People Eating ...

[unixronin]

Yeah, everyone knows the standard joking alternate expansion of PETA:  People Eating Tasty Animals.  But I was thinking about PETA and its actual positions and policies, and realized that there is another alternative expansion that actually reflects their core philosophies much better — and, frankly, more honestly — than their own canonical name does.

People for the Extermination of Tainted Animals.

Think about it.  PETA spokesdroids talk a good and noble-sounding talk in media interviews, but their actual policies as demonstrated by their actions basically amount to ethnic cleansing for animals.  Their stated goal is the extinction, in the current generation, of all animals that have been tainted by contact with humans.  All pets, all domesticated animals, any animal bred for scientific or medical purposes, any animal farmed for meat, milk, furs, fiber — they're all on PETA's extermination list.  For their own good and the greater good, of course.  (It's always for the greater good, isn't it?)

I'm sure it would be quite redundant to mention the obvious historical analogies with regard to humans.

Just as a thought experiment, in seven words:  How untainted is untainted enough to live?  How many species of animal life are there on this planet that have not been affected in SOME way by contact with humans?

Comments

[ithildae]

What order of life are we talking about? Mammals? Bird and Fish? Insects?

I am sure there are some bacteria that are untainted. How far down the pyramid of life do we need to go?

Why is it that people want to disrupt my, perfectly legal and socially appropriate, life, for the benefit of their ideals? What are they giving up for the sake of my ideals? (Hypothetical question, as long as they are legal, I really don't care what they do. [As far as mandated change is concerned, I do care about people.]) I have real issues with someone forcibly trying to restrict my lifestyle and choices. Whether by confrontation or government action, it is the same.