I have no idea what that guy is gibbering about. I think everyone has backed themselves up pretty well in this thread. How is saying “i must have killed thousands of them” not the same thing as confessing to killing thousands of them
I can’t imagine how you can read PETA’s own web page and still say that PETA doesn’t oppose no-kill shelters. What would they have to say?
Is this not enough:
“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Harper’s, Aug 1988
“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats… If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Animals, May/June 1993
“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.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990
“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Newsday, Feb 1988
“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. … 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.
“As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves.”
-PETA’s Statement on Companion Animals
“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, New Yorker magazine, April 23, 2003
“We do not advocate ‘right to life’ for animals.” - Ingrid Newkirk, in correspondence to Nathan Winograd
Lute, did you read what I was responding to? Yes, PETA thinks pet ownership is akin to slavery. Yes, that’s a silly position. No, it is not the same thing as “better they be dead than caged.” It’s not remotely the same thing. A billion more quotes pointing out that they don’t like pet ownership won’t change that.
Boyo, again, if all you mean by “opposes no-kill shelters” is that they think no-kill shelters aren’t a full solution and that they don’t have a lot of respect for them, then we have no disagreement. If you’re suggesting that PETA thinks they’re doing harm in the world, then I believe you’ve not carefully read their position.
They overstate the problems with no-kill shelters badly, it’s true (although there’s a kernel of truth to the criticism)–but to suggest they oppose no-kill shelters seems to lump those in with other things PETA opposes, like eating meat, wearing fur, and conducting medical research.
lobster, did you confess to conducting animal research on this board? Only in the sense that you confessed to that did Newkirk confess to euthanizing animals. Again, maybe I misunderstand what you mean by “confess.”
Daniel
I suggest you read it more carefully.
According to PETA, no-kill sheleters are harmful. Maybe not as harmful as meat eating, or important enough to boycott them, but indisputably something they don’t agree with, think is a waste of resources, and not only a waste but a drain of resources away from other sensible projects.
That is opposition by any standard, except possibly yours. What does opposition mean in your world?
Wasn’t PETA in support of the German animal rights group that wanted the Berlin Zoo to euthanize Knut the Polar Bear earlier this year? That seems like a pretty firm statement of ‘better dead than caged’.
Must learn patience
Hadn’t heard about this… details?
I’m kinda thinking it is too bad Ingrid’s parents didn’t think this way. 
Boyo Jim, this is a Wikipedia article about the young polar bear. It doesn’t mention PETA, but does go into the supposed controversy involving the statements of an animal rights activist.
So, you advance an *ad **hominem *argument against Penn and Teller, decline to support it with any evidence, proclaim that questioning an uncategorical statement of yours is focussing on minutiae, and then advance an ad hominem argument against me.
Why not just admit that you went off half-cocked? It’s clear that you have a beef with Penn and Teller, but why not admit that all it amounts to is that you simply don’t like them?
Lefty, did you read all of what I posted? They believe the domesticated dog & cat should be wiped out. How is that not the same as “better they be dead than caged”? What better way to wipe them out than at a shelter?
And the way they say that the dog & cat should be wiped out is through “neutering, neutering, and more neutering.” Neutering an animal increases its expected life span, by decreasing the risk of certain types of cancer. They’re not wishing death on a single animal–rather, they’re (crazily, IMO) wishing the end of the subspecies. ANd they CERTAINLY don’t suggest in any of your quotes that we end the subspecies through euthanasia: that’s a completely different nutty position.
Daniel
Maybe I ought to consider it opposition. I’m just used to PETA’s opposition being totally overblown and ridiculous–protests, naked celebrities, offensive ad campaigns, etc. No-kill shelters they call “less-than-ideal” and suggest that money spent on them could better be spent on spaying and neutering. If that’s “opposition,” by PETA’s standards it’s pretty damn milquetoast.
The OP suggested that PETA opposed no-kill shelters, such as the one from which he’d adopted his dog; I inferred that he thought PETA objected to his adopting from a no-kill shelter. Nothing in their critique of no-kills (at least that I’ve seen) criticizes those who adopt from them. Either my inference or his was incorrect.
Daniel
Again: how is that different from “better dead than caged”?
I’m not sure how they’re remotely the same. They’re not saying any particular animal should be dead or caged. Perhaps they’re saying “better nonexistent than caged,” but that’s a whole nother kettle.
Daniel
:rolleyes:
Every single euthanized pet is one step closer to no more pets.
I am no fan of PETA, but it is a different position–letting domestic animals die off without progeny is nothing like euthanizing someone’s pets. And while I support the idea of pets, I do see their point about "no-kill’ shelters–they serve to further hide the reality that almost 10 million dogs and cats have to be put down each year, by putting an organizational seperation between ‘adoptable’ animals, that people see, and the others, that are quietly killed.
As is every single dog killed in a fight. Does PETA therefore support dogfighting?
Daniel