PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Dessi]

<3 PETA 4 eva

But I am pleased to end my current participation on an up note

I will let you have the last word and gracefully drop out of the thread as well.

I'm totally aware that I hold ultra-fringe opinions on animal rights and PETA, but you've done a great job going out of your way to be civil and courteous to me regardless. Thanks

 

[DragonLady]

Just Googling this topic a bit, I'm absolutely overwhelmed by the number of people who publicly hold this view:

I am also a staunch believer in never, ever breeding an animal and spaying or neutering every one possible

http://stubbydog.org/2012/08/a-letter-to-peta/

I'm stunned by what seems to be willful ignorance. If we never, ever breed an animal, all animals will eventually become extinct, and then we humans will, too.

The world food supply is a CHAIN. If we remove links, we break the chain, and the whole system collapses. If we remove nuisances like flies, we also loose the benefits they provide by eliminating waste, and we remove the food source for the microorganisms that in turn create the raw materials for plants to survive....



Are there really that many who believe our voluntary extinction would be a good thing?

 

[Belz...]

Just Googling this topic a bit, I'm absolutely overwhelmed by the number of people who publicly hold this view:

Over-comfort in our modern society had made some people seriously disconnected from the reality of the world outside our gleaming cities.

 

[tuco]

Just Googling this topic a bit, I'm absolutely overwhelmed by the number of people who publicly hold this view:



http://stubbydog.org/2012/08/a-letter-to-peta/

I'm stunned by what seems to be willful ignorance. If we never, ever breed an animal, all animals will eventually become extinct, and then we humans will, too.

The world food supply is a CHAIN. If we remove links, we break the chain, and the whole system collapses. If we remove nuisances like flies, we also loose the benefits they provide by eliminating waste, and we remove the food source for the microorganisms that in turn create the raw materials for plants to survive....



Are there really that many who believe our voluntary extinction would be a good thing?

To be fair:

I am also a staunch believer in never, ever breeding an animal and spaying or neutering every one possible. I don’t have any problem with this core philosophy … but why must you make it so flagrant that you are directing it towards pit bulls? Is it not sufficient to say you want this for all companion animals and not single the pit bulls out?

Not sure if this person is up for voluntary extinction, not sure whether this person is ignorant of "food chain" but my guess is that this person does not talk about all animals in the world.

 

[Cain]

I don't know what the current anti dog fighting laws are, so I don't know *exactly* what is illegal.

Fact: dogs fight for a variety of reasons. It's a normal, natural part of their behavior. Many dog fights are pretty intense, and sometimes dogs -and their owners- are injured or even killed.

If dogs are afforded legal rights, and dog fights are illegal, who has committed a crime when two dogs have a dispute? The dogs, or the owners? If animals have legal rights, they must also have legal responsibilities, so since dogs fight as a normal, natural part of their behavior, how do we enforce laws against dogs fighting?

If dogs are afforded moral rights, and most people agree dogs should not fight because it's against our human morals, is that a good justification for making it illegal? If so what part(s) of it? Or under what conditions?

It's a wonder this kind of nonsense still gets posted. I'm sure you posted other nonsense, but at least key terms are highlighted here.

Do toddlers have legal responsibilities? The distinction at work here is elementary: there are moral agents and there are moral patients. Dogs fall into the latter category (along with some human beings). I have no idea what you mean by "moral rights." It sounds as though you're trying to say that dogs are morally significant beings.

For the record: I think encouraging dogs to fight is repugnant. It is against my ethics, and I have no problem if doing so is also illegal.

Well, that's just brilliant. I happen to think raising and slaughtering animals is repugnant. It is against my ethics, and I have no problem if doing is also illegal (unless it provoked a backlash that frustrated long term animal liberation).

As this thread demonstrates (and the many that came before), the arguments against animal rights are almost invariably shoddy. For all the nutty things people in PeTA have said, and the even nuttier things they are alleged to have said, their opponents are many, many, many times more ridiculous.

People like eating meat. They like having companion animals. They're not keen on thinking about these things, especially if such thoughts are going to negatively impact their material standard of living.

 

[eerok]

I will let you have the last word and gracefully drop out of the thread as well.

Dessi, thanks for your contributions to this thread. I began with a strong bias against PETA, but you've given me a lot to think about.

 

[elipse]

It's a wonder this kind of nonsense still gets posted. I'm sure you posted other nonsense, but at least key terms are highlighted here.

Do toddlers have legal responsibilities? The distinction at work here is elementary: there are moral agents and there are moral patients. Dogs fall into the latter category (along with some human beings). I have no idea what you mean by "moral rights." It sounds as though you're trying to say that dogs are morally significant beings.



Well, that's just brilliant. I happen to think raising and slaughtering animals is repugnant. It is against my ethics, and I have no problem if doing is also illegal (unless it provoked a backlash that frustrated long term animal liberation).

As this thread demonstrates (and the many that came before), the arguments against animal rights are almost invariably shoddy. For all the nutty things people in PeTA have said, and the even nuttier things they are alleged to have said, their opponents are many, many, many times more ridiculous.

People like eating meat. They like having companion animals. They're not keen on thinking about these things, especially if such thoughts are going to negatively impact their material standard of living.

I am an opponent of peta. I am also a supporter of animal rights, although I should probably actually say animal welfare, since even where my goals and petals goals align, I do not like their rhetoric or tactics, and our goals are often opposed, especially as concerns their shelter. I think they present and cultivate one image, because it is financially beneficial, while actually holding a philosophy that would alienate most donors.

What part of this is ridiculous to you?

Eta and euthanize get my elderly cats would actually raise my standard of living slightly, as vet bills are not cheap. So I guess I care less about that than you think.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm stunned by what seems to be willful ignorance. If we never, ever breed an animal, all animals will eventually become extinct, and then we humans will, too.

I am trying to think of how you come to this conclusion and cannot. Humans breeding animals is already a huge problem for global biodiversity and fitness.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The whole vegan argument is the least convincing one, since humans are not naturally vegan. We are obligate omnivores, and cannot survive on a purely vegan diet for very long without the aid of modern genetic-engineering technology.

I am skeptical.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

"Ethical" is a moving target, depending on and changing with a huge number of variables. Your ethics may be an affront to my ethics. If something happens to change our minds, our ethics may change, too. There is no concrete set of "ethics" carved on a wall somewhere; we're all making them up as we go along, and we all face challenges to them sometimes.

If we are going full relativism what is the point of this thread? don't go full relativism.

I think we all agree factory farming methods have drawbacks. However, cramped and crowded conditions are not the cause of many of these problems. For instance: chickens peck each other to death, regardless of the size of the range. Cockfighting as a sport began because chickens peck each other to death as a normal, natural part of the behavior. They do it in small cages, they do it in big cages, they do it when they're not in cages at all. So, either we remove the beaks, or we let them peck each other to death. There is no other option. So far as using anesthetic, do you want that in the food? Imagine the cry of indignation when the public hears their Sunday fry has been fed anesthetics?

I am trying to find something in this paragraph that is true.

If animals have legal rights, they must also have legal responsibilities

Nope.

Are humans expected to keep every dog from ever interacting with any other dog so that a fight is never, ever allowed to happen? Can Grandma be arrested if her Chihuahua is involved in a toothy tussle with the Chihuahua next door?

I do not believe you are familiar with even current laws.

Can we call a dog fight a form of animal cruelty when it is a natural, normal part of a dogs life?

This is just sophistry.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Honestly- this is not a statement for or against this concept, but I am just curious.

Do you know why PETA seems to approach this question differently from their views on stray/feral dogs? I think that we all accept that PETA had agreed to round up the stray dogs on the property in the OP, in part because the dogs were suffering and they also represented a risk to other animals at the site. So I was surprised that PETA views the proper response to feral cat colonies differently. Is this a cat versus dog person kind of thing (joking), stray vs. feral, or reflecting a perceived difference of the risk cats and dogs might posses to larger mammals? Of something else? Do you know?

PETA is against feral cats and TNR, last I checked. This article is more "how to do it right, if you must, which isn't really right, btw".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

That is not the definition of "use" and "we're killing something" leaves out all other concerns.

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.

Here you are putting weight to the hypothetic luxury "experience" of "our grandchildren" over the very existence of certain animals. Do you think that equation is a bit unbalanced? No, because if you don't think animals have rights or interests they are nothing more than property always second to human interests.

This isn't some farfetched notion. Breeders continue to create Cavaliers, Ridgebacks, Pugs, Bulldogs, Dalmatians and other genetically cursed breeds because they fetishise the "experience" and the "history" and all that fanciful claptrap.

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".

Yes, this is the modern welfarist position in a nutshell. The easiest contradiction is to see how the law always exempts certain classes of animals from animal abuse laws. Do you know why that is?

 

[logger]

My best judgement is that PETA's goals are not drastically different from my own.

I wonder which side of the political spectrum peta members are on, hmm.

 

[Cain]

What part of this is ridiculous to you?

The part where you omit that animal exploitation industries cause tens of billions to suffer and we have a nine page thread because a PeTA employee apparently killed one dog four days too soon.

 

[elipse]

The part where you omit that animal exploitation industries cause tens of billions to suffer and we have a nine page thread because a PeTA employee apparently killed one dog four days too soon.

1. If it was an isolated incident perhaps we would not have a 9 page thread. So saying "one dog" is disingenuous.

2. If I oppose "animal exploitation industries" or some of them, or most of them, (I can't tell you where I fall on this spectrum because you have not defined what you consider exploitation and neither have you provided examples) that is an entirely separate issue from whether or not I support peta. I do not subscribe to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

3. This thread is about peta. Thus I have made clear my position on peta. I have not given you my opinion on puppy mills, windmills, or General Mills, because those are not the subject of this thread.

What part of this is ridiculous?

 

[marplots]

I live in a world where people tell me they care about animals and then tell me I should cut my dog's balls off. Where death is preferred to suffering, or even potential suffering.

Is anyone discussing this with the animals?

 

[elipse]

I live in a world where people tell me they care about animals and then tell me I should cut my dog's balls off. Where death is preferred to suffering, or even potential suffering.

Is anyone discussing this with the animals?

Um...you probably should cut your dog's balls off, because dogs whose balls aren't cut off are one of the reasons there is so much unnecessary dog death.

Also, why are people who are against s/n always against it because of dog balls and not dog uteruses? Is it because balls are visible? Is it empathetic projection? Is it because they need to perceive their dogs as masculine?

I realize you can't answer for all dog owners. It's more a rhetorical wonder, but you can answer for yourself if you're so inclined.

 

[tuco]

I live in a world where people tell me they care about animals and then tell me I should cut my dog's balls off. Where death is preferred to suffering, or even potential suffering.

Is anyone discussing this with the animals?

I am. Have one month left to keep agreement to sterilize Siki, 11 months dog as I promised when I was taking him from a lady who co-runs organization dealing with dog adoption. To my knowledge and opinion she really cares for animals, not only because she co-runs I've seen her house and how she behaves to and talks to/about animals. So I have reasonable belief and she believes that by sterilizing Siki greater good, for animals, will be done where the goal is to reduce population of dogs like Siki.

She is not my problem. My problem are the people who left him in forest just before Christmas with broken leg and rib (though I dunno their story) or rather if to keep agreement or not. I ask him.

 

[elipse]

I wonder which side of the political spectrum peta members are on, hmm.

This is a very important and relevant post. I'm not sure how we managed in the thread before, but now we are set for a real breakthrough, I can feel it.

 

[Meed]

I think many would agree that all this constitutes abuse.

Fantastic. Then they would hopefully agree that the meat industry as it currently exists is, in large part, abusive to animals.

That is such a bad misrepresentation of what DragonLady was saying that it borders on dishonesty.

I wasn't being dishonest, nor was I "bordering on dishonesty". It's possible I misunderstood something. But thanks for that.

Evidence? I've been hearing this "overpopulation" argument since I was five years old.

"Overpopulation" was a weird word choice on my point, since any number of stray or sheltered/unadopted cats and dogs is more than ideal. But here's some numbers:

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-animal-homelessness

https://www.bissellpetfoundation.org/education/

Are you saying that if all cows were wild cows, and every family had to go out to find and shoot a cow if they wanted beef for dinner that would be okay?

We were discussing the unintentional killing of mice that happens as a result of plant farming, so I have no idea why you'd think I was saying that. As to the question, I don't know about "okay", but I do believe that hunting for meat is considerably less cruel than factory farming practices as they currently exist.

It sounds like your saying that raising animals for food is "a life of suffering and cruel treatment" by default?

No, I'm saying that it tends to be that way in practice.

So we should stop raising farm animals? Every human should be vegan, and every cow should be a wild cow? If that's what you believe, fine. But I disagree. I don't want to eat tofu sandwiches, and I don't want to shoot my own cows.

In fact, I kinda laugh at this idea (Not you, just the IDEA) because to my thinking that's equivalent to tossing out thousands of years of human history and innovation. The cave men who looked out at a world where every cow was a wild cow and every bean stalk was a wild bean stalk started farming bean stalks and raising cows just because that situation was so problematic. Imagine the problems it would cause now? Can you just picture 30,000 wild cows wandering the countryside eating the crops and blocking the highways? With 30,000 weekend warriors with shotguns trying to bring down Sunday dinner?

(shakes head)

It's your own idea, not mine.

We still eat meat, and most of the world is pretty dependent on it. We still animals in all kinds of industry, and we still use them for medical research.

I would agree that there are some people who depend on meat for survival. Impovershed people suffering from starvation/malnutrition/undernutrition should take what they can get (though I should remind you once again that animal farming is less resource efficient than plant farming so it isn't the best way to feed the masses). And there are still some people who live as hunter/gatherers.

I think we all agree factory farming methods have drawbacks. However, cramped and crowded conditions are not the cause of many of these problems. For instance: chickens peck each other to death, regardless of the size of the range.

Incorrect.

Cockfighting as a sport began because chickens peck each other to death as a normal, natural part of the behavior. They do it in small cages, they do it in big cages, they do it when they're not in cages at all.

Incorrect.

So, either we remove the beaks, or we let them peck each other to death. There is no other option.

How about not raising the chicken in the first place?

I don't know what the current anti dog fighting laws are, so I don't know *exactly* what is illegal.

Fact: dogs fight for a variety of reasons. It's a normal, natural part of their behavior. Many dog fights are pretty intense, and sometimes dogs -and their owners- are injured or even killed.

If dogs are afforded legal rights, and dog fights are illegal, who has committed a crime when two dogs have a dispute? The dogs, or the owners? If animals have legal rights, they must also have legal responsibilities, so since dogs fight as a normal, natural part of their behavior, how do we enforce laws against dogs fighting?

If dogs are afforded moral rights, and most people agree dogs should not fight because it's against our human morals, is that a good justification for making it illegal? If so what part(s) of it? Or under what conditions?

If dog fights are illegal, is every dog fight a criminal act? Can Grandma be arrested if her Chihuahua is involved in a toothy tussle with the Chihuahua next door? It depends. Or are the laws only concerned with big, loud, muscled dogs that might send each other -or smaller dogs, or the owners- to the hospital?

Can we call a dog fight a form of animal cruelty when it is a natural, normal part of a dogs life?

For the record: I think encouraging dogs to fight is repugnant. It is against my ethics, and I have no problem if doing so is also illegal.

Encouraging dogs to fight is what I was referring to by "dog fighting". The laws against it curtail humans' right to entertainment for the sake of reducing animal abuse (which I think is a good thing and you seem to agree).