PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[DragonLady]

In regards to the latter, I think that PETA has become a bit more clever and is less willing to be so brutally frank in public.

Yes; this. I used to receive their newsletters back in the '70's and I remember them as being much more blunt about their views. They haven't changed the views, rather they've learned the people most likely to give them money are pet owners, and so they've pulled out the silver tongues and found ways to thinly hide them.

Although I disagree strongly with their agenda, I wouldn't be so bothered by it if they would go back to being more forthright about it.

 

[DragonLady]

"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.

Under what context would those statements become acceptable to most animal lovers??? He says "the dog must disappear". What context somehow makes that mean something else?

 

[Dessi]

Under what context would those statements become acceptable to most animal lovers??? He says "the dog must disappear". What context somehow makes that mean something else?

How would you know without actually checking the source text?

 

[Giordano]

A few years ago, someone posted a bunch a short quotes from of Peter Singer's books to prove how evil he was, but did not realize that I actually owned those books and could check them for context.

I seriously don't recommend copy-pasting a long list of quotes without familiarizing yourself with the original source. Is there any chance that you could link to the question sources for context?

Frankly no, because I have already spent a lot of time on this and I honestly don't think I will convince you, at least not right now.

The quotes labeled "PETA" are directly from PETA's own website, so you can easily find them yourself. The quotes from the leaders of PETA typically cite the titles of the books from which they came, the year, and sometimes the very page, so you can look at those yourself if you doubt that they are legitimate quotes.

Something I was intending to suggest- if you currently support what PETA does, perhaps you can arrange to volunteer (if you haven't already) to find out in person how the PETA shelters are run and find out directly from PETA administrators what their views and the official PETA views on companion animals actually are? I would honestly appreciate it just as much if you could come back here and honestly say that the quotes and new stories are false. It upsets me thinking PETA had done and supports these bad things; I would be relieved to learn that they didn't.

 

[DragonLady]

How would you know without actually checking the source text?

I'm asking you. What context would change the meaning of the phrase "The cat, like the dog, must disappear" to mean something other than exactly what it says?

 

[Giordano]

Dessai,

I wish to emphasize that it would be more comfortable to simply believe that I was an opponent to animal rights and allowed myself to go with my prejudice and be fooled by the anti-PETA food or commercial breeder associations.

The problem is that I started out as a PETA sympathizer, at least in regard to many of their stated aims. It was my exposure to the reality that reluctantly turned me around.

That is why I recommend that even very strong animal rights advocates find organizations to support that champion animals. I came to believe, opposite to my prior views, that PETA is not one of them. PETA may "put up" with you having a cat, but they think you are wrong to do so and only wish for the day you, in fact no-one, has one. They view domesticated animals of all kinds as distortions of the ideal "natural" world, and that even the most loving of us are violating these animals idealized freedoms, and that the only solution is to work toward wiping these species off the planet, preferably by no longer breeding any, but by killing them when no "owner" can object. Did I wish to come to this conclusion? No. But I have.

 

[marplots]

I'm asking you. What context would change the meaning of the phrase "The cat, like the dog, must disappear" to mean something other than exactly what it says?

"The Art of Illusion" by David Copperfield.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm asking you. What context would change the meaning of the phrase "The cat, like the dog, must disappear" to mean something other than exactly what it says?

It's hard to say as the phrase was topped and tailed by elisions ...

 

[dudalb]

PETA is also like a cult in that it's members blindly defend it, and automatically reject any evidence against it. They try to explain away anything the group is caught doing.

There are certain organziations I have complete contempt for. PETA is one of them.
I still think Penn and Teller did the best expose of PETA on "Bull----".

The day that Ingrid bites the big one, It will be "Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead" time as far as I am concerned.

 

[Dessi]

"Kill every animal so there are none left"

"[T]o possess or receive love from an animal causes the animal suffering. ... Kill every animal so that eventually there are none left. No animals for food, no animals for clothing, no animals for research, no animals for entertainment, no animals for abuse, no animals for profit...no animals, at all."
- DragonLady, addressing animal rights activists at a public forum, Nov-2015

"I'm not...opposed to the extinction of elephants, or any other species. I really don't think they care."
- DragonLady, in a recorded conversation regarding animal rights. 2015.11.30

Holy crap, talk about an omnicidal maniac, yeesh!

Seriously, explain to me how "kill every animal so that there are none left" say something other than exactly what it says. Explain to elephants don't care about being killed. Wait, nevermind, I'm not even interested to see how the apologists rationalize that one. Sick.

DragonLadyKillsAnimals.com

 

[Dessi]

^ mods, please don't send the above post to AAH. You need to read it alongside the other posts on this page to understand the intent and context.

 

[Giordano]

^ mods, please don't send the above post to AAH. You need to read it alongside the other posts on this page to understand the intent and context.

Please don't let your posts get too weird here, okay? Just check out the quotes I posted and find out if they were accurate. If not, please let us all know. Thanks!

 

[Cain]

PeTA puts profits over people. Newkirk makes tens of thousands of dollars a year off her "charity."

 

[Dessi]

Please don't let your posts get too weird here, okay? Just check out the quotes I posted and find out if they were accurate. If not, please let us all know. Thanks!

It takes you 5 seconds to copy/paste a wall of quotes from PetaKillsAnimals, and takes me several hours or days to track down and verify the quotes in their original context. Your asking me to do all of your research, at a huge expense of my time and patience. I hope you understand why I find your request unreasonable.

In any case, I am not familiar with John Bryant's writings. I don't know if the quotes attributed to him are fairly representative of his views, if they are an extreme characterization of his views, or if they wildly misrepresent his views.

Likewise, when you see Newkirk's statements that "'Pet' ownership is an abysmal situation" or "'pets' are slaves", context matters. You need to understand that PETA strongly rejects the view that you can buy and own an animal like a piece of property. According to PETA, that's basically what "pets" are: a special kind of property that exists for your amusement. They believe the designation of a "pet" desensitizes people to reality that animals in their care have first-person experiences and a complex emotional lives. A lowly "pet's" emotional and physical needs trite, secondary, and unimportant. (e.g. "if you kill a "pet", just go to the store and buy a new one"). Basically, calling animals "pets" is to PETA, as calling women "babes" is to feminists.

PETA wants to move away from the mindset that an animal is a "pet" and people own them like property, as that thinking harms the goals of animal welfare. They believe the re-designation of animals from "pets" to companions better captures the reciprocally compassionate relationship that people should have with animals in their care. They believe that a human/"pet" relationship is one-sided and diminishes the status of the "pet" as subservient and expendable; whereas a human/companion relationship raises the status a companion to a full-fledged member of the family.

If you aren't aware of the way PETA distinguishes low-status "pets" from high-status companions, statements like Newkirk's above come across as orders of magnitude more extreme than they really are.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
PETA believes that the re-designation of animals from "pets" to companions better captures the reciprocally compassionate relationship that people should have with animals in their care. They believe that a human/"pet" relationship is one-sided and diminishes the status of the "pet" as subservient and expendable; whereas a human/companion relationship raises the status a companion to a full-fledged member of the family.

This might explain why the lawsuit is for so much money. I would certainly take them to court if they killed a member of my family, even by mistake.

 

[Giordano]

It takes you 5 seconds to copy/paste a wall of quotes from PetaKillsAnswers, and takes me several hours or days to track down and verify the quotes in their original context. Your asking me to do all of your research, at a huge expense of my time and patience. I hope you understand why I find your request unreasonable.

In any case, I am not familiar with John Bryant's writings. I don't know if the quotes attributed to him are fairly representative of his views, if they are an extreme characterization of his views, or if they wildly misrepresent his views.

Likewise, when you see Newkirk's statements that "'Pet' ownership is an abysmal situation" or "'pets' are slaves", context matters. You need to understand that PETA strongly rejects the view that you can buy and own an animal like a piece of property. PETA also believes that calling an animal a "pet" is pejorative that reduces an animal down to a subservient thing that exists for your own amusement; they believe the designation of a "pet" desensitizes people to the realities that the animals in their care have first-person experiences and a complex emotional life; they believe people who regard their animal as a "pet" view their animals emotional and physical needs as trite and unimportant (e.g. if you kill a "pet", just go to the store and buy a new one). Basically, calling animals "pets" is to PETA, as calling women "babes" is to feminists.

PETA believes that the re-designation of animals from "pets" to companions better captures the reciprocally compassionate relationship that people should have with animals in their care. They believe that a human/"pet" relationship is one-sided and diminishes the status of the "pet" as subservient and expendable; whereas a human/companion relationship raises the status a companion to a full-fledged member of the family.

If you aren't aware of the way PETA distinguishes low-status "pets" from high-status companions, statements like Newkirk's above come across as orders of magnitude more extreme than they really are.

Honestly I am surprised and, based on the high quality of your typical posting, a bit disappointed in your response. No, none of my quotes were lifted from PETAKillsAnswers (is that a website?). I identified specifically the ones that I obtained from the PETA website itself and the book sources for the others. It is you who believes that the quotes are manufactured or out of context (I really can't tell which). How could I then find and quote the "correct" context or statements so as to address your concerns? Even if I could find and were to quote more of the text from each given source (and please note that I already provided multiple quotations from different sources) you might then still suspect that I was still manufacturing the quote or failing to provide the appropriate context that somehow lay just outside the expanded quotes that I were to provide. And frankly I suspect that whatever I provided, PETA supporters would find a way of interpreting the quote to consider it benign.

I have been very open in my discussions here, sympathetic to your love of animals, and focused mostly on urging you to do your own research, although responding to your specific challenges for me to provide proof of my statements. I have more than once indicated that if you found after your research that your own interests paralleled PETAs, that was fine. Yet your posts have now become very personal and directed at the people who, like me, have deep concerns as to if PETA does parallel your interests.

I already explained why I use the term pets (because in my view companions help pay the mortgage), but I realize how PETA views the term. However the depth of my own love and caring for my pets has been far beyond how PETA defines the word pet and I am offended by their suggestion that somehow my view of my cats and dogs as pets means that I didn't value them as much as PETA demands. I would have tried to save my pets from a burning building at the risk of my own life. My cats and dogs were all obtained from a shelter, yet I paid huge sums to feed them, make them comfortable, and to help maintain and improve their health over the years. They were allowed the run of the house, I bought them presents, and I cared about their pleasure and comfort. I seem to have fulfilled all the criteria laid down by PETA with two exceptions: (1) I hope that my children will have the same opportunity to have cats and dogs as pets/companion animals as I did, and (2) if my cats or dogs escaped, I would appreciate the opportunity to have a few days to find them alive at a shelter, indeed the way I first met them, rather than have them euthanized before I had any chance of rescuing them again as I did once.

I am not an enemy. I am not even questioning your personal views on animals. I am only suggesting that you might wish to question if your views and PETA's are really congruent or not, and "blessing" you if you discover that they are.

Oh, and by the way, it took me 45 minutes to find all the quotes in the prior post, not 5 seconds, I was willing to make a modest effort to support my position.

 

[DragonLady]

"[T]o possess or receive love from an animal causes the animal suffering. ... Kill every animal so that eventually there are none left. No animals for food, no animals for clothing, no animals for research, no animals for entertainment, no animals for abuse, no animals for profit...no animals, at all."
- DragonLady, addressing animal rights activists at a public forum, Nov-2015

"I'm not...opposed to the extinction of elephants, or any other species. I really don't think they care."
- DragonLady, in a recorded conversation regarding animal rights. 2015.11.30

Holy crap, talk about an omnicidal maniac, yeesh!

Seriously, explain to me how "kill every animal so that there are none left" say something other than exactly what it says. Explain to elephants don't care about being killed. Wait, nevermind, I'm not even interested to see how the apologists rationalize that one. Sick.

DragonLadyKillsAnimals.com

Obviously, I didn't make myself clear (my own fault, entirely). I didn't ask if the words could be taken out of context, or if someone could twist the original author's intent by doing so.

My original question (which I failed to properly relate in my next post) was:

Under what context would those statements become acceptable to most animal lovers??? He says "the dog must disappear". What context somehow makes that mean something else?

So let me start over, with the hopes of clarifying:


Is there a context in which the idea "the dog must disappear" would be acceptable to most animal lovers?

Is there a condition that would cause most animal lovers to believe ""The cat, like the dog, must disappear"?

I'm not trying to play word games. Rather, to my view, a lot of these very outspoken AR groups seem to see "animal use" and "animal abuse" as being synonyms. Many -or most- don't seem to see any distinction.

To MY thinking animal USE -and resultant animal suffering and death- is a fact of life on this planet. Whether we're killing cattle for food, or killing mice to clear fields for radishes, we're killing something. If one species is going to live, it must do so at the expense of the life of other species. I'm very much against animal ABUSE -intentionally causing discomfort or pain.

So far as owning animals and breeding them for commercial purposes, there is no practical way to stop that. We still depend on animals and animal byproducts for survival, not to even mention comfort. Further, I believe for most of us owning a dog or a cat has many benefits, and we don't want to imagine our grandchildren missing out on that experience just because it's currently easier or more convenient to kill or neuter them out of existence.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with owning animals, eating animals, using animals for research, keeping animals as pets, or breeding animals. I don't like animal ABUSE, but I don't see the potential for it to be a reason to curtail HUMAN rights in the name of "animal rights".

 

[DragonLady]

Since I still seem to be hanging 'round the forums rather than working, I'll clarify my own current stance a bit more:

I don't believe animals have, or should ever have rights. If one species is granted rights, every other species suddenly has obligations or duties toward that species. If cats have a "right to life" then we humans must not only make sure every one of them lives, but we become obligated to feed every stray, provide emergency medical care, prevent crimes against them, punish them for crimes committed...yes, it becomes facetious, fast...but that's part and parcel. This, in a world in which many PEOPLE don't have rights?

Once we start putting our (limited) resources into fulfilling these obligations, what do we start getting in return? What obligations are we going to demand of animals in return for these rights? As it is, we eat them, but if we take that away, what contributions do cows or sheep make? Other than companionship and therapeutic benefits, what kinds of contributions to our species -or to any other species- can we expect cats or goldfish to make? As it is, humans granted rights are expected to uphold the laws, hold jobs, pay taxes, protect and defend other people, and behave in ways that are generally beneficial. What laws will we expect animals to uphold? What work will we demand they do? What kinds of contributions to our society will we demand of them?

 

[Meed]

Obviously, I didn't make myself clear (my own fault, entirely). I didn't ask if the words could be taken out of context, or if someone could twist the original author's intent by doing so.

My original question (which I failed to properly relate in my next post) was:

So let me start over, with the hopes of clarifying:

Is there a context in which the idea "the dog musg disappear" would be acceptable to most animal lovers?

Is there a condition that would cause most animal lovers to believe ""The cat, like the dog, must disappear"?

This strikes me as irrelevant, as far as supporting or not supporting PETA goes. Stray cats and dogs are massively overpopulated, so there is no chance that they'll dissapear any time soon, even if the practice of commercial breeding were to somehow cease completely. I can understand the philosophical disagreement, but for all practical purposes I don't see how it matters. There are way too many stray or abandoned animals that need adopting at present. Maybe at some point in the distant future, "should we breed dogs and cats so they don't go extinct?" will become a relevant topic of debate.

To MY thinking animal USE -and resultant animal suffering and death- is a fact of life on this planet.

It is a fact that it's something that happens, yes. That doesn't say anything about whether or not it's ethical.

Whether we're killing cattle for food, or killing mice to clear fields for radishes, we're killing something. If one species is going to live, it must do so at the expense of the life of other species. I'm very much against animal ABUSE -intentionally causing discomfort or pain.

True that some small mammals will inevitably die due to plant harvesting. But there's a difference between deliberately doing things to animals and doing things which happen to result in unintended harm to animals, such as driving, breathing and plant harvesting. There's also a difference, in my view, between killing a wild animal and deliberately bringing an animal into existence and subjecting it to a life of suffering and cruel treatment before killing it. Additionally, raising farm animals typically requires farming even more plant foods (in order to feed the animals) than the amount of food you get out of the resulting meat products. In other words, it will tend to take more soybeans (or whatever it may be) to produce a pork sandwhich than it will to produce a tofu sandwhich. Thus the former would result in *even more* unintentional mouse deaths in addition to all the cruelty inflicted on the pigs.

We still depend on animals and animal byproducts for survival, not to even mention comfort.

How so?

I don't believe there is anything wrong with owning animals, eating animals, using animals for research, keeping animals as pets, or breeding animals.

As to eating animals... Male chicks are thrown alive into grinders or garbage bins. Females are wing clipped and debeaked without anesthesia (yes, the beak is full of nerve endings) so they don't peck each other to death in the madness of extremely cramped and crowded conditions. Pigs (smarter than dogs in some ways for the record) are kept in crates where they barely have any room to move. I could go on. And that's before we even get to the killing part. It's weird to me that people see a dog left in a car while someone shops and get outraged, yet there is this dissonance when it comes to animals such as chickens, cows ans pigs.

I don't like animal ABUSE, but I don't see the potential for it to be a reason to curtail HUMAN rights in the name of "animal rights".

Can I take it you are unhappy about anti dog fighting laws then? Actually you should be against all animal cruelty laws period, since they all curtail humans' rights to inflict cruelty on animals.

 

[The Don]

This strikes me as irrelevant, as far as supporting or not supporting PETA goes.

I disagree, I think it's very relevant particularly in the case where people haven't looked into and understood PETA's mission and core values. PETA have been very effective at marketing themselves as an animal welfare charity, in part as a result of their ability to attract celebrity endorsement. This means that many people don't properly understand PETA, their objectives or their methods.

It's clear that Dessi has carried out that research and has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient overlap between her own values and beliefs and those of PETA that she can wholeheartedly support them. This doesn't surprise me because Dessi strikes me as the sort of person who looks into these things thoroughly and being a vegan IMO means she has a very different relationship towards and opinion about animals than someone like myself who claims to be concerned about animal welfare but who continues eat meat and use animal byproducts.

Giordano OTOH seems to have gone through a similar process of research and found that PETA's aims and objectives don't align sufficiently with his/her own.

Cases like this serve to point out that PETA are not an animal welfare group like the RSPCA but rather a well-funded and media savvy organisation whose objective is to fundamentally change the relationship between humans and animals and whose end goals may be at odds with many people who support PETA based on a cursory examination their motives and methods.