PETA

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals- or PETA is a controversial animalrights organisation based in USA. I saw a documentary a few days ago. I can't remember hearing of them before but I probably have because the things they does doesn't strike me as odd or surprising as if it's old news. Their sort of trademark is to do crazy and shocking things to get attention for their cause such as dressing in fir and smear themselves in fake blood, parade naked on the streets or lock themselves naked inside cages like animals and so on to portray what is being done to animals. They believe that the only way to get attention for their cause is to do these things and I believe they are right. People don’t want to know about the pain and distress living beings are being put through just so that we can gorge in their meat or parade around in their skin and fir. And these people will certeanly not go looking for information about how their meal or jacket was killed so the organisations with that kind of information will have to come to the people.
But the downside is that the more crazy things one does the more credability one loses- people starts to believe that the PETA guys are nothing but dysinformed, hysterical nutcases that only plays around wasting money on things that won’t help the animals after all. And this is also exactly what important people proffiting on the meat and fir industries uses against them. PETA has a big mouth but no teeth.
But they do. They do get attention and they do get things done. Proof of that is the threats they recive and hot feelings they stir together with a, how ever small, but still very real change in peoples attitudes.
I think they are doing a great job infiltrating slaughterhouses to get films of the abuse and torturing of our food. Animals are not vegetables and they should not be treated as such. I believe that with PETA:s help the future for animals might become a little less painfull.
But there’s a long way to go.
PETA made a campaign a few years ago where they compared pictures from the nazis treatment of Jews and others to pictures of what is being done to animals today. The reaction was: “how can they dismiss all the pain and sorrow that was inflicted on humans during the Holokaust like that?” a reaction that really shows that there’s a lot of work yet to be done. Making that kind of compareition was to show us that what is horrible to us is just as horrible when it’s being done to animals; it was not a way of saying that the suffering of those killed by the nazis are as dismissable as the suffering of animals. When people think that torturing an animal is not as bad as torturing a human the same way they’ve missed the point with animalrights and compares between the Holokaust and unhumane slaughterhouses. Animals feel pain too, they can also suffer, but just because they are animals and not of our kind it is tolerable. That’s just disgusting. And primitive. There are something called ethnocentrism (when one favours the own ethnicissity) and it doesn’t only apply on human versus human as a psycholocial thing it’s also done between species. It is instinct, one of natures creations of making life successfull, it’s even a nessecity because ethnocetrism makes us want to ensure the survival of our own kind- be it culture or species. We mate with our own- mixing racal genes is not lightly looked upon by some- we feed our own and we protect our own before helping others. It’s called self-preservation and every living thing needs it to live. Humans are not an exception. That is why some still think that the ill treatment and death of humans are worse than that of animals. They might not be able to put words on why they feel like this but I can bet my left arm on that my analyzies is correct. Most people are not as different from animals as they think; we are only the extreme animal with the same treats as other animals but on a higher level. The only differens, to me, is that humans has a choice of behaviour to a greater extent than animals thanks to our higher level of braincapacity. I consider it a proof of intelligence and truly above the laws of nature (though it’s really not) when a person can separate the mind from primitive ethnocentrism and other instincts and acknowledge equal value between humans and other living creatures. Being able to extend ones empathy to not only other human beings but also to other creatures is very different from most other animals while treating them like shit because we can and proffits from it is just what an other animal would do in the same situation. It's nature, yes, to do that but if one wants to be truly appart from nature, do better, one should be like a Buddhist munk or fuckin' Jesus. So if you want to be different from an animal be passionate and have compashion for other living creatures and most of all- never hate, use, abuse or intentionally hurt an other person or animal for only your own or only your own kind's benefit. That is a really hard thing to do.

So am I such an angel myself? No, very much no. I love the taste of meat and francly I don’t mind someone being killed to be eaten by me. It’s the way the killing is done that disturbes me even though I do eat meat when I don’t know how the animal died. It annoys me somewhat but it’s easier to keep doing it than take the bullying from my family if I stop. I’m primitive too because doing like my family does is what pack-animals do in fear of being chased off. But one day when I have more courage I’ll probably stop eating meat taken from the frozen-food counter since I don’t know who killed it and how.
I have also mistreated animals with neglect which I am ashamed of and should have a proper beating for. And though I consider humans and animals to be different but equal (meaning that the death of a human is not a greater loss than that of an animal) there are situations where I would favour the life of a human but the reasons for that are more satanistic than anything else I think. Let’s say a dog and a human were drowning at the same time. If I were the only wittness to it I would save the one less probable to make it to the shore by himself but if there were others I’d go for the human no matter what, like most people would. And why? Because people would give me a hard time if I saved the dog first even if the poor beast was in a worse shape than the human. The dog would most likely not. This is at least what my intentions are but if it actually happened to me? Would I even briefly try to astablish which one could wait with being saved before I jump in or would I emidiatly go for the human? And how would I feel myself if a dog were saved before me? While drowning I might not be able to consider the dog’s life more reasonable to save than my own even if I’m still able to keep floating and the dog is not, but I’d like to think I can be that “noble”. And since I don’t mind animals being killed for food or other things I don’t mind humans being killed- as long as death comes quickly, unexpected and as painless as possible I don’t care. That’s how I’d like to be killed when the time comes.