Sorry if someone else mentioned it... But something else about the founder is that when confronted with the fact that her insulin (she is diabetic) comes from pigs who are bred specifically for that purpose, she replied that her survival (hers, specifically) was for the greater good.
Which sounds just.... what the hell?
I mean I personally do place the line at health-related stuff too. Like, I don't meddle with what choices other people make, but I personally avoid things that I feel are unnecessary. So I don't eat meat (although it's at least as much due to how much the industry pollutes than how animals are mistreated when it's done on a large scale) or wear fur, but insulin or meds in general aren't something I see a huge problem with. I'd look at another option, but if I can't find one, yeah, when it's about survival you keep your own, that makes perfect sense to me.
But it's so contradictory to everything else she says...
As for pets, even if one wanted their eradication (and I say, now that we have created them, literally in the case of dogs, let them be) it seems to me like the obvious way to do it would be sterilize them and take the best care possible of the existing one. Not hurt a single of those who are already there. I mean come on, it's not like any of PeTA's objectives is realistically attainable in the first generation of any pet anyways.
I'd be all for stopping professional breeding of them, letting them breed naturally and adopting them (I've never gone to a pet store for any of my cats) if there was a viable, realistic plan for it that wouldn't lead to more abuse (and I am in no way qualified to know if it's possible or not) but even that doesn't require a single death of perfectly happy, healthy, adoptable pets.
Now I understand the sad thing that means some pets are killed to make room for those who will get adopted. It's sad, but shelters have a limited amount of room and money, and if they keep the pet who is too sick, too old or sadly in the case of cats too black to be adopted, and reject the one which is young and healthy and of "proper" appearance, well in the end both die. So I get that.
But that doesn't excuse their practices in the slightest, and it would never reach 90% of kills.
Anyways. Yeah, PeTA is pretty horrible. They're like the vegetarians who go yelling that meat is murder and throw your steak onto the ground. Congratulations, now they'll just get another steak, so you made things worse even from your point of view, plus they think vegetarians are psychos now.
EDIT:
NezumiiroKitsune said:
I'm unsure why the wearing of fur is at all considered ethically non negotiable, especially when leather is so widely embraced. As long as it's sustainable, the animals are either wild and killed humanely or farmed ethically, with minimal waste (if their meat can be used and / or they have other useful tissues / etc), and it is well regulated (in so much as numbers farmed / hunted only meet demand, and limits on this be enforced) then it seems as ethically grey as eating meat, in so much as, it's technically amoral since we can live without it, but we still do it because it's a valuable resource that we are willing to support for it's benefits.
I think it's considered worse than leather because leather typically comes from animals that are also eaten while fur doesn't (I avoid leather because since I don't eat beef I feel it would be totally inconsistent to wear leather. However I don't get why anyone who eats beef would avoid leather. It's the same animal that already died, guys.)
And leather/fur are typically put on a different level as eating meat because eating is a more basic survival thing than wearing pretty things. Fur is also warm but I don't see many people complaining about people wearing fur when they, say, live in a super cold place, hunt the animals and then wear their furs, for instance. It's the coats for the rich people that people are against.
Anyways, it is still widely debated that animal protein is a need rather than a want. I personally think meat producers have a lot to do with it. Even moreso with milk, I mean why would you even drink milk from another species in the first place, let alone say we "need" it several times a day? I'm allergic to casein and believe me I don't lack calcium in any way.
Anyways. My point is that in many people's minds, meat is a need, fur is a luxury, and therefore meat is okay but fur is bad. Also meat tastes good and a lot of people are much less willing to go without something they like eating than go without something they find looks good or feels warm. There are also way less replacements for meat than for fur (if you're trying to reproduce the texture or taste of meat, that is. As far as alternatives go, you've got eggs if you still eat them, or quinoa, both delivering full protein, and if you only want to make up for the amino acids provided by meat, you have most types of beans (the small ones but not the long ones, basically), all types of lentils, and many types of peas)
On top of that it's much less practical to be vegetarian than to avoid fur. And convenience is important. You can go to stores anywhere and find clothes that don't contain animals. But a lot of the time there aren't vegetarian options in stores or restaurants, or they cost more, which is ridiculous when you know they're much cheaper to produce.
Personally, I think it would be much more productive to encourage people to have vegetarian meals every so often. Have some falafels, or some beans in your mexican dish instead of the beef you usually get, that kind of thing. I think there is too much of an idea that there needs to be a huge divide (either you never eat animals or you eat them for every meal). Hell, in France where I grew up nobody has meat for breakfast, it's just not in the culture. Everyone is vegetarian for that one meal. A lot of them would get so offended if you told them that though.
