PETA nihilistic in their strategy?

11300 Views 137 Replies 42 Participants Last post by Thalassa, Apr 22, 2017

IHaveNoNameButV

Discussion Starter · Apr 22, 2006

I've often wondered if by supporting PETA, are vegetarians really just making themselves look bad. Think about it, PETA has a reputation as being an aggressor on par with that of the ACLU. It seems to me that PETA in its self is merely a quandary, which the vegetarian community must deal with. I have had my own doubts in the past couple years whether or not they are to be tolerated or cast aside like the low lives many think they are.

101 - 120 of 138 Posts

catmandu

· #101 · May 17, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiz

So has Ted Bundy. Being well-know can be a minus every bit as much as it can be a plus.

Well, of course, it depends on what one gets known for. Ted Bundy's known for wantonly taking life for pleasure, due to severe psychological disturbance. I suppose that some, dare I say, extremists might advocate the idea that pro-AR organizations & their supporters are "serial killers" by proxy because they would abolish the use of nonhuman animals in medical experiments, which, it's suggested, prevents the discovery of medicines & procedures that could save human lives.

Aside from this being a shaky argument both logically & ethically, I can't see that it leads to anything but a "shut up & sit down" response to AR supporters.

Tame

· #102 · May 17, 2006

Quote:

Maybe, but you do know there are more countries than america, pickup a atlas sometime you'll be surprised. You have only shown one survey, which by the way isn't convincing, it states that " 82% of readers were interested in vegetarianism for health reasons and 75% for ethics, environment or animal rights" it doesn't say they went vegetarian for health. Anyway, how can it be 82% and 75%, there's only 100% not 157%.

Sheesh. Do I have to teach you statistics? Go read the VRG survey (you know, the one conducted by a well known research institution, and is statistically valid?) and get back to me.

If you don't understand how those numbers appear that way, ask rather than sounding foolish.

Quote:

How is it non-scientific, jupiter rising carried it out, may be only 100 respondents but it still gives an idea, no matter how many you survey you'll never get the right numbers, even a survey containing 50 thousand respondents.

Good lord, i do have to teach you statistics.

#1: 100 respondents is not a large enough sample size to give you a reasonable estimate.

#2: It was a survey conducted by someone on a webiste, with no random sample.

#3: If you can't understand 1 and 2, get out of the conversation as you are wasting my time.

Quote:

Um, their sources? You do know that just because someone says something on an animal rights website doesn't make it true, right?

Wait, maybe you don't.

Something stated as an argument with no basis in fact? Nope.

Hey sherlock, can you guess why an animal rights website may make that assumption? Hint: same reason you do.

Quote:

These are the societies I contacted, theres no way I can prove it to you but I did contact them.

The Australian Vegetarian Society (NSW)

Vegetarian & Vegan Society of Queensland

And the source data and documentation they provided is...? I'll wait.

Quote:

You think because you found one survey, that your right, get over yourself.

Actually, if you read carefully, some of the information comes from a couple of surveys over time. Granted, they aren't conducted by some pimply faced teens posting "omgzzzz!!!iii take my survey, k!", but they have been conducted by actual professionals who observe methodology. If you don't understand why that matters, I cannot help you.

Quote:

Why don't you read the previous post again, I never said most, I said more people go veg for animal reasons than health, thank you. Now apologize.

Read it. So far, you have one small survey in the UK which, for the moment, I will stipulate is valid enough to use, along with "website" surveys, and lord knows where that Russian one came from.

So far, you came up with 29% became veg for animal reasons, yet the numbers I have found overwhlem that (read the whole VRG link again.) You then try t justify surveys with small samples to make your point.

It is clear you are way out of your league.

See less See more

Kiz

· #103 · May 17, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmandu

Well, of course, it depends on what one gets known for. Ted Bundy's known for wantonly taking life for pleasure, due to severe psychological disturbance. I suppose that some, dare I say, extremists might advocate the idea that pro-AR organizations & their supporters are "serial killers" by proxy because they would abolish the use of nonhuman animals in medical experiments, which, it's suggested, prevents the discovery of medicines & procedures that could save human lives.

Aside from this being a shaky argument both logically & ethically, I can't see that it leads to anything but a "shut up & sit down" response to AR supporters.

Exactly. That was my point. Being well known in itself is not enough, one must consider what the person or organisation is well known for. The great problem with PETA is that in the wider community it is viewed quite negatively. PETA to a lot of people is not known for individual acts of compassion, but rather it is known for agressive and unpleasant posturing. My biggest gripe with PETA is that as soon as people realise you are AR they assume you are like the worse elements of PETA. Frankly, PETA is much more responsible for the "shut up and sit down" response to AR supporters than the people who work quietly behind the scenes.

nate

· #104 · May 17, 2006

3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tame

Sheesh. Do I have to teach you statistics? Go read the VRG survey (you know, the one conducted by a well known research institution, and is statistically valid?) and get back to me.

If you don't understand how those numbers appear that way, ask rather than sounding foolish.

This is the full version of your site.

http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj98jan/981coord.htm

It states that 82% are INTERESTED in vegetarianism for for health, 75% for ethics, environment and animal rights, 31% because of taste and 26% because of economics.

This means that of the same 82% of people, 75% could also be interested in vegetarianism for ethics, environment and animal rights and could have GONE veg for those reasons, not for health.

The survey does not say that 82% WENT vegetarian for health reasons.

Good lord, i do have to teach you statistics.

#1: 100 respondents is not a large enough sample size to give you a reasonable estimate.

#2: It was a survey conducted by someone on a webiste, with no random sample.

#3: If you can't understand 1 and 2, get out of the conversation as you are wasting my time.

Like I said 1000 or even 50 thousand is not a large enough size to show the thoughts of millions of people.

It was not conducted by someone on a website, as it says it was done by Jupiter Rising which is a vegetarian magazine.

Something stated as an argument with no basis in fact? Nope.

Hey sherlock, can you guess why an animal rights website may make that assumption? Hint: same reason you do.

One was a vegetarian society.

Just because they're a animal group does not mean they go around making things up.

And the source data and documentation they provided is...? I'll wait.

As for the groups I contacted, I think they can be pretty reliable, as many people contact them sharing their thoughts about being veg.

Actually, if you read carefully, some of the information comes from a couple of surveys over time. Granted, they aren't conducted by some pimply faced teens posting "omgzzzz!!!iii take my survey, k!", but they have been conducted by actual professionals who observe methodology. If you don't understand why that matters, I cannot help you.

Read it. So far, you have one small survey in the UK which, for the moment, I will stipulate is valid enough to use, along with "website" surveys, and lord knows where that Russian one came from.

What because it's from Russia it doesn't count.

I've given plenty of proof, you just don't want to accept it.

So far, you came up with 29% became veg for animal reasons, yet the numbers I have found overwhlem that (read the whole VRG link again.) You then try t justify surveys with small samples to make your point.

It is clear you are way out of your league.

The 29% is from one survey only, I think I've given enough to show the majority of people go veg for animal reasons.

Wait how could I forget, your the all mighty god so you must be right

, please, get over yourself, your heads getting so big you won't be able to walk soon.

The thing I can't believe the most is a person such as yourself, who participates on a veggie board and is aware of the amount of suffering and death animals go through doesn't give a crap about them, you have to be pretty selfish and psychotic to be like that.

That's all I'm saying.

See less See more

nate

· #105 · May 17, 2006

PETA is not aggessive, and the reason why people don't like them is because people don't want to be told what they're doing is wrong. Alot of the population don't like any animal rights groups, they view them as extreme no matter how discreet they are.

catmandu

· #106 · May 17, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiz

Exactly. That was my point. Being well known in itself is not enough, one must consider what the person or organisation is well known for. The great problem with PETA is that in the wider community it is viewed quite negatively. PETA to a lot of people is not known for individual acts of compassion, but rather it is known for agressive and unpleasant posturing. My biggest gripe with PETA is that as soon as people realise you are AR they assume you are like the worse elements of PETA. Frankly, PETA is much more responsible for the "shut up and sit down" response to AR supporters than the people who work quietly behind the scenes.

I do see your point - but only to a point. You're saying that what PETA's become most well known for is their posturing, and that many people refuse to look beyond that posturing & their own negative reaction to it. I think that's valid as far as it goes; but PETA's point is that such posturing puts them in the public eye, and that being in the public eye yields more positive than negative results in the long run, regardless of any knee-jerk negative reactions that develop along with the way. Being in the public eye means you're going to piss some people off because they get tired of your noise, but it also means - if you have something of substance to offer underneath the noise - that the issues you're trying to present will get discussed by members of the public & in the press. How it gets discussed (i.e. that it gets discussed negatively) is of less importance than that it's being discussed at all; such is the trust that PETA has in the ultimate value & validity of its cause. I think the "nihilism" of PETA consists of a willingness to be perceived as insulting, idiotic, & annoying because, in the end, sacrificing "acceptable" social appearances is worth it if it ultimately serves the cause of nonhuman animal liberation.

In other words - to state the above more briefly - "sit down & shut up" is a short-term response PETA & its supporters feel is worth plowing through in order to expose the heart of the issue. It's a matter of first breaking down & then breaking through people's defenses. The concern is that "sit down & shut up" constitutes a permanent closing off of thought or debate. PETA does not believe that's the case. Nor, imo, can anyone else who believes in the cause of animal liberation. Defensiveness & resentment on the part of the public is going to come up at some point regardless of what tactic you use. Why not face it head on?

See less See more

catmandu

· #107 · May 17, 2006

Sometimes I wonder if the real break at issue here isn't between those who wish to effect change within their own lives (helping animals too, as a result), & those who want to effect a broader, more all-encompassing social change. . . .

Kiz

· #108 · May 17, 2006

For some, but some who disagree with PETA's tactics are the latter. What p's me off about PETA is the assumption that if you don't like their tactics you don't support animal rights. While I like some of what PETA does I believe that a good deal of it's tactics and campaigns are just plain misguided. I flat out don't agree that peeing people off so badly they look at all vegetarians as loonies is a good thing, no matter what way they phrase it. I'm not a believer in "all publicity is good publicity".

PETA does some great things, sure. It also turns a number of people from thinking of vegetarians as your local hippy to making them think of them as outright nutcases. And right now I'm divided on whether the first point outweighs the second.

IamJen

· #109 · May 17, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate

PETA is not aggessive, and the reason why people don't like them is because people don't want to be told what they're doing is wrong. Alot of the population don't like any animal rights groups, they view them as extreme no matter how discreet they are.

PETA's not aggressive.

funniest damn thing I've read on VB in a LONG time.

See less See more

nate

· #110 · May 17, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJen

PETA's not aggressive.

funniest damn thing I've read on VB in a LONG time.

PETA's not aggessive, from what I see and if you can show me otherwise please do.

Like I said alot of people don't like any animal rights groups, as they go against society.

IamJen

· #111 · May 17, 2006

Hm...throwing fake blood on fur wearers, accosting owners of corporations come quickly to mind.

You could argue that aggressive tactics are *necessary*, but that they don't exist...well, then you need to read a paper once in awhile.

Please don't try and assume my (or others') beliefs about AR groups. There are many (many) here at VB at least, who are pro-AR, but not fond of PETA. (do a search and you'll find a ton of old threads on the subject)

Tame

· #112 · May 17, 2006

Quote:

This is the full version of your site.

http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj98jan/981coord.htm

It states that 82% are INTERESTED in vegetarianism for for health, 75% for ethics, environment and animal rights, 31% because of taste and 26% because of economics.

This means that of the same 82% of people, 75% could also be interested in vegetarianism for ethics, environment and animal rights and could have GONE veg for those reasons, not for health.

The survey does not say that 82% WENT vegetarian for health reasons.

And it also means the #1 reason given was...?

Now, go read the earlier breakdown (on the same site) from a previous survey which breaks vegetarians down by various groupings. See the health conscious ones? Thanks!

Quote:

Like I said 1000 or even 50 thousand is not a large enough size to show the thoughts of millions of people.

It was not conducted by someone on a website, as it says it was done by Jupiter Rising which is a vegetarian magazine.

1.) It is clear you know absolutely nothing about samplig techniques. Seriously, quit before you make yourself look more foolish.

The sample size and methodology affects the accuracy of the survey. All have a margin of error. A sample of 100 has a margin large enough to make it worthless when dealing with a large population.

2.) The survey of 100 people is not statistically accurate based on sample size alone. In addition, no mention is made of methodology, and it appears there was no random sampling, which leads to a biased result.

I'm sorry if you don't understand why that matters. But just because you are discussing matters well out of your league doesn't mean I will let you off the hook.

So far, you have failed to provide credible proof of your claims.

Quote:

One was a vegetarian society.

Just because they're a animal group does not mean they go around making things up.

Then they need to support their claims. Hint: "They said so" is not usually considered proof.

Quote:

As for the groups I contacted, I think they can be pretty reliable, as many people contact them sharing their thoughts about being veg.

And? This proves...?

Review the sample bias we discussed earlier. Thanks.

Quote:

What because it's from Russia it doesn't count.

I've given plenty of proof, you just don't want to accept it.

I don't accept it because there is not enough information to determine its validity, and what little there is makes me question its accuracy. (Sample size, self reporting, sample selection, reporter bias...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate

The 29% is from one survey only, I think I've given enough to show the majority of people go veg for animal reasons.

No, you haven't. BTW, that result of 29% came from a survey with a sample size of under 300, was self-reported, and was not random.

That means it is statistically close to worthless.

Quote:

Wait how could I forget, your the all mighty god so you must be right

, please, get over yourself, your heads getting so big you won't be able to walk soon.

*sigh* It is so sads when children get into discussions they can't understand.

Quote:

The thing I can't believe the most is a person such as yourself, who participates on a veggie board and is aware of the amount of suffering and death animals go through doesn't give a crap about them, you have to be pretty selfish and psychotic to be like that.

That's all I'm saying.

So, all your saying are personal attacks? Nice.

Selfish? Psychotic? I'm sure you win friends and influence a lot of enemies.

Want to know why fur sales are up, and per capita meat consumption (remember how you got jacked over that?) is up? Look at the behavior of PETA and people like yourselves.

See less See more

nate

· #113 · May 18, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJen

Hm...throwing fake blood on fur wearers, accosting owners of corporations come quickly to mind.

You could argue that aggressive tactics are *necessary*, but that they don't exist...well, then you need to read a paper once in awhile.

Please don't try and assume my (or others') beliefs about AR groups. There are many (many) here at VB at least, who are pro-AR, but not fond of PETA. (do a search and you'll find a ton of old threads on the subject)

Throwing red paint on people at fashion shows, may not be the best thing to do but it's brought alot of attention to the topic, I think PETA has helped in making fur very controversial. Accosting owners (which means to ask a question) of corporations to change their ways and to be more animal friendly is not aggessive but if PETA is accosting owners (in an offensive way) of corporations who don't care, are only interested in money and who torture animals, then they deserve it.

I am not talking about people on VB, I am from Australia and there have been many topics in the paper on animal rights as being extreme, and most of the responses to the topic by the general public have also been negative, calling animal rights extreme and people who advocate them crack pots along with other names.

Animal rights would be viewed the same way by the public with or without PETA.

RipMike

· #114 · May 18, 2006

Nate, you seriously need to stop. Every single post of yours simply exposes yourself even more as a completely naive individual, who doesn't understand the real issues being discussed here, and who simply resorts to childish argument tactics like "you're a hypocrite, why are you on this site if you don't support animal rights?''. Hmm...let me think...see that little headline on the site? what does it say? AnimalRightsBoards.com? No...actually...yeah it's Veggieboards.com. Once and for all...animal rights is NOT the main reason people go veg. It may be the reason you went, and it may be the reason most of PETA went, and heck it may be the reason any of your veg*n friends went. That matters not. These surveys you've been posting are complete bollocks. I suggest you take some advice from Tame and research some more reliable surveys. If you can't even understand how flawed a survey with ONLY 100 PARTICIPANTS is, then there's really no point to continuing this discussion.

IamJen

· #115 · May 18, 2006

accost:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost

*laughs* at "aggressive" right there in the definition. It's not like asking someone directions.

Regardless, your answer fails to discount the aggressiveness of these actions, but rather claims that they've "brought a lot of attention to the topic". I never stated otherwise. I 100% concur that PETA's hijinks brighten the spotlight on AR. It's just not always a favorable light. I've said this before on VB, but I'd bet that for every person you can find who's become more AR-friendly b/c of PETA, I can find one who thinks we're all whackos.

nigel

· #116 · May 19, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrylove

Through the years of being vegan, I cannot tell you how may people ask if I am one of 'those crazy PETA people' and they always have something VERY negative to say about PETA.

You make a good point, 'Would anyone even hear them, or listen?', at times there may be to extreme tactics and people see these tactics but choose not to hear.

The way I look at it is....say you have an a-hole of a boss or coach (we all have a one time or another) who constantly put you down, yelled at you and all the other good things that an a-hole boss/coach does. How much effort do you give them or how much more are you willing to help them? How often do you (we) avoid this type of boss/coach?

On the other hand, how many off us had a great boss, who treated us with respect, could talk to us on our level and not feel they are above us. DOn't we tend to give them more, listen and be willing to go above and beyond?

again...just throwing thought out there

Wonderfully put. I've had bosses who have disagreed with me and essentially taken a "you're an idiot, now sit down and let me tell you why," then I've had bosses who have been more like "have you considered this approach?" and would sit down with me to work out the better solution. Guess which bosses I learned from.

Chris L

· #117 · May 20, 2006

I like Peta very much, they care about the animals and they fight like hell to get the truth out about how horrible people treat them. The media has a strong bias against Peta and always manages to point out any mistakes that members might make. I would like them to be more subtle, I don't think those go naked protests are good and should be stopped. But overall they are a great friend to the animals and that's what counts. I was very touched when I saw Ingrid explaining to a reporter how terrible it is that cats and dogs are put to sleep in this country and how hard it is for animal lovers to cope with this, due to the tremendous number of people who will not spay and neuter their pets that creates this situation. I think people who don't like animals just attack Peta to justify their feelings about animal rights in general.

Http://furryfriendsrescue.bravehost.com/

See less See more

IamJen

· #118 · May 20, 2006

Maybe some, but they are others (including myself) who otherwise fit the whole tree-hugging, liberal, vegetarian, pro-AR stereotype. We just don't like how PETA tries to accomplish their goals.

UrbanSoutherner

· #119 · May 25, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IHaveNoNameButV

It means just what it says, I've seen statistics, facts, figures, quotes, and hypocrisies inside of PETA that make me doubt whether or not the vegetarian community should truly support them.

I saw a documentary about them and it was not flattering. I never heard of PETA before the documentary. But after that documentary I am leary of them.

GhostUser

· #120 · May 26, 2006

I had to stop back in and say something..

My wife and I attending the Farm Sanctuary Gala last week and it was one of the most unbelievable nights we spent together. Being in a room of 600 people who feel the way we do.

ANYWAY, when people ask why we were in NY and what is was about.....5 different people couples and many individuals ask if it was a PETA 'thing'. Let me tell you, they DID NOT ask nicely and they looked at us like we were some kind of CRAZIES. One of them even stated that, 'You know PETA is considered an extremest/radical group?'

Just so you know, I did not put down PETA in front of these people. I actually defended them.

PETA needs to read this thread and see how 'their own type' of people feel about them. MAYBE, just MAYBE they will get of their 'ole mighty' and cool their jets and step back and be more realistic in handling this terrible situation!

Again, I ask...where do these people get this idea that PETA is a terrible group?

THIS IS THE CRAP WE ALL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH!

WHETHER THE PETA SUPPORTERS LIKE IT OR NOT, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO OVERCOME!

See less See more

101 - 120 of 138 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.