This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"And your hair. What color do they call that, radioactive?"
11943 members | you are not logged in | 17 April 2014












March 22 2008

Amber Benson and Tom Lenk talk PETA. Passionate words from the actors.

Tom seriously needs to keep his adorableness to a healthy and bearable-for-humans level. I seem to remember he's vegetarian too. Btw, he was at the Buffy panel too.. in the crowd with his friend Trent from Pinkisthenewblog.
One more reason to love Amber and Tom. :)
I think it is great for celebrities to use their status in the public eye to speak out for animals. That's excellent.
My internet connection is too slow to watch Amber's video. It should be a crime to have too slow of internet to watch Amber...but it was great to read Tom's interview. The story about Peepers--absolutely adorable.
I have problems at times with PETA. They do marvelous things. However, those marvelous things are often overshadowed by the insane things they do.

I support them 100% in the non-insane things they do, though. There are many horrible things that animals go through that they shouldn't have to.
Is it wrong that my main interest here is in hoping that the interview is a prelude to Amber doing one of those "I'd rather go naked..." anti-fur ads?

Yeah, it's probably wrong.
"Undress, undress ...!" - no, wait, that's ... not OK ... it's so good that they promote the protection of animals. Stop animal abuse!
I can't stress enough how dangerous PETA is to the real cause of creating a better, safer world for animals. When you really study them, really see what they're about, they don't even truly believe in pet ownership. Saying that doesn't meet their goals, but the information is out there.

I admire Tom and Amber, but sure wish they would use their star power to really help animals and support the myriad organizations that are really interested in animal welfare instead of animal rights. (The former believes in humans being kind and humane toward animals and the latter is about abolishing the pet/human bond.)

I worked in an animal shelter for years and PETA never did a single thing to make the world better for any of those animals.
Wasn't PETA the one in the news recently for mass animal euthenasia?
I'm a member of the Humane Society, the ASPCA and the Jane Goodall Institute myself.

The more people bond with animals, the less likely they are to mistreat them.
Yes, Shadowquest.

At this point in history there has to be mass euth. There are just too many animals and not enough homes. PETA's sin here is their dishonesty about it. It's a dishonesty shared by many, but not all, "no-kill" shelters. It's a game of semantics in that most animal shelters put animals to sleep, but some shelters opt to put that in the "fine print." So, a shelter that is up front can get a bad rep for having the same basic policies as a "no-kill," other than having a more open door policy about admitting animals.

Eh, not what this board is for.

The point is that I see so many celebs supporting PETA, and it seems a real shame when I don't believe they truly help animals. I'd rather go naked than support PETA. However, in some ways it's the safer choice than to acknowledge that until we as a society get our "stuff" together, responsible organizations are forced to put animals to sleep.

I agree with GrrrrlRomeo's point. The two best things we can do for animals is a stronger focus on spay/neuter and helping create a lasting human/animal bond. PETA says that we should have never domesticated animals, but there is no turning back the clock. Making this the cornerstone of their organization is a whole lot of Not Helpful.

I'm not one of those people who seem to think celebs should keep their opinions private and only support non-controversial causes. Just because someone has the power to reach more people doesn't mean they should be silent. However, I honestly see something sad in people who clearly love animals and having the power to make a huge difference aligning with this particular group.
PETA says that we should have never domesticated animals, but there is no turning back the clock. Making this the cornerstone of their organization is a whole lot of Not Helpful.


This is a serious and long standing misconception. One of the original founders of PETA (who is no longer with the organization) held this view but it has never been an officially held belief of the group as a whole.

One reason it's been easy to keep this misinformation going is that there is a grain of truth to it. PETA doesn't believe in taking wild animals out of their natural habitat and breeding them or keeping them as pets, which is actually in violation of the CITES International Treaty in more cases than not, anyhow.

I share my home with three Amazon Parrot companions, but I still support the vast majority of PETA's goals. My parrots were bred at home, long before I understood that their wild captured parents came into captivity as part of an ugly, brutal and mostly illegal operation. I was a breeder for over fifteen years but I never once sold a baby to a pet shop or a large breeding operation, I did it like a "parrot adoption agency".

As I came to understand the ramifications of the exploding parrot over-population problem, my ex and I donated our breeding pairs to a wonderful local zoo with free flight aviaries, keeping only three home bred pets.
This is a complex issue and not everyone who supports or even belongs to PETA holds the exact same views. But overall, I think they do a lot of good.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home