Filed under: Etc., Chrysler, LLC., Daimler
PeTA responds to criticism on Chrysler Group call out
Of course we knew what we were asking for when we posted on PeTA's decision to incorrectly call out the Chrysler Group as a primary sponsor of the Iditarod. We tried to keep the dicussion on the merits of PeTA erroneously referring to DaimlerChrysler as a sponsor of the Alaskan sled dog race, considering that the automaker's only remaining connection to the Iditarod is a single Alaskan car dealer that continues to sponsor the event. We still take issue with the animal rights organization for failing to clearly present the facts to the public in this manner, and for not bothering to get Chrysler Group CEO Tom LaSorda's title right. Nevertheless, the comments on this post erupted with activity, some of it intelligent discussion on all matters having to do with PeTA and some of it material that led to many members of our community being banned from further commenting for posting offensive material.
While we still take issue with PeTA on the matters mentioned above, we have to give the organization credit for seeking out our original post and submitting a comment in their defense. PeTA member Jennifer O'Connor has posted this comment on the orignal post that attempts to address many of the points made by members of the Autoblog community, and we'll leave it up to you whether or not she's successful.
We were interested to learn that PeTA's president, Ingrid Newkirk, is actually a big car nut. She even helps run a website called NameThatDriver.com, a curious page with a narrow focus that helps journalists learn how to correctly pronounce the many tongue-tying names in the world of professional motorsports.
Again, please keep your comments respectful and on topic.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Non-Bizarro Adam 2:21PM (3/06/2007)
PETA, because they are so ridiculous, are not taken seriously. They probably damage their cause more than help it by their sensationalist tactics, in addition to their support for fringe groups such as ELF.
Hey PETA, maybe if you didn't act like such a bunch of wackos, people wouldn't laugh at you.
Reply
Paul II 2:31PM (3/06/2007)
PETA is just a classic example of an org that doesn't understand how PR works. How else does an organization whose purpose is to protect animals become so universally hated? Through their many misguided campaigns they've lost all real credibility as a political organization which is kind of sad in a way. On the upside there's a really great thesis in here just waiting to be written.
Reply
Shawn 2:50PM (3/06/2007)
PETA is about money. They want publicity to make more money. That is why they regularly make the most outragous claims to get their name in the media.
It's all about Benjamins...Animals rights is just their vehicle.
Reply
Juan 3:02PM (3/06/2007)
I applaud PETA for engaging its critics in conversation here on Autoblog by posting a comment.
That's all I'll applaud them for, mind you, but I am acknowledging that it would have been easy for them to ignore the post here and go about their business.
Reply
Typesbad 3:11PM (3/06/2007)
I'll chime in and agree with Paul II. I've look at PETA through the years and always found their core causes significantly more worthy than their ability to communicate them. Animal testing of medicines and more notably consumer products does involve some pretty disgusting activity. I challenge any of you to read a detailed description of such activities and not feel queasy. The problem is that like the ACLU, PETA is a catch-all organization that covers covers a lot of ground from the most reasonable to the most extreme. And its the latter that gets all the press.
Thus here lies their problem. Every PETA spokesman I've ever heard has, when inevitably baited, launched willingly in defense of their most extreme positions, and thus winds up sounding completely out of touch with reality, even when the subject at hand may carry plenty of validity with the general public.
Even their mission gets skewed. They are called "Animal Rights" activists which is very scoff-inviting. If they could just stick to what's in their name: Ethical treatment of animals, their mission is much more difficult to oppose.
That said, I don't buy their Chrysler argument. A manufacturer has pretty limited practical ability to limit the sponsorship choices of their dealers, short of pulling their franchise rights which is a nuclear option that would have to be sparked by some contraversy way bigger than this. But going after some remote dealer doesn't get you much attention.
Reply
emor8t 3:43PM (3/06/2007)
Meat is MURDER! Tasty, tasty murder.
Reply
Mattlach 3:49PM (3/06/2007)
I ahve a couple of issues with PETA.
The largest is probably their associations with such criminal organizations as ELF, and even fringe groups within their own organizatioin who think nothing of breaking the law, destroying peoples property, etc. etc. to further their cause.
Secondly, while I am happy to support avoiding needless mistreatment of animals I still can't sign up to their positions as they do not take a reasonable approach.
For instance, there is some rather abhorrent animal testing out there, especially in such needless areas as cosmetics. On the other hand there is some gruesome animal testing that is utterly necessary for treatments and breakthroughs in human health. These I support fully, but I also fully support taking every possible measure to limit animal suffering in these tests.
Essentially PETA have their priorities messed up. Yes it is bad to abuse animals for no reason, but when it comes to a decision between animal and human suffering, humans have to win every time.
Reply
macgnome 4:03PM (3/06/2007)
I honestly dont believe any of these statements to be correct. This is a radical
organization because these are radical times. I dont support PETA and I eat meat. But what we are doing to the Earth and its animals is obscene. We are poisoning our own food supply and our children in the long run. Disease and physical disorders are a direct effect of eating meat and drinking fluids that are full of pesticides and toxins. I feel that when you start seeing people acting out radicalism its because the situation is desperate. I bet none of you have done anything to help clean up our food supply chain. But you have plenty enough to spew out your mouths. Your just as pathetic by not doing anything. You are the people they are trying to reach -WAKE UP!
Reply
Szyszek 4:41PM (3/06/2007)
PETA is a terrorist organization, plain and simple. Macgnome, "This is a radical organization because these are radical times" is what every terrorist organization outhere says. PETA hijacked animal rights movement and keeps people hostage by saying "Oh, you are against us? Don't you love animals?". If you really want to help animals, like I do, check out ASPCA - The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (http://www.aspca.org). The name may not be as catchy as PETA but this is the real deal.
Reply
Barney 4:51PM (3/06/2007)
6. Meat is MURDER! Tasty, tasty murder.
Obviously you have never been to a slaughterhouse or a feedlot. You may loose your appetite quickly.
PETA went to the source that would do most good.(the dealers boss) I doubt the dealer would have listened to them. It appears some of the posts on Autoblog is from the same type of people as the dealer. As long as you benefit, it matters not that animals suffer. PETA faces many a brick wall and many have mortar for minds.
Reply
Martha Fischer 4:59PM (3/06/2007)
Best. Image. Ever.
Reply
Leo 5:10PM (3/06/2007)
PETA does good work. They have to pull controversial stunts because that is what the media responds to. If you look in the PR trade magazines, they are all discussing the success of peta's tactics. I recommend going to www.peta.org before making blanket statements.
Reply
Grover 5:57PM (3/06/2007)
Rack this up with PETA's Christmas time goof when they slammed an Alaska congregation for using live animals in their Nativity scene. Problem was there were NO live animals used in the nativity scene. PETA never misses a chance to stick its collective foot in i what ever orifice is convenient.
Reply
doglet 6:16PM (3/06/2007)
"The problem is that like the ACLU, PETA is a catch-all organization that covers covers a lot of ground from the most reasonable to the most extreme. And its the latter that gets all the press."
its not the press that prduces banners and short movies comparing chicken farms to the holocaust, thats all PETA. its a group that is run by the extreme fringe and their message is trying to appeal to that same fringe. to 99% of people, their message is offensive and negativly affects public support.
is their an animal rights alternative to PETA? a group that has a reasonable message? if not, its a real shame.
Reply
doglet 6:51PM (3/06/2007)
"Obviously you have never been to a slaughterhouse or a feedlot. You may loose your appetite quickly."
i have been to a slaughter house, i have seen the spike that ends the life of thousands of cows a day. it still tates good because i am still a carnivor. you seem to think that if everyone just knew that animals were suffering then we would all agree with you. that animals will one day take their rightful place next to humans as equal partners in the world...
you dont realize that some people are just as informed as you and dont care. beef tastes great and veal tastes even better. people get more outraged when a kitten is killed than when a fish is eaten. why? because it is an EMOTIONAL REACTION, its not based on facts. stop trying to convince me with emotional appeals disguised as fact. be happy with your vegan diet, be glad that slightly fewer animals will be bread in captivity and killed because you like to eat plants. you may call it cold because it makes you sad. i, and most people call it progress.
we all kill somthing to survive. some just draw their moral line on the tasty side of the menu.
"It appears some of the posts on Autoblog is from the same type of people as the dealer. As long as you benefit, it matters not that animals suffer."
you dont realize that WE ALL BENEFIT from the use of animals. countless human lives have been saved by the use of animals in lab testing. would you rather those humans be dead? where do you draw your moral line?
humans have used animals for hundreds of thousands of years. by deffinition domestication requires breeding and modification of the species to meet our needs. how many wild cows are there? as a whole, the species is much better off BECAUSE OF HUMANS. there population is many times more than what it would be in the wild, the individual animals live easy content lives and they live on average much longer than they would have in the wild.
i cant help but recall a video. people worked very hard to clean up an oil spill. one seal in particular was nursed back to health over months before being released into the sea. it got about 10 feet into the water before being eaten by a killer whale. i laugned my ass off.
animals get eaten, if they didnt get eaten then they would starve. no amount of tear shedding will ever change that.
Reply
BowserUSC 8:06PM (3/06/2007)
I love dogs but huskies were bread for that very type of activity. If there never were people using huskies to pull sleds they would never even exist. They're work dogs.
Anyway I've always felt that PETA was a little over the top.
Reply
William McMullin 8:19PM (3/06/2007)
To help the sled dogs that Chrysler is helping to the fund the torture of, go to http://www.helpsleddogs.org/sponsors.htm
Reply
J 8:24PM (3/06/2007)
Ingrid Newkirk is diabetic. She uses insulin that it takes animals to make. She rationalizes because she is saving more animals than she is killing. Seriously.
Reply
far jr 10:49PM (3/06/2007)
Many well constructed arguments here... Kudos to all.
I also believe the core of PETAs work is admirable. I believe very few would advocate FOR animal cruelty...however PETA is made up of radical extremists that alienate many with thier hypocritical positions on such things as fishing and drinking milk while at the same time euthenizing pets without even making an effort to find them loving homes.
Another tactic used by PETA is trying to paint any person who disagrees with thier positions as demonized animal haters who just love blood, gore, and squealing animals in pain. Such is not the case. I have killed and butchered my own pigs, deer, turkeys, ducks, fish, and more. I don't enjoy the killing. And I enjoy the butchering even less. But you will not eat better and healthier animals than those you raise, hunt, catch and clean yourself. Nature doesn't inject hormones and antibiotics into wild game and I avoid those as much as possible when I raise my own. To each his own but I'll take mine medium-well!
Reply
Barney 11:11PM (3/06/2007)
"She uses insulin that it takes animals to make."
What?
Reply