PETA documentary on HBO - I Am An Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA

The Seeker of Good Songs

Well-Known Member
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/iamananimal/?ntrack_para1=feat_sec1_title

I Am An Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA

A candid and introspective look at the extreme beliefs and motives of Ingrid Newkirk, the British-born co-founder and driving force behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the world's largest animal-rights organization
-------------------

I heard on the radio today a small discussion of this doc.

One thing they mentioned was that Ingrid has in her will, the instruction that upon her death that she wants to be Barbecued. Not cremated, but BBQ'd.

Should be interesting.
 
super nutty buddy. most extremists in any venue are, don't we know!
 
One thing they mentioned was that Ingrid has in her will, the instruction that upon her death that she wants to be Barbecued. Not cremated, but BBQ'd.

Would PETA members be allowed to eat some of her? She's offering herself out of her own free will, so no animals will have suffered for it.

And I hate to ask, but did she specify what BBQ style? Juicy & goopy, Carolina-style? Or dry & smoky like Texas ribs? Something else? :eek:
 
They are trying to change the way that animals have traditionally been viewed. At least this will talk about a lot of animal rights issues, though it sounds like they will be dealt with in an extremely slanted way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Her views on some things may actually be extreme, but that is different than being an extremist. Has she done a suicide bombing on the headquarters of KFC yet? I think that would be extremist. As it is she is inflexible in her views and says a lot of things, I believe, to get attention.

For example, it says PETA are against seeing-eye dogs. That probably sounds extreme. I could understand why they take that position though. Even though a dog is probably happy in that role, that is not a dog's natural existence.

They are trying to change the way that animals have traditionally been viewed. Everyone that has tried to make major changes in society has been called a radical or an extremist, because it's easier to focus on a personal attack than to deal with the facts. At least this will talk about a lot of animal rights issues, though it sounds like they will be dealt with in an extremely slanted way.

Ahh but a human's natural existence is not to nurture and care for another species as we are animals ourselves and would naturally look out for our own "pack" if you will.

Seeing eye dogs should not be a problem. If we can help animals they can help us.

Ingrid IS though a terrorist. She has donated plenty of money to those that have committed horrible eco-terrorist acts. $5000 here and $5000 there... sounds like nothing... until you find out that it is going to the father of a murderer as a circular way of giving the money to that person themselves.
 
I deleted it to the bare bones because I am not trying to start an argument with Bogdana. I don't mind the way people choose to use their own freedom of speech. My point is that using words like extremist, radical, or eco-terrorist is a tactic. I just think that when a person hears a word like that they should consider it and not accept it without question.

I used the seeing eye dog as an example that many might find extreme. But the point is that it is not the animals choice, and that the animal is molded into service. I think that a dog might have natural tendencies towards this anyway, and that the dogs are probably carefully chosen and that it isn't so unnatural. I'm not against seeing eye dogs. I was using it as an example of a view that might not be very popular, but that still had a somewhat logical basis. But they mention that in that HBO piece. I think it sounds like they are not going to be real balanced.

edit: I was reading the interview with the filmmaker and it doesn't sound like the piece is unfair. He seems pretty sympathetic to the cause. I guess the review is drawing on the more controversial points to get people to watch.


PETA is it's own worst enemy. They take positions that are hugely unpopular and make themselves look silly with their groupie star-struck celebrity obsession. They let Michael Vick come to their headquarters to take an animal sensitivity training course. I wrote to them that it looks like PETA and Mike Vick are using each other and that I found it disgusting that they would have anything to do with this person that tortures and kills. They did answer though and it sort of made sense.

Dear David,



Thank you for contacting PETA regarding Michael Vick’s attendance of our “Developing Empathy for Animals” course.



Following the news of Vick’s guilty plea, PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk, contacted Vick and suggested that he hear—for the first time in his life, he confirmed—about animal protection issues, learn how animals feel joy and pain and deserve respect, and receive specific instruction on what to say to young people whom he has influenced in the worst possible ways.



We regret if our intentions regarding Michael Vick were not clear. Please allow me to elaborate: PETA has no desire to do anything to improve his image. We do not support him or his actions. While we are glad that we were able to present him with facts about animals and treating them with empathy, we have made it clear to both Vick and the judge hearing his case that he should serve the maximum sentence allowable by law and be banned for life from contact with animals.



We took advantage of the opportunity to meet with Vick because we wanted to teach him about animals and why it is not acceptable to abuse them in any way. The information we shared with him was completely new to him. As a public figure, it is inevitable that Vick will at some point interact with children again. If the information we gave him will make it so he will impart the message that animal abuse is unacceptable, then our effort was not in vain.



As an animal rights group, it is our job to educate everyone we can about animals. It would have been a failure on our part if we had turned away from the possibility of allowing a generation of children to see firsthand how participating in animal cruelty can derail a person’s dreams and career.



Given the numerous incidents of alleged animal abuse cases involving NFL players in recent years, please join us in urging the NFL to require every player to take PETA’s “Developing Empathy for Animals” course. You can do so at http://GetActive.PETA.org/campaign/vick_nfl_empathy.



For more thoughts on Vick and PETA’s empathy class, please see http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/10/vick_at_the_off.php and http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/10/michael_vick_ps.php. I also highly recommend that you read PETA president Ingrid Newkirk’s op-ed that was printed in the Virginian-Pilot and many other newspapers nationwide: http://blog.peta.org/archives/Vick Classroom Op-Ed, Va. Pilot, October 2007.pdf.



Thank you again for writing and for the chance to clarify our position. We appreciate your concern for animals and your support.



Sincerely,



Jeff Haines

Correspondence Assistant

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahh but a human's natural existence is not to nurture and care for another species as we are animals ourselves and would naturally look out for our own "pack" if you will.

interesting how some people will say that humans are so superior to animals when it comes to praising our intellect and achievements - but will say that we are just brute animals if it's about defending cruelty. oximoronic.
 
interesting how some people will say that humans are so superior to animals when it comes to praising our intellect and achievements - but will say that we are just brute animals if it's about defending cruelty. oximoronic.

Exactly that is why I was saying you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that we should all be allowed to settle into our so called natural design and still say that we should look after every life form on the planet. (You didn't quote the second part.)

There comes a responsibility not to abuse animals but we are on top of the food chain. I am one of the people that feel that we are superior to animals. I do not consider seeing-eye dogs to be criminal nor police dogs or many of the other services that animals have been used for over the years. I feel no guilt whatsoever over eating chicken and never will. By the same token Vick received exactly what he deserved. There is no place for dog-fighting. And just as I will devour my BBQ chicken sandwich later today (so good) there is no place for chicken-fights- and I mean the actual bird ones ... not the ones in the pool.

According to some of the "leadership" within Peta there should be no pets. I really cannot think of my Grandmother's poodle making it on the streets from where it came from. Damn thing would get it's butt kicked.

Funny how you did not quote PETA and its support of criminals.
 
Last edited:
Exactly that is why I was saying you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that we should all be allowed to settle into our so called natural design and still say that we should look after every life form on the planet. (You didn't quote the second part.)

There comes a responsibility not to abuse animals but we are on top of the food chain. I am one of the people that feel that we are superior to animals. I do not consider seeing-eye dogs to be criminal nor police dogs or many of the other services that animals have been used for over the years. I feel no guilt whatsoever over eating chicken and never will. By the same token Vick received exactly what he deserved. There is no place for dog-fighting. And just as I will devour my BBQ chicken sandwich later today (so good) there is no place for chicken-fights- and I mean the actual bird ones ... not the ones in the pool.

According to some of the "leadership" within Peta there should be no pets. I really cannot think of my Grandmother's poodle making it on the streets from where it came from. Damn thing would get it's butt kicked.

Funny how you did not quote PETA and its support of criminals.


who said that we should "settle into our natural design"? I certainly never said that. not even the hardcore neodarwinists will say that - because every time we use birth control we go against our "natural design" - for example. therefore the "natural design" is always a poor argument to defend anything at all in modern human society.

if you have no guilt about your chicken sandwich but are against cockfights then maybe that's just because you haven't seen how chickens are raised in the day and age of mass production. maybe you think that it's still like in the old days - happy chickens running around outside on a small farm. I'm sure that, since you find cruelty to animals bad, you would be very upset if you saw one of those factory farms.

which leads us to the criminals. to me personally, the criminals are the factory farmers who treat animals like this and not the ones that break into these "farms" to film them and make this footage public.

but yes, I agree that some of peta's campaings are alienating more people than convincing anyone, unfotunately. they seem to think that bad press is better than no press at all.
 
Nothing is superior! And everything has a right to be here.

And it is all about value judgements. It's like Japan calling Greenpeace protestors 'environmental terrorists' because they try to prevent the horror that is commercial whaling (and that's my value judgement).
Japan has just announced plans to cull endangered humpback whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, which is supposed to be off-limits to commercial whaling. Who are the real environmental terrorists here?

And can someone please explain why Ingrid Newkirk is an 'eco-terrorist'?
Can of worms.......
 
Last edited:
But who are they? And what are they doing to make them 'terrorists'? If the law supports practices like vivisection and factory farming and you challenge those practices, are you automatically a criminal?

It's all too easy to condemn, and spread false rumours because you don't support the beliefs of PETA, but where are the facts?

And if it was up to me a 'Developing Empathy for Animals' course would be part of every school curriculum. Surely the ability to feel empathy for the suffering of another person or animal is the best/worst thing about being human.
 
Last edited:
Dave,
anyone who wants a worldwide ban on meat and animal product foods, and thinks seeing eye dogs should be banned, is an extremist in my view.
 
Following the news of Vick’s guilty plea, PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk, contacted Vick and suggested that he hear—for the first time in his life, he confirmed—about animal protection issues, learn how animals feel joy and pain and deserve respect, and receive specific instruction on what to say to young people whom he has influenced in the worst possible ways.

I smell bullshit.
 
Not everyone would accept that the ALF are terrorists.

A suicide bomber who kills hundreds of people indiscriminately is, by most accepted standards, a terrorist. There's a world of difference between violence to property and violence to people.

How exactly is PETA persecuting anyone (and I think you'll find that it is generally organisations they target) unless you mean that exposing the truth about the amount of appalling animal abuse going on is persecution?
If you've got nothing to hide, why hide it? Why is violence inflicted on animals acceptable?
 
Well I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Ingrid Newkirk may have views that seem extreme but, as one reviewer pointed out, she lives daily with horrors that most of us refuse to deal with. Apparently there is footage of animals being skinned alive, as well as a host of other unfathomable cruelties.

I don't agree with everything that PETA does, but I do stand a bit in awe of all they have accomplished. It's a wonder that they are allowed to continue in this brave new world where simply videotaping inside animal labs is now officially a terrorist act.
 
Back
Top Bottom