We were watching an episode last night of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit show about PETA. (Season Two, Episode One). Penn & Teller claimed that PETA wants to do away with guide dogs and pets. Is that really PETA’s statement?
From the PETA website
I think that answers your question.
Guide dogs? Apparently so.
They don’t seem to be against pets per se, but neither do they seem to be crazy about the concept. They are very down on breeding for pets, especially the puppy mill type. And just in case you’re thinking PETA is starting to sound almost normal, they suggest a (supplemented) vegetarian or vegan diet for your cat or dog.
They don’t really say in thier faq. It’s odd how they structure the FAQ Q&A to ask tough questions then donlt really answer them. It’s also odd (based on the website pics) how PETA seesm to be mostly composed of bottle blond, upper middle class women.
Dogs can do OK on a vegetarian diet (not that there’s any particularly good reason for it), but your cat will die.
PETA are a bunch of nuts. The most telling part of that Bullshit episode is where they found PETA had given something like $50,000 to a convicted arsonist who had blown up animal testing labs.
A paraphrased quote appeared in an interview with Ingrid Newkirk in the April 14, 2003 issue of the New Yorker:
“She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as ‘servants’ and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use.”
“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows … Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.” — Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator, at the “Animal Rights 2001” conference
“Serving a burger to your family today, knowing what we know, constitutes child abuse. You might as well give them weed killer. ” — Toni Vernelli, then-coordinator of PETA’s European operations
“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” — PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue
“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.” — Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report
“We are complete press sluts.”
“I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in The New Yorker, April 14, 2003
“She told me, in the most unequivocal terms, that the world would be an infinitely better place without humans in it at all.”
– About Newkirk, in The New Yorker, April 14, 2003
“Our campaigns are always geared towards children and they always will be” — PETA vice president Dan Matthews, on the Fox News Network (December 19, 2003)
“McVeigh’s decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries.” — Bruce Friedrich praising Oklahoma City bomber and mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh, for choosing a vegetarian last meal
There are others that I can’t find the cites to, stuff about Newkirk talking about how she wishes that all domestic species of animals were to go extinct and similar drivel. Make no mistake. These people are friggin’ CRAZY.
googling “dog vegetarian diet” produced this amusing exchange from the Veggieboards
A purebred human baby? As opposed to?
“I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles – from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.”
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, PETA, 1982, p.15.
“The cat, like the dog, must disappear… We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.”
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.
“You don’t have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them … One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
That’s a question a SANE person would ask. PETA freaks don’t ask questions like that.
Am I remembering incorrectly … or didn’t dogs essentially “domesticate themselves” back in the Stone Age? Another way to look at it: Cro-Magnons weren’t forcing wild dogs to scavenge through human garbage. Couldn’t it be said dogs willfully made the first move?
(Anyone got a copy of Gums, Germs, and Steel handy?)
So could you accuse the USA of harboring terrorist organiations? Good god, are we now part of the axis of evil? Oh my.
Actually now that I think about it, I am only assuming PETA is a US based organization.
Attorney/writer husband/wife team Andrew & Alice Vachss created a program where abused children use dogs to help them in therapy and courtroom appearances. The information is at http://www.vachss.com/dogs/av_dogs/sheba.html
I suppose PETA would object to this too.
Several groups with PETA ties (ELF for example) have been labelled ‘domestic terrorists’ by law enforcement. Although PETA itself has managed to disassociate itself with direct illegal acts, they vocally and financially support these other groups, and there are citizens and members of Congress trying to get their tax-exempt status revoked on that basis with more severe measures to follow. Probably notning will come of it, though. PETA’s PR is too good.
Also, there’s a difference in having terrorists based in your countries and ‘harboring’ them. The Taliban ‘harbored’ Al-Qaeda, providing it with a safe haven to strike other countries. ‘Domestic terrorists’ are based in the U.S. AND attack the U.S. while U.S. law enforecement tries to root them out.
PETA should be part of the Axis of Evil, though, that’s for sure.
We should free cats and dogs . . . by making them extinct.
An interesting philosophy, to say the least.
Then again, my cat is neutered, so I’m playing right into their hands!
I am sure that my Uncle John’s dog Pepper would be shocked to hear that, he has a female and she just had 3 puppies…
Well, make that a Mcdonalds Burger, and I might agree…
OK, then I am sure that nobody in PETA takes antibiotics, blood pressure meds, insulin, vaccinations…and I won’t cry at their funeral if they die of anything a simple animal tested med could cure, AIDS or not.
Good, fewer of her would make me happy=) and can I be the first to have an alien hybrid baby?
total agreement here…
aruvqan, if you get a chance, watch the episode of P&T’s Bullshit! that I mentioned in the OP. They point out that a senior vice president of PETA was taking insulin and *didn’t * consider herself a hypocrite because her life was committed to saving animals. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Typical terrorist thinking. She thinks that fanatical devotion to her cause exempts her from the rules that she expects everyone else to follow :mad:
When you consider that PeTA sees no ethical differences between animals and human beings, then it makes sense that they would be opposed to even guide dogs. From PeTA’s perspective, for a blind person to use a dog as a guide is no different that using a guide-midget.
Surely you’re opposed to the idea of using midgets to help lead the blind? :dubious:
Skopo, if a human was given all of their needs (food, shelter, etc.) in order to act as a guide for a blind person, within the boundaries of labor law, there’d be nothing unethical about it.
Ingrid Newkirk once famously proclaimed that “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
This is not someone who recognizes reality or normalcy. Her opinions should be valued (or devalued, accordingly) from that perspective.