, and taking over) than in the known history of the world??



current worlds population is 6,284,455,375

Number of children who starve to death every day: 38,000

Current rate of species extinction, largely due to the destruction of tropical rainforests and related habitats: one every 60 minutes



When a spot on a person's skin changes color, becomes tough or rough and elevated or ulcerated, bleeds, scales, scabs over and fails to heal, it's time to consult a doctor. For these are early signs of skin cancer.

As seen by astronauts and photographed from space by satellites, millions of manmade patterns on the land surface of Earth resemble nothing so much as the skin conditions of cancer patients. The transformation of the natural contours of the land into the geometric patterns of farm fields, the straightening of meandering rivers into canal-like channels, and the logging of forests into checkerboard clearcuts all have their counterparts in the loss of normal skin markings in cancer victims. Green forests logged into brown scrub and overgrazed grasslands bleached into white wasteland are among the changes in Earth's color. Highways, streets, parking lots and other paved surfaces have toughened Earth's surface, while cities have roughened it. Slag heaps and garbage dumps can be compared to raised skin lesions. Open-pit mines, quarries and bomb craters, including the 30 million left by US forces in Indochina, resemble skin ulcerations. Saline seeps in inappropriately irrigated farm fields look like scaly, festering sores. Signs of bleeding include the discharge of human sewage, factory effluents and acid mine drainage into adjacent waterways, and the erosion of topsoil from deforested hillsides to turn rivers, lakes and coastal waters yellow, brown and red. The red ring around much of Madagascar that is visible from space strikes some observers as a symptom that the island is bleeding to death



so we take over

how is she a lunatic??

Well she does say that french kissing your dog, may be okay and she does believe in BSL...
She has made other statements that are beyond belief:

"the New York Times ran an article in its arts section about the controversy that erupted after Peter Singer's review of Midas Dekkers' book, Dearest Pet: On Bestiality. It looked like this controversy was dead, but buried in the article is a bizarre quote from none other than People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' Ingrid Newkirk. I have no idea of what to make of this,


If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong.

Apparently, PETA's position on pets is that we should let domesticated animals die out, but if you have to keep a pet, French kissing it might not be all that bad. "



:confused:

Fuzzpuddle: so, essentially, you are saying that its okay for animals to breed and thrive... but humans should stop reproducing. Is this right?

Although I recognize how she can be thought of as extreme, I understand where her statements come from. Perhaps her biggest sin is being too honest and following her beliefs through consistantly to the logical conclusion. I see nothing crazy or lunatic about that. However, this is not good politics for a large advocacy group that is the only voice of AR for the public at large.

Groups need to market themselves and ideas wisely. She undoes whatever her PR people may do for her and her group. I do think that some of the things (if not many) are indicative that she may just love attention. Her ads may result in short term gain of getting attention to the issues, but have the long term negative effect of turning people away from AR. I was one of those people who postponed my vegetarianism and study of AR because I thought, oh, well PETA is AR and PETA is crazy.

Furthermore, it is more difficult to publically support AR because people assume you are for PETA. I wonder where that idea that AR people care more about animals than humans? HMM, that they take pot shots at people with serious diseases and try to twist it around to support AR? (Guiliani and Heston) When they did that "Got Prostate cancer?" and put Guiliani's picture up there, I am sorry, but I could not support them any more. Or their support of violence.

Yes, they have done a lot, especially in getting activism off the ground in the early days. We should all be grateful for that. but I also think that groups that look more long term in earning the publics respect will do more over time to "normalize" AR and veganism (Think the tortoise and the hare.) Sure, their antics get new members, but how long do they stay? I joined once, but then I saw all the disrespectful things they were doing and gave my money to Vegan Outreach and Farm Sanctuary instead.

I think PETA does play a vital role in AR. I appreciate the help they have given. But I would really appreciate it if they fine tuned some of the things they do. Attention getting is fine, just do it in a respectful way. And having an extreme viewpoint is fine for Newkirk, but why does she say so many things she knows will be taken out of context and used against all of AR? She is shooting us all the foot.

With being the most widely recognized AR group in the world comes a responsibility. She is speaking for AR supporters everywhere even if we don't like it, bc the public makes that association btween Newkirk and the rest of us, even just simple nonAR vegans, get associated with her. I want our views respected, not so easily ridiculed and tossed to the side.

(From what I read) I agree with Ingrid...and I think a lot of soon to be slaughtered animals would agree with her too. And just because she thinks the earth would be a better place without humans does not relieve her of her instinctual desire for survival, catmorrison. Maybe she should have said "humans as they presently live"?

I used to think people were the ultimate animal and necessary for deep meaning on the earth, so they were sort of worth the trouble that they caused, then I watched a mother & baby manatee in the rainforest eating lettuces together and it occurred to me how happy they were and how they were completely living in the moment...two things few humans ever manage to do.

I think Peta serves an important purpose. I think that they change a lot of people's minds about what is okay, about what is violent.

Thalia... ok.. you said what I was trying to say... just you're a heck of a lot nicer about it. But the point is... I was one of those people who automatically discounted the AR movement as a bunch of radical extremists based solely on what PeTA did. I thought ALL AR's were complete whack-jobs.

This board and places like VO changed that attitude in me and started my interest in Veg*. PeTA had zero part in that... all they did was make me and many others, think they are nuts.

ETA: Mushroom,... PeTA advocates violence.

Originally posted by Robert
Fuzzpuddle: so, essentially, you are saying that its okay for animals to breed and thrive... but humans should stop reproducing. Is this right?

sort of
at least compared to the way it is
animals do not make pollution
or slavery
or war

if there were small nomadic tribes (preferably hunter gatherer) around thwe world that would be more acceptable in my mind

sort of how it was around the world before rome and england and white male dominance

Thalia said:

I joined once, but then I saw all the disrespectful things they were doing and gave my money to Vegan Outreach and Farm Sanctuary instead.

Sadly, enough, I joined once too, until I discovered all their deliberate lies and distortions. After feeling quite betrayed and after doing alot of research about them, I am now probably one of their biggest bashers!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As well as their support for the ALF, SHAC and others..that was the clincher for me

I agree with alot of what you said, thanks:D

Originally posted by Robert
Fuzzpuddle: so, essentially, you are saying that its okay for animals to breed and thrive... but humans should stop reproducing. Is this right? I interpret her non child bearing statement to mean that wanting to reproduce ourselves, make replicas of ourselves is an act of vanity. I can see that. I don't think that makes it wrong. But we do put a strong emphasis on raising children that are biologically related over raising kids who already exist and don't have parents. I don't see any of this as wrong, just a natural part of human nature. However, to not have kids and instead only adopt is a noble thing.

PETA website (made) helped me go from vegetarian for seven years to vegan, along w/ a new responsibility of caring for some rescued fuzzies and a few vegs i spoke to around seattle and rainbow gatherings

but the PETA site info was very informative
even if it was oversensationalized a bit

(AND MORE RECENTLY THE VEG BURGER FROM bk ADD)

I FEEL ADOPTION SHOULD BE THE ONLY OPTION

FOR HUMANS AND HUMANS ANIMAL COMPANIONS

Robert, I have never read anything on the peta site that condones violence to benefit animals (and admittedly I don't know tuns about peta) yet, what I have seen - vivid pictures of animal slaughter and torture, I have no problem with. I think that they wake people up.
I have 5 children, yet I agree with fuzzpuddle to a certain degree.
I think humans should be given incentives to have 1-child only - special perks for only children and the same to those who have no children, but I do not think a law is necessary (yet).

Adoption is fine. But if I want to have a kid, I will. It's that simple. It's not my fault, nor my problem, if some people don't use a condom.

The bulk of the world's population (and subsequently the starvation) is in Africa and Asia. Tell me why I should not have a kid because people in another country AND continent keep reproducing. Sorry if that sounds harsh. My kids will not starve. If I could not feed, house and clothe my family, I'd have sense enough to not have kids.

Mushroom, PeTA supports the ALF and other extremist groups. Some of these groups abdicate "liberation at all costs" that include arson, vandalism, etc.

I agree with Ingrid...and I think a lot of soon to be slaughtered animals would agree with her too.

Not that it's relevant, IMHO, but how would a soon to be slaughtered animal agree or disagree?
IOW, they don't have the ability to *reason*, IMHO, as you suggest.

I used to think people were the ultimate animal and necessary for deep meaning on the earth, so they were sort of worth the trouble that they caused

Why do you choose to focus on the *trouble* but seem to ignore the good? I can see both.
;) :confused:



I think Peta serves an important purpose. I think that they change a lot of people's minds about what is okay, about what is violent

Well since Peta supports the violence of humans to humans, they can't really claim they that they care as much about humans, as animals, can they? The fact that they claim to do it on behalf of the animals, doesn't change the fact that they support violence...
should violence to both humans and non-human animals, be treated equally, or just the violence (however that is defined) done to non-human animals?:confused:

It just seems to me that Ingrid has deep disdain for humans...she has demonstrated that repeatedly.

I have 5 children, yet I agree with fuzzpuddle to a certain degree.

I think humans should be given incentives to have 1-child only - special perks for only children and the same to those who have no children, but I do not think a law is necessary (yet).

Why would you hold others to a standard, that you, personally, did not adhere to?
Just curious, as it doesn't make sense to me:confused: :confused:

Special perks????
Seems that the people who choose, to have no children by their OWN choice, would be subsidizing those who wish to profit from it:confused:

catmorrison, I had three of my children by the time I was 25 and I was still mentally a child in many ways. I didn't see the world the way that I do now. When I was 31, I wanted to have a baby. I realized that was a selfish decision...but, by then I was a veg and I justified it by knowing that he or she would be one as well (less of a burden on the earth etc.) The last child was not planned and I was not willing to have an abortion. (Though I am pro-choice)

Although, if I had it to do over, I would not choose to have 5 children, I would not want to take away the choice of someone to now have 5 (or more) children. I think it is admirable to have 1 or less children, but I wouldn't want it to be law.

I said that those having no children should receive the same perks/incentives as those opting to have just 1 child...so the ones to pay for it, would be those with many children, like me.
And that is fine with me.

As far as peta supporting violence, the groups who use it are using the same ends justifies the means argument that say, animal experimenters use. I think it's hypocritical.

I think Newkirk does for animal rights what Jerry Fallwell does for Christianity or Rush Limbaugh does for conservatism. It may hook people in or draw attention, but it doesn't earn respect for their causes, but loses it. Actually, it may be worse. If you are Christian, people don't automatically assume you support Jerry Falwell or Operation Rescue (who used to support violence in the name of pro-life back in the 80's and 90's).

But I am glad for the people PETA has converted. That I am. I also use their web site for links to current issues and who to write, and other reference materials.

what is meant by:
Well since Peta supports the violence of humans to humans
??

Peta has contributed directly to defense funds of those who have aimed acts of violence, at humans...specifically ALF and SHAC members..
Ingrid and other spokespeople for Peta have openly voiced support for violent acts against humans, in the name of animals.
IF you go to SPLC..which is an org who keeps an eye on hate groups, you will see that Peta is on their list....
not surprisingly, however:rolleyes:

please.