PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

PETA is an example to me of an organization based so purely on an artificial ideology that it is, in fact, utterly heartless in its actual practices. It reminds me of ideologies, both on the left and the right, that for the sake of a principal have been willing to kill millions of human beings. It is the principal that the intellectual philosophy is all important and "one can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Ethical" is not the same as kind. "Unethical" as their press releases and internal documents show, is to consider any unequal view or treatment of one animal by another animal to be immoral "speciesism." They truly believe that the life of an ant is absolutely ethically comparable in all ways to the life of my son. My feeding of my cat, playing with it, and taking it to a vet if ill means that I am projecting my evil sense of superiority on the creature and violating its dignity and inherent right to live, and rapidly die, as an autonomous, free living animal in the wilderness. Pet ownership is equivalent to slavery in their view; I am not making this up.

PETA is not pro-pets; it is very much anti-pets. And not even pro-individual animal, but instead it believes in a conceptualized world where no animal "exploits" another. I've forgotten how they view all those carnivores out there, or the competition between even different herbivores for their food and living space, but I am sure that PETA intends to work against these "flaws."

I suppose that we should at least be grateful that PETA was not around to provide the solution that they currently use on escaped home pet "animal slaves" to escaped human slaves in the 1800s.
 
Last edited:
jakesteele said:
I thought PETA is all about helping and saving animals. Why on earth would she steal a dog and put it down?
Click to expand...


They actually (as policy) believe that they are being merciful by "saving" the animals from a life of confinement. They believe that the best way to "help" them is to put them out of the misery they imagine them to be in.

That woman should be taken out back and treated like the slut that she is.
Click to expand...


I think she should be dragged through a very public trial and sentenced to the harshest penalties available under law, but sadly that doesn't amount to very much. Theft of a pet may not even constitute grand larceny. Maybe trespassing, too.

The only useful responses will be through civil action, to a degree which actually impairs the operation of the group in some significant fashion.

Since they take in tens of millions in donations regularly from unwitting donors who don't really understand what PETA does with the money they get (or don't care) the judgement needed to put a dent in their activities has to be substantial.

When confronted with the possibility of very public court displays they have a tendency to try and settle.

I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of those times.

PETA is more like a cult of animal sadists trying to maintain a thin veneer of ethical principles, enough so that they can keep the donations coming in. They need as much light shed on their policies and practices as possible.
 
baron said:
I have no idea why anybody would do that, and neither is a reason suggested.

But this - "Wilber Zarate and his daughter, Cynthia, seek more than $9 million" - demonstrates what it's all about. I bet they had a party when they realised their dog had been killed by PETA, assuming that's what happened.
Click to expand...

I'll bet the neighbors did. Finally some peace and quiet!
 
Belz... said:
No they don't. They just care about the fluffy ones.
Click to expand...
I wonder what would happen if (for example) they got a roach infestation at their head office. Would they actually spray for them? (And, assuming they would... would they try to justify it somehow.)
 
This is on the PETA site. Seems apt:
"As difficult as it may be for us to accept, euthanasia (when carried out by veterinarians or trained animal shelter professionals with a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital) is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave a world that has no place for them."

Now that I know it's compassionate and dignified, I'm no longer upset.
 
Giordano said:
PETA is an example to me of an organization based so purely on an artificial ideology that it is, in fact, utterly heartless in its actual practices.
Click to expand...


It's far worse than that, they are also utter hypocrites. PETA's Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland is alive today only because of porcine insulin; that is, insulin that was developed from pigs. She has since switched to synthesized insulin, but that still contains some animal products. PETA has gone on the record saying that they believe that all animal use, even medical testing, is inherently evil and they would rather see sick people die than use animal-testing-derived treatments. When called on this hypocrisy, she responds:

“I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I’m not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.” —Glamour, January 1990

So animal testing is only a problem for someone else, not for her. Right. PETA is not pro-animal-rights, they are a bizarre anti-human death cult. Just look at their advertising and publicity stunts; particularly the way that they rely heavily on highly sexist and objectifying portrayals of women. Not just sexist, but many of their ads branch out into body shaming, racism, and brutalizing of women. http://www.thefrisky.com/2015-01-28...es-of-sexist-peta-ads-that-turned-me-to-meat/
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
I wonder what would happen if (for example) they got a roach infestation at their head office. Would they actually spray for them? (And, assuming they would... would they try to justify it somehow.)
Click to expand...

Of course they'd kill them. Release them from their wretched existence! No more suffering! Whatever's convenient.
 
marplots said:
This is on the PETA site. Seems apt:
"As difficult as it may be for us to accept, euthanasia (when carried out by veterinarians or trained animal shelter professionals with a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital) is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave a world that has no place for them."

Now that I know it's compassionate and dignified, I'm no longer upset.
Click to expand...

Not to defend PETA, but their statement is a sentiment I agree with, as a supporter of the SPCA and my local cat rescue organization. There are limited resources that we seem to dedicate to animals, and I do believe euthanasia is kinder and more ethical than warehousing.

What's important about this tragedy is that taking an animal from its home makes it clear that this wasn't an 'unwanted animal', which is a situation they're not actually attempting to address with their euthanasia policy statement quoted above.
 
It sounds like they were paying contractors by the dog, rather than by the hour to round up abandoned dogs to bring them to be euthanized? :jaw-dropp

How stupid can they be?

I hope whoever this group is they get sued out of existence.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It sounds like they were paying contractors by the dog, rather than by the hour to round up abandoned dogs to bring them to be euthanized? :jaw-dropp

How stupid can they be?

I hope whoever this group is they get sued out of existence.
Click to expand...

A bounty on dogs' heads. What could go wrong?

This is why a high punitive damages sounds good to me - it's punishing mismanagement that led to pain & suffering.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It sounds like they were paying contractors by the dog, rather than by the hour to round up abandoned dogs to bring them to be euthanized? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that - the more they get the better.

blutoski said:
What's important about this tragedy is that taking an animal from its home makes it clear that this wasn't an 'unwanted animal',
Click to expand...
Perhaps not unwanted, but was it being properly looked after? The dog should never have left be in a position where it could be 'snatched', as that means it was free to wander around where it pleased.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Perhaps not unwanted, but was it being properly looked after? The dog should never have left be in a position where it could be 'snatched', as that means it was free to wander around where it pleased.
Click to expand...

That's probably the rationale of the napper. I had a friend with that mentality: "If it's not nailed down, it's free. If I could prise it loose, it wasn't really nailed down."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom