Anyone who knows me or has visited my blog knows that I am an avid animal rights activist and deeply care about the treatment of other creatures. However, I am also very strictly against the well-known organization that many know as PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This may come as a surprise right now but ill make more sense by the end of this blog post. PETA is an organization that is supported by many people, including celebrities, and accepts donations for their cause. Their missions statement essentially states that”animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” At first glance, they seem like a group that is for humane animal treatment. But if one delves further into methods that PETA uses to make their voices heard, the truth can be found.

One notable way that PETA attempt to gain support – which I’ve mentioned in a previous post – is their advertising. The organization has come under public attacks for the messages they voice because of their tendency to be extremely sexist. PETA uses sexual innuendos and in order to persuade others to become vegetarian or stop using fur products. There are a number of problems with this, not to mention the vulgarity of sexualizing the female body and utter lack of respect. The ads PETA uses often do not have factual or statistical support and use provocative images to divert attention. They have been known to use famous celebrities wearing minimal clothing with a statement from them regarding something they support. Their arguments lose credibility because, for there is no reason for a celebrity to be naked on their posters. PETA ads bring irrelevant topics into their arguments as well. They bring things that have no factual basis to their arguments for why people should support animals rights. The ad below states “Chicks love a vegetarian,” a statement that has no pertinence to why people should go vegetarian. There is no statistical or factual evidence here.

This organization also has the particular tendency to incorporate a fallacy known as “ad hominem.” An ad hominem is a type of red herring fallacy where there is an error in logic, particularly done through an attack on person. Rather than using evidence to support their possibly true claims, PETA opts to make the other party feel bad about their choices. The organization does not educate others when they abuse an appeal to pathos. They use upsetting language that makes any person reading their ads feel guilty. But paired with their condescending tone, they anger audiences and fail to voice their message.

PETA’s website is also riddled with questionable arguments for their cause. While I was lurking on their “About” page, I came across their FAQ. Here I found an intriguing question “Is it OK to eat eggs from chickens I’ve raised in my backyard?” I find a number of flaws in this question alone, starting with why the individual was compelled to ask PETA what was ‘allowed’ as if the organization determines a certain moral code and determines who goes to, metaphorically, Heaven or Hell. But PETA’s answer was even more interesting. They replied by giving their stance on what should be done – one saying that animals should not be used at all for human benefit – and then delving into something quite off topic. The red herring fallacy makes another appearance as PETA begins to explain the ‘harmful’ consequences of eating eggs and giving a medical Who is to say that PETA even knows the truth about egg consumption? The answer is altogether quite questionable and makes one think twice – or more – about the intentions of the organization.

In conclusion, even the best of organizations can be flawed in their intentions or methods for promoting their mission statement. I know now that I cannot take everything I see at face value, otherwise I’d be horribly uninformed. While I support many causes that seem idealistic on the outside, I must take the time to do my research to avoid perpetuating problematic causes – or, at the very least, I can avoid any public ‘faux pas’ to maintain my word.