Many of those who support PETA probably have good intentions and care about animals like I do. PETA is a clear example, however, that those who usually rise to be the leaders of such an issue are usually those who are most psychologically imbalanced. Those who care about an issue will donate money and maybe attend some events, those who are quite passionate will donate some of their time but still have lives and families to tend to which fall outside of the scope of the issue and will limit their devotion towards a cause to the point that they begin to be pulled from their own lives and family, and then no more. The real fucking psychos, though, will give you everything they have and pursue every aspect of the issue to infinity, beyond any sense of rationality. Thus their warped excess of devotion usually pushes them into positions of control in such “charitable” types of organizations. Those who run PETA, continuously demonstrate that they are clearly fucking insane!
I love animals, probably more so than I love most people. Let me clarify what I mean by “love animals more than I love most people”. I don’t love the weasel I’ve never met, for instance, more so than I did my ex-girlfriend at the time. Although I have met weasels that I would have chosen over her, and who really deserved the name much less than she did. If a starving bear attacked my wife because he was struggling for survival, I certainly wouldn’t choose the bear over my wife. However, if given the choice between trusting a wild animal I’ve never met and a human I’ve never met, odds are I’ll benefit most by trusting the animal first, the human second. Most animal’s intentions are usually much more pure than a human’s. They feed themselves, they protect themselves, they may fight to reproduce their specific DNA and they try to survive the best they can. How many animals do you know that kill another animal purely for sport and leave the carcass to rot, just for the pleasure of it? I only know of one offhand, humans. I certainly still care about the wellbeing of the human race overall, and would not choose to protect a specific animal race before that of the human race. I can, however, truly say the best friend I ever had in my life was a housecat (if you had ever met the cat, you’ll know I’m not crazy myself.) With that said, if you ever tried to associate me with PETA, I’d smack you upside the fucking head. PETA makes all animal lovers look mentally disturbed.
How does what starts out as a worthwhile cause get so off track? It is the psychotics that rise to the top, because they are the most devoted to even the extreme interpretations of the cause somewhere off in the distant ether, where most sane individuals will stop at some point prior and realize that some issues are just unproductive to, and outside the scope of, what they are trying to achieve. Now, I won’t eat at McDonald’s because I care too much about the condition of my body, it has nothing to do with PETA. I had been noticing one billboard in particular though, sponsored by PETA against McDonald’s, about the ethical treatment of their chickens prior to becoming McNuggets which kind of disturbed me. They are spending boatloads of money protesting the treatment of these chickens prior to killing them…not pets, not endangered wildlife…fucking chickens! At some point, I have to think the chickens are more concerned about the fact that they are going to be killed and eaten in general, then they are about the broken wing or the manner in which their lives will end. How do you define what is and is not humane in the eyes of a chicken? Like humans, maybe chickens too have their own individual beliefs about how they would choose to die if given the choice? If given the choice between getting their heads cut off now, or having their wing broken now but being allowed to live a few more hours of their precious lives before being boiled alive…maybe they would choose the latter of those. I saw a video interview today with the VP of PETA, Kathy Guillermo, about their recent campaign. They have been stationing themselves across the street from McDonald’s, passing out meals which look like Happy Meals but with a picture of Ronald McDonald holding a knife and some bloody chickens on the outside of the box. The newscaster suggested that 2 and 3 year old toddlers could be receiving these, and at first Guillermo denied it. But when pressed, she finally comments “if that’s the case, that’s wonderful.” A small child of any age being handed what they think is a Happy Meal, which then has Ronald McDonald holding a knife and shows bloody chickens is substantially less ethical in the treatment of children than McDonald’s is displaying towards chickens! This would suggest to me that PETA cares more about the random chicken they’ve never met, than they do about human children. They have total disregard for the psychological damage they could be doing to our youth, just as long as the chickens have a happy life before we eat them. Now that, is fucking insanity!
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen PETA take some seriously disturbing routes, or use extremely fallacious logic for their campaigns. The one I saw previously which caught my attention was directed towards animal breeders. Not from the perspective that breeders are cruel to the animals they are raising, which disturbingly sometimes happens and might have been a worthwhile campaign, but from the perspective that breeders are the sole reason there are animals in shelters. They suggest that breeders keep people from adopting pets from shelters and that is where they chose to fight their war at the time. Their logic, at first glance seems reasonable enough, but entirely falls apart if you give it more than 2 seconds thought with a brain with an IQ over maybe 70. Isn’t it clear that the issue, in this case, stems from the people who neglect to take care of, mistreat or abandon their pets…such that they end up in a shelter to begin with? Why don’t they go after the group that actually leads to the animal being in the shelter, not some secondary group who might possibly slow the adoption of those animals. The animals actually have to get into the shelters somehow before the breeders even become an issue in the equation. Why focus your attention on something that slows down the cure, when you can fight the disease directly? PETA’s focus is always extremely misguided and illogical, to say the least.
Human’s are carnivores, we are designed to eat meat. PETA, I’m sure, thinks it is unethical to eat animals in any capacity…not just after being boiled alive. But why then, does it make sense for PETA to try to protect animals, who also eat other animals? Isn’t there a bit of hypocrisy in that? Some animals start eating their prey while they are still alive, Alligators chew and drown them, snakes suffocate them, cats will often virtually torture a mouse before it finally kills it, are any of these methods truly better than boiling? That’s precisely how you cook a frog or a Lobster. The only person you are consoling with the thought of humane killing, is yourself. The victim is fucking dead either way, they aren’t here to ponder or reflect upon the incident. It is one thing when we are killing for our survival, and somthing entirely different when we are doing so for pleasure or sport…PETA doesn’t seem to grasp the difference. For that matter, plants are living things. Just because we haven’t been able to locate a specific nerve center which we might summize is a brain, doesn’t mean a plant doesn’t have the ability to think or feel, maybe as much as an animal does. There is strong evidence to support that they do, and they have populated this planet for much longer than animal species and may be much more evolved, so maybe we should not be eating them either? We cut trees down with chain saws, we slowly poison weeds we deem undesirable though they are clearly living things, we wipe out entire populations to make room for human expansion. What’s the humane way to kill a redwood tree? If science suddenly proved that plants have the same feelings and emotions as animals (in the end it’s all just energy) what would you do? Should we then stop eating anything at all? I can only guess that is what PETA would campaign for.
PETA, do you have any clue how many domestic or wild animals you could help if you put all this money you spend towards a logical, and well constructed plan that actually benefited them, instead of running psycho campaigns where you fight for the happy lives of feeder chickens by intending to cause psychological distress to our youth for hype? It is my opinion, Ms. Guillermo, that society would be justified in boiling you like those chickens, although I’m sure the resulting nuggets would be REALLY FUCKING BITTER!