How do you propose to make currently existent animals nonexistent?
I get that PETA wants to neuter and euthanize animals so they won’t have to deal with the terrors and atrocities humans inflict on them. But as far as I know, genocide isn’t ethical by any means, even when it’s done with kid gloves (hah!).
You are confusing 2 different positions here.
Position 1:
PETA opposes pet ownership and wants to end this practice.
Why?
All sorts of wacky reasons.
How are they accomplishing this?
Position 2:
PETA wants to end the overpopulation of dogs and cats in this country.
Why:
Several million cats and dogs are euthanized each year in this country. Irresponsible owners, lack of shelter space and lack of people looking to adopt means there is simply no room for these animals.
The facilities of many of these shelters can’t care for the large amount of animals they take in. These animals suffer because they are left in cages and their physical, mental and medical needs are not taken into consideration.
Either that or many are simply abandoned and left to fend for themselves. Also cruel to the animal (and not particularly good for humans either).
How are they accomplishing this?
By promoting neutering and spaying.
I’m not a fan of PETA but the articles that BoyoJim linked to I certainly didn’t have a problem with.
In this article:
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39
PETA says that animals should be euthanized as humanely as possible and state that sodium pentobarbitol is the most compassionate choice for euthanasia.
In addition, they state that gassing, decompression, shooting and electrocution are not humane choices.
What is the problem with this?
In this article:
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=40
PETA says that millions of animals pass through shelters each year.
They then describe what constitutes an “ideal” shelter (adequate room for for dogs and cats to exercise, medical care, educated staff, strong adoption program, spaying and neutering, adoption screening etc.)
PETA then says that no-kill shelters are “less than ideal” because they can’t accept every animal that comes their way. They also say that some no-kill shelters might only take in animals that are highly adoptable, that animals they turn away are often abandoned rather than turned into kill shelters which is cruel, that some no-kill shelters warehouse unplaceable animals for years without adequate attention to their needs which is also cruel
PETA also says that many shelters are in need of reform and they give examples of how to go about this (organize people to take action, get involved in local politics, document, write to newspapers etc.).
Again, what is the problem with this?
In this article:
http://www.peta.org/Living/AT-Fall2005/nokill.asp
PETA says that there is no such thing as a no-kill shelter. No-kill shelters run out of room and have to turn away animals. When that happens, people who wish to get rid of their pets either abandony them, kill them, or turn them in to kill shelters (open admission shelters). Open admission shelters are better, however, because they take in every animal that is presented to them.
PETA says that the way to prevent all the animals being euthanized each year is to prevent the birth of unwanted dogs and cats.
PETA says that because no-kill shelters don’t address the problems of pet overpopulation it would be better to divert funds to spay and neuter programs which will help to address the pet overpopulation problem.
4… PETA says that they are trying to end pet overpopulation by providing low cost spaying and neutering, advocating mandatory spaying and neutering for animals adopted from shelters, campaigning against puppy mills and pet shops, helping underfunded shelters and advocating adoption rather than purchase from a breeder or pet store.
Again, I really would like to know what the problem with this is?
The articles I read seemed very even-handed and well-thought out especially given their usual hyperbole. Their views on the above subjects really aren’t much different, as far as I can see, from other, more rational and sane, animal advocacy groups.
I, personally don’t agree with them concerning their position on no-kill shelters but their line of reasoning is sound. Additionally, I don’t see a problem with purchasing a dog from a responsible breeder.
I also don’t believe PETA should have harassed the OP but think the OP is a hyprocrite for complaining about PETA’s behavior towards him while finding their physical assault on Anna Wintour amusing.
It’s worse than I thought :eek:
oh come ON. saying that getting pied is physical assault is being a bit dramatic. Satan himself could throw a pie at Anna Wintour and I’d probably still give him a high five.
Resorting to a ridiculous comparison indicates that we’re at an impass.
It fits the legal definition of assault.
Does this work better for you?
“I also don’t believe PETA should have harassed the OP but think the OP is a hyprocrite for complaining about PETA’s behavior towards him while finding their harassment of Anna Wintour amusing.”
And yes, you’re still a hypocrite. Here’s a hint, defacing people’s cars, letting the air out of tires, sealing doors and yes, throwing things at people are not cool no matter who is the recipient of said harassment.
Millions of cats and dogs are euthanized each year because there is no room for them.
99.9% of the animals that are euthanized are NOT euthanized by PETA. They are euthanized, for the most part, by municipal shelters who have don’t have the room for them.
Do you think municipal shelters want to extinguish pet ownership? What would you do with the millions of animals that don’t have homes?
That may be, but it’s still the law. I wouldn’t fight to the death on this one, if I were you.
The problem with PETA, in my opinion from what I’m learning here, is not that all their goals are bad; I agree with some of their goals, and I often agree with their philosophy. I don’t agree with all of their goals, I don’t agree at all with their methods, and their leader, Ingrid Newkirk, seems certifiably insane. They seem to take a good thing and take it much too far. Fewer cats and dogs killed? Great! Treating food animals humanely? Super! Stopping all medical research that uses animals? Um, well, I would still like disease fought. Eliminate cats and dogs as pets because they’re slaves? Okay, I’m going to back away slowly now…
Well Anna Wintour fits the legal definition of a monster-faced intolerable BITCH.
So I’m a hypocrite. Who isn’t? I think a a few of you guys fit the legal definition of unbearably anal. I wanted this to be more of a focus on institutional animal usage and not an argument over semantics. I think its pretty clear that PETA doesnt have warm fuzzy feelings for no-kill humane shelters. If you don’t want to call that opposition then don’t. But PETA still has put a big frowny face by no-kill shelters on their checklist. Can we agree on that?
This is a widely used attack on veganism that is completely hollow and frankly pretty childish. Soybean fields feed the cows too – so nonvegans aren’t somehow avoiding those animal deaths. Guilt-free is not the principle vegans are seeking, it’s “least harm.”
What’s the root of the resentment toward vegans, that dirves people to make nasty and ill-thought-out comments like this?
Sailboat
Wait a while. It happens on its own, eventually.
Sailboat
While I am very interested in animal rights, the folks in PETA and their associated groups make me want to scream and stick them with sharp, pointy sticks. Yes, we no longer need to wear fur as there’s better alternatives out there now. Yes, it would be better if we became less dependant on animals for the main part of our diets. However, I don’t think this crew of clueless widgets realize that you can get farther with your arguement if you’re civil.
I remember about 15-20 years ago, a bunch of PETA dipshits “freed” several dozen dogs at a dog show at the NC State fairgrounds. Once released from their kennels and encouraged to “run free” a couple of dogs ran out into Hillsborough Street. I don’t know how many actually died, but I do know some PETA dipshit thought my father’s dobie was “better dead than caged.”
That was one of the three times I’d ever seen my father cry.
That is almost word for word my feeling about the issue, too. It’s good to see other folks saying things like this: I was starting to feel like the only correct position to adopt here toward PETA was uncritical loathing, and that any nuance in the position was branded heresy in the worst possible way.
Daniel
And you know this how? You two are friends? She teased you in grade school? You spend your free time reading US and In Style Magazine?
That doesn’t make it better.
I’ll wear that badge, at least occasionally. It annoys me when I see people, as I did in this thread, tarring themselves with the same brush they accuse PETA of wielding.
.
You wanted to vent and rightly so over PETA’s less savory activities, particularly their behavior towards you. Nothing wrong with that and the letter you wrote was very good (except for your mention of Michael Vick, that argument was weak, at best). If you really wanted a thread that focused on institutional animal usage, the “In My Humble Opinion” forum seems more appropriate.
Unlike some of the posters in this thread, I am more than capable of reading for comprehension.
Where did I say that?
This is not a new revelation. If you read my post above, I am very aware of their position on no-kill shelters. I also said that while I don’t neccessarily agree with their position, their reasoning is sound.
What exactly do you find illogical or crazy or over the top or just plain wrong concerning their stance on no-kill shelters?
Again, show me where I said different. Also, again show me where PETA’s argument against no-kill shelters is so terribly wrong. Remember, even broken clocks are right twice a day.
Yikes! That was exhausting. But no Anna Wintour and I didn’t go to grade school together. I didn’t grow up during the Depression.
Hey dorkness! As usual, you’re getting your ass handed to you by defending the indefensible in PETA, ignoring the facts and links that people are posting in favor of unsubstantiated statements and ad hominem attacks, but it looks like you might have a new disciple in valleyofthedolls, s/he seems willing enough to gullibley go along with the PETA propaganda. Nurture this one, you’re not going to get many people on a board dedicated to facts and critical thinking to buy the swill PETA markets, you need to jump on what you happen to get.
Thanks weirddave I’ve never had something I posted picked apart sentence by sentence before like that. You know when people start defending the editors of Vogue magazine and being proud of being intolerably anal that they are just being contrary. What a bully! Anyways, I don’t think the michael vick argument is weak at best. I haven’t seen the media all over animal issues this much in a while. People have just recently decided that they are outraged! they want to slay him! Talk about a good time for a group like PETA to swoop in. The zealouts always strike after some sort of media frenzy. The gun people and the scientologists against psych meds after VTech, anyone who ever wanted to see Marilyn Manson fry after columbine, I cant think of anymore its too early in the morning.
Just out of curiosity, did I ignore the facts and links that people have posted in favor of unsubstantiated statements and ad hominem attacks?
Also, what exactly did I write that makes you think I’m willing enough to gullibly go along with the PETA propaganda?
Also, if you could just point out where lefthandofdorkness ignored the facts and links that people are posting in favor of unsubstantiated statements and ad hominem attacks, I would appreciate that as well.
Sorry you have a problem with how I posted. I thought it would be easier to read but since you ignored 95% of it, I guess you had trouble…my bad.
I’m also sorry you think I’m a bully but I guess I’ll wear that badge too. And I still think you’re a hyprocrite. You don’t get to pick and choose who organization X gets to harass. If it’s not okay that organization X harasses you (and it’s not) then it’s not okay that organization X harasses someone else. What’s so difficult to understand about that? So it’s not about defending Anna Wintour, it’s about finding the idea that its okay to thow pies at some people but not others really kind of pathetic particularly when this delineation, by your prior comments, seems to be based solely on personal appearance.
That was directed at LHOD. Rick, Boyo Jim and others have posted links to outside sources and to PETA’s own website, press releases and quotes from it’s leader, yet he continues to dismiss them out of hand or to argue over degrees of meaning in the word oppose. It’s old hat with him, he always comes into PETA threads and defends them.
Your argument seems to be that PETA believes in some worthwhile things, so we should focus on those things and ignore the over the top stuff that they do as well. This is LHOD’s typical MO in these threads as well. To be fair to LHOD, I know he doesn’t agree with the extreme things that PETA does, but his failing seems to be that he thinks if he admits that criticism of some of most of what PETA does is valid then he is conceding that everything PETA does is without merit. I don’t buy that, but I look at the organization as a whole. Most of what PETA does is so over the top, so hypocritical, so extreme that it completely undermines and negates the few good, logical positions that they do hold. At the same time, those worthwhile cause are much better served by other organizations, such as the HSUS, so I see no value in PETA at all. It’s the old “Hilter loved dogs” analogy. Yea, you may be able to find something good and admirable in any organization or individual, but if the negatives outweigh that good by a huge margin, so what?