PETA is a group that all of us have become familiar with. We have seen their members posing nude or walking nude on the street in order to draw attention to what they feel are inhumane practices in the fur industry; and I whole-heartedly support their right to do so, even if I don't agree with them. This is America, and in America, dissent is a protected part of free speech, and drawing attention to something we feel is shameful in the hope that those to whose attention we bring it will agree, is a very effective way to end bad acts; that is, if people actually do agree. Most of the time, when PETA presents an argument, it is inane and irrational, and the vast majority rejects it. I have only to point out PETA's worries over the fish market out west tossing fish to one another for their customer's amusement (dead fish, being sold for food), or over President O'Bama swatting a fly, and I'm sure you will begin to see why so many people find it easy to disregard their shrill whining.
However, I could also point out their association with eco-terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation Front for an even stronger effect. "In 1992, PETA made a US$62,000 grant to a former member of the ALF, and later a US$32,000 loan to Rod Coronado, in a bid to support his lawsuit. His crime? Fire-bombing a Michigan State Research University laboratory." (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/150330/ani mal_rights_movement_gone_wrong_petas.html) Cases like this, where PETA has embraced or even simply condoned arson, vandalism, and the endangerment of people make the organization very hard to like, and renders them morally questionable. Needless to say, this makes it very hard for them to sway people on what is essentially and ethics argument about animal rights. And just let one of them throw paint on my wife's fur coat, which was a popular tactic back in my childhood; suffice it to say that the well-being of our furry friends would quickly be replaced by concern for their own well-being. Vandalism, arson, threats, intimidation? I can't speak for anyone else, but after seeing PETA's tactics, I couldn't support them if they were handing out food to the homeless.
Most people believe that the humane treatment of animals is not only something that is proper to do, but that it is an obligation. I need only point out the fact that many forms of treatment, which are almost unanimously viewed as inhumane, are criminal. For instance, when Michael Vicks was caught in the midst of a dog-fighting scandal, a practice which it is difficult to find supporters for, he was charged, prosecuted, and jailed, and rightly so. PETA would have fish-throwing fish-mongers sharing his cell, while awarding the arsonist who set fire to a lab at Michigan State University cash for his defense. Is this not food for thought?
It appears to me that PETA's "A" Team is not a group with whom I would like to be associated. PETA's arguments, actions, and their choices of who to villify and who to support are irrational to me, and, from what I have seen, most people agree with me.
So, what's my point? Here it is: before you get involved in something, even something that sounds so obviously supportable, like "stopping animal cruelty", do your research. If you don't have the inclination to investigate who you support financially or morally, then you are better off to keep your support to yourself, lest you find yourself supporting something with which you would rather not be associated. Go online and research PETA before you write that check; find out if what I say, and other authors on Helium or other forums say, is true or not. Or, go ahead and send that check; Rod Coronado needs to buy more gasoline, and the price per gallon is rising. "PETA has openly supported ALF: in 1995, the organization gave $45,200 to the legal defense of Rod Coronado, while co-founder Ingrid Newkirk applauds ALF's efforts in two of her books." (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LE ARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco) Do you find that a little bit shocking from an organization that purports to take the 'moral highground'? How about this: "In an interview with a Michigan State University newspaper, Coronado defended his past activity. "I wish I could do it again," he said. "I have absolutely no regrets, and I hope the same thing continues to happen at MSU and every other college campus that does animal research." (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LE ARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco) These folks are simply not what they appear to be; that's my point.
Most people disdain animal cruelty, even those who hunt, fish, or even simply eat meat. As human beings we, unlike animals, have the capacity to empathize, and most of us use it to good effect. We understand that things like dog-fighting are cruel, and we understand that even though we may eat meat, we don't want animals starved, or abused to facilitate it. It may sound odd coming from me if you have read any of my other titles, but I love animals, and I loathe to see them mistreated; but I know that those of you who exercise that capacity for empathy will put yourself in my shoes, and will probably understand how I feel. You may not agree with it, but you will understand it, just as you will probably understand how a student or a professor must feel to come to school and find their lab and all of their studies that it contained lost to a terrorist's cigarette lighter.
But don't worry if you lack this capacity for empathy and understanding. There are still groups out there like PETA who aren't interested in persuading you, or in furthering your understanding of a topic. You can still belong somewhere. Just write that check, sign your name, and set aside your intellect, and you, too, can feel like you've accomplished something. I mean, hey, you may not be an actual arsonist, but you can still be one by proxy, right?