Is pet ownership one of PETA’s buttons? That seems a bit odd if improved animal welfare is the goal.
Their idea of animal welfare is to run free, be hit by cars, die of disease or parasites or be torn apart by predators.
We encourage people who have the time, money, patience, commitment, and love needed to care for an animal for life to adopt one from a shelter—or, better yet, to adopt two compatible animals so that they can provide each other with companionship
PetA, and PetB.
(I’ll get me coat.)
As long as it’s vegan, unlike some bread.
Although their stance on pets is generally reasonable common sense, they just can’t help but infuse everything with their sanctimonious attitude. It’s not enough to encourage people, they must condemn anyone who does not comply.
With so many cats and dogs in need of homes, there is no excuse for buying animals from pet shops or breeders, which exacerbate the overpopulation and homelessness crisis.
While I’d always encourage a potential pet owner to go to a shelter, committing to an animal companion that will be with you 24/7 for more than a decade is a big life decision, and it’s perfectly reasonable to want a pet with known characteristics from a responsible breeder. We all try to do what we can, but none of us sacrifice everything for the well being of others, and all of us have different priorities.
The logical consequence of their absolutist stance is that there is no excuse for marrying a human with the means to support themselves. When looking for a marriage partner, we should all seek out a homeless person or a destitute single parent.
In particular, palm oil is chemically extremely similar to lard, both having about the same mix of fatty acids. You can substitute a solid palm oil, like Spectrum vegetable shortening for lard in recipes like pie crust with no other changes.
So is neutering pets OK? (If not, is it OK for men to get vasectomies? 
)
Line from Family Guy
Peter: “I’m going down to the supermarket to see what stuff they’re turning into milk this week…”
Shrug. You think it’s reasonable, they disagree. I don’t know that that makes them sanctimonious. I do know that we’re getting far afield from factual answers.
The sanctimoniousness comes from the “there is no excuse” in their text. It feels (at least to me) like they are saying that, if you do not do what they recommend, you are automatically a bad person.
It does not help them make friends, really.
(Full disclosure: I really, really, really dislike PETA, but I have tried to keep dispassionate in this comment).
I have a certain level of respect for where they are coming from, but even to most of us who see that they have a point, they are about as a normal Muslim would view a salafist. Kind of like Greens respect the goals of Earth First but find their methods counter-productive to the cause.
Meh, they amuse me and bemuse me more than anything else. Hard to get worked up about them. I eat a lot of meat, but I do see where they’re coming from, and kinda sorta agree. It’s hard for me to take them too seriously, though.
I read that as an ethical judgment, similar to how I, making a different ethical judgment, might declare that there is no excuse for domestic violence. If you disagree with their premise, that’s one thing; but I find that people often don’t even understand their premise and so misread what they’re saying as sanctimony.
I guess I rather disagree with their basic premise. There are “puppy mills” that are disgraceful and must be shut down at all costs, that for sure. But there are very responsible breeders as well who care for the well-being of their animals. Getting a pet from one of them, especially if you want (as Riemann said) a pet of known characteristics from a reputable breeder, I do not see that as an objectively censurable thing.
Putting in the same category people who get a dog from a puppy mill to make it fight and people who want to be responsible about getting a dog with known characteristics from a reputable breeder… Saying that both are equally reprehensible and have no excuse for what they do… that is where the sanctimoniousness comes in.
I’d posit that there’s no such thing as a reputable breeder of, say, pugs or Cavalier King Charles Spaniels (with the exception of those breeders that are specifically trying to bring breeds back to their healthier roots). They have serious health problems that affect them their entire lives. In fact, pretty much all dog breeds are massively inbred and have health problems as a result. Dog breeding is not objectively bad, but elevating breed standards above the health of the dog is. I’m sure every breeder claims that health comes first, but their actual first priority is maintaining the purebred line and best meeting the breed standards.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Domestic violence is something where an absolutist stance that “there is no excuse” is appropriate. The point is that PETA treat their own rigid views on much more nuanced matters in a similar absolutist manner when it’s not appropriate, condemning anyone who does not completely agree with their (usually extreme) views as amoral.
I agree–but I’m not sure I follow your conclusion. Is it sanctimonious for someone to make absolutist statements about something when they think those statements are appropriate but you don’t? You disagree with their premise, which I get–I think I do, too–but that means one argues with the premise, not with the form of the argument that flows from the premise.
I’m not sure they say they’re equally reprehensible. As I understand their argument, there are two fundamental problems with buying from a breeder:
- Some breeders abuse their animals, and you don’t want to encourage that.
- There are dogs being euthanized due to overpopulation, and buying from a breeder robs those dogs of a home and results in their euthanasia.
Argument 1 only applies to buying from some breeders. Argument 2 applies to buying from all breeders.
There’s a reasonable counter to argument 2 that some folks wouldn’t have a dog at all if they couldn’t get one with “known characteristics,” and then I’m sure PETA would have a counter to that, and I’m sure that folks who buy from breeders would find their counter to that counter unpersuasive.
I see that as a legitimate debate.
I still don’t know what nit you are trying to pick here. To be sanctimonious is to make a show of being morally superior.
Do you have some other definition of being sanctimonious that means that you are not being sanctimonious provided only that you believe your moral perspective is correct?
Not at all–but your objection to my “domestic violence” analogy seemed to be that " Domestic violence is something where an absolutist stance that “there is no excuse” is appropriate." That has nothing to do with making a show. Really not clear what you’re getting at here, except that your language is veering into the insulting.