Things got pretty interesting when I went to their FAQ section. I'll list some of the questions/some of the answers with my notes. I'll be interested to see what you guys think!
(Very long because I got on a roll reading some of these questions. Feel free to just skim because all of PETA's responses to the questions are equally insane. Also, please note that my answers are very sarcastic and when I use 'you' I'm referring to PETA )
As an animal rights group, we cannot condone using animals for any reason
Wait...aren't you exploiting/'using' animals every single time you use pictures of them on your website to back up your claims??
Choke and prong collars are designed to punish dogs for pulling by inflicting pain and discomfort.
Wait what?? Yes, sometimes they're used for strong dogs, but aren't prong collars to dogs as bits are to horses? To enhance/lighten cues, not to inflict pain?? But, you know, they look scary so they must be bad for the animals You know what also looks scary? Euthanasia needles. But wait..you guys support those (and use them quite frequently! 30k animals killed in a year is pretty impressive, PETA! Good job )so I guess not everything that looks bad is bad for the animals :o
Domestication has certainly not benefited horses, as they’ve long been exploited as beasts of burden and are kept constantly constrained and only allowed to move about at the will of others.
Um...no, actually. As someone who owns a horse, I can tell you that domestication has certainly benefited horses. They are (in competent homes, of course) free from the constant danger of wild animals, natural disasters, and food shortages. They receive routine health care and hoof care (contrary to popular belief, not all mustangs have great hooves because they're 'natural'). I think freedom from a life of constant fear from your surroundings is certainly a benefit...
Would you approve an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?
Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human for the “greater good” of others because it would violate that individual’s rights. There is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.
Did PETA just compare animals to mentally disabled humans???? Are you kidding me?? So they're suggesting that animals and mentally challenged individuals are on the same level, intellectually? I really can't say much more about this answer. It's infuriating.
Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?
An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability’s inability to do so. Like small children, most animals are not capable of choosing to change their behavior, but adult human beings have the intelligence to choose between behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn’t.
And again. I can't believe they are comparing mentally disabled persons to animals
Vegetarianism is a personal choice. Why are you trying to force it on everyone else?
[...] actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. Murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals are all immoral. Our society now encourages meat-eating and the cruelty of factory farming, [but] society also once encouraged slavery, child labor, and many other practices now universally recognized as wrong.
So...eating a hamburger from grass-fed, local beef is on the same level as murder? You're comparing the TRAUMA of child abuse with eating a hamburger??
The animals have to die sometime, don’t they?
Humans do, too, but that doesn’t give us the right to kill them or cause them a lifetime of suffering
Wait...a few questions back you answered a question about your view on euthaniasia by saying: Those who refuse to spay and neuter their animals, who abandon animals when they grow tired of them, and who patronize pet shops instead of adopting stray or shelter animals make euthanasia a tragic necessity. So humans don't have the right to kill animals...only to euthanize them. Oh wait, that's the same thing. Whoops, guess you didn't mean to directly contradict yourself.
Isn’t hunting okay as long as I eat what I kill?
Did the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims justify his crimes? What is done with the corpse after a murder doesn’t lessen the victim’s suffering. Furthermore, hunters are harming animals other than the ones they kill and take home. Those who don’t die outright often suffer disabling injuries. Additionally, the stress that hunting inflicts on animals—the noise, the fear, and the constant chase—severely restricts their ability to eat adequately and to store the fat and energy they need to survive the winter. Hunting also disrupts migration and hibernation [///]
Oh, right. Hunting an animal and humanely killing it is the exact same thing as the serial killer and cannibal who ate his victims. What a logical comparison Animals cannot be murdered, as much as you would like them to be. And the /good, ethical majority/ of hunters don't let wounded animals go and they also kill the animal before it has a chance to know what hit it (ergo, before it experiences the 'debilitating stress' of the chase).
Is the fur industry really as cruel as people make it out to be?
Crueler. PETA’s investigations at fur farms have found animals being killed by anal electrocution—an electrically charged steel rod is inserted into the animals’ rectums, literally frying their insides. Exposed broken bones, upper respiratory infections, and cancerous tumors were among the wounds and diseases that animals endured—without veterinary treatment—on one fur farm that we investigated.
Animals caught in steel-jaw traps are in so much pain that some actually bite off their limbs in order to escape. Unable to eat, keep warm, or defend themselves against predators, many die horrible deaths before the trapper arrives to kill them. Others suffer in the traps for days until they are caught and killed. To avoid damaging the pelt, trappers often beat or stomp the animals to death. Most states have no regulations regarding methods of slaughtering these animals.
(You guys can respond to this one better than I can, as I do not claim to know very much about the fur industry. However, I /do/ know that I believe any method of euthanasia is acceptable as long as it is extremely quick and the animal cannot register their pain. Meaning, no matter how cruel a method /sounds/, (AR organizations seem to do that, don't they...make a method of euthanasia or some type of training practice seem horrible with word choice), if it's painless and quick, why would it be cruel?
Now I can't speak to trapping as I personally disagree with it and think it is very cruel, so I won't comment on that.
Without hunting, deer and other animals would overpopulate and die of starvation.
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature’s way of ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing the only ones they can catch—the sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace—often the large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting creates the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate. If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not hunt but instead take steps to reduce the animals’ fertility. We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. Ironically, many deer herds and duck populations are purposely manipulated to produce more and more animals for hunters to kill.
Picture this "a helpless animal runs as fast as it can, feeling abject panic coursing through its veins. It tries to run but its body gives out and suddenly a horrible creature catches it and begins to eat without giving the animal the dignity of dying first." Man, PETA wouldn't approve of that, would they? Yes they would, because that's what happens in nature with predators and prey. So...PETA thinks that animals being killed in the wild is better than human euthanasia on farms?? The scenario above, where a sick or young animal is targeted and then eaten sometimes half alive, sounds horrible but it's part of 'nature,' right? Nature is inherently cruel. I cannot believe PETA thinks that animals are better off starving to death, succumbing to painful diseases, being eaten alive, dying in blizzards or heat waves, then being in the care of a human. This is ridiculous. Nature is everything PETA stands against when you consider its cruelty!!
I think that's about it. There are 15 pages of FAQs on the website if anyone wants to have a frustrating read!