PETA in generals, has had a positive effect in society

"PETA call themselves the protector of Animals and have created campaigns which have caused sheer shock without effect. " That is debateable. Sheer shock can have a major effect (i. e. 9/11) Here are only a few of their acomplishments (. http://www.furisdead.com...) - Making Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation go fur free - Making Redenvolope stop using fur in earmuffs - Making the Bombay company go fur-free - Making J. Crew go fur-free - Making Ann Taylor go fur-free "One can look at for instance the images PETA gained from Chinese fur farms [1] now in a country where there are no Animal rights [2] and hardly any public pressure on the Chinese government is PETA actually doing anything except allowing images which could negatively impact our Children's minds. " PETA is taking a different approach. They are making the American compnies go fur-free, and making the fur trade a less economic viable oppurtunity. PETA knows that the chinese will probably never dierectly give up the fur trade, so they affect the trade economically "Yet is it not hypocritical for an organization such as PETA whom are against the killing and torture of animals to have leaders whom seem to have a zeal for killing with Newkirk saying " "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. .. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. " [3] Does this not show an organization which does not stick to even the words in its name. " You didn't bother to read the whole quote did you? (. http://www.nokillnow.com...) "I went to the front office all the time, and I would say, 'John is kicking the dogs and putting them into freezers. ' Or I would say, 'They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care. ' In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right. I hadn't thought about animal rights in the broader sense. Not then, or even for a while after. But working at that shelter I just said to myself, 'What is wrong with human beings that we can act this way? '" Sort of changes things, doesn't it? . She had to kill the animals, because the alternative was even worse. If she had not intervened, the animals would have been tortured, then killed. "Ethical is defined as 'motivation based on ideas of right and wrong' [4] the definition of what we believe is morally wrong is hard to define due to the fact that different people have different frames of reference. I therefore put forward that the only general consensus of right and wrong can be that of what society generally accepts. " Agreed "Society is defined as 'A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, comprising also possible characters or conditions such as cultural identity, social solidarity, or eusociality. ' [5]" Agreed "One has to remember also the procedure of how medicine is approved, in that the FDA requires all medicine to have animal testing before being approved in order to test the safety of the medication. [6] If animal testing was stopped as wanted the affect would cause major problems for society in the testing of new drugs. " Depending on the drug, there are other ways you can test it. (If it is not dangerous, it can PROBABLY, go straight to trial) My argument is simple. PETA has helped animal's welfare. The society has deemed that ethical, which is prven by this poll. Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2008. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ï¿½ 3. . "Which of these statements comes closest to your view about the treatment of animals? Animals deserve the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation. Animals deserve some protection from harm and exploitation, but it is still appropriate to use them for the benefit of humans. OR, Animals don't need much protection from harm and exploitation since they are just animals. " Options rotated (. http://www.pollingreport.com...) 97% of people think animals deserve at least some protection. PETA provides that. I await my opponents reply.