PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

It is interesting that the average person thinks that PETA is just a very militant pet and animal protection group, sort of like the SPCA but less compromising and more angry. I once thought so myself. But that is neither what they are nor what they themselves claim. They are not interested in protecting animals. They desire to implement their concept, which is that ethics require a truly equal relationship of all animals on the planet. Those kittens that they exploit? Not really important to them except as cute photos that might help run their publicity campaign. There are a lot of omelettes to be made, and pets and people are both eggs.

I do think that some low level PETA volunteers see themselves as animal lovers helping to protect defenseless creatures. But PETA itself has explained that is not their actual goal.

It is also interesting that they can look at nature and evolution and come to believe that the ideal natural world is one in which all animals treat one another like in a Winnie-The-Poo story. Presumable with a few enlightened human serving as police to keep those wolves from exploiting those rabbits. I believe humans should treat other animals as kindly and generously as they can. But if a dog tried to harm my son, I would not spend any time having to decide which one I would take the golf club to. Same if my own dog tried to hurt a neighbor's son.

And by the way: I am well aware that PETA does not accept people referring to "their" pet: ownership of an animal is just like slavery by them. Bottom line on that? Neither me nor my cat sees it that way. In fact I go to work and my cat gets to spend the day in a very early onset retirement.
 
Last edited:
How long until one of our resident PETA members shows up?

PETA is just plain bat crap crazy.

They seem to get a lot of support from certain Hollywood celebs..just another reason why I have a deep distrust of people who take the political opinions of the Hollywood types seriously.
 
As much as the systematic and inhumane abuse of tens billions of animals upsets me, it pales in comparison to PeTA's truly treacherous behavior.
 
The PETA employees I ran into when I lived in Hampton Roads seemed to mostly be trust fund kids killing time because they didn't have to actually work for a living.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I have no problem with that - the more they get the better.
Click to expand...
So you have no problem motivating contractors to take dogs that belong to people and lie that the dogs were strays for the money? :rolleyes:

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...
According to the news report they literally lured it off of private property to snatch it.

I don't think you read the same news report I did.
 
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?
Click to expand...


Sure. They have no ethical objection to taking life.

In most cases where people's pets are concerned they advocate it. They just aren't too loud about it.

(And, assuming they would... would they try to justify it somehow.)
Click to expand...

They will try to justify anything they do, just to keep from discouraging donors.

Even though they have been clear about their policies they don't go out of their way to make that clarity generally known. It's sort of a caveat emptor approach.
 
Giordano said:
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.
Click to expand...

The highlighted bit surprises me. Can you point me to a press release that suggests all animals, from the ant to the human child, are morally equivalent?

Thanks.
 
dudalb said:
How long until one of our resident PETA members shows up?
Click to expand...


Do we have any?

That should be fun.

PETA is just plain bat crap crazy.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Also evil.

They seem to get a lot of support from certain Hollywood celebs..just another reason why I have a deep distrust of people who take the political opinions of the Hollywood types seriously.
Click to expand...


I have a deep distrust of people who judge entire, huge, widely varied groups of people by the apparent actions of a tiny percentage of them.
 
Madalch said:
Can you hate the woman without being sexist about it? I mean, what does this even mean? You're going to take her out back and seduce her with a minimum of effort? Offer her a zucchini?

If someone steals and kills a beloved pet, "slut" isn't the descriptor that comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Depends, was she giving the animals a happy ending?
 
In regard to PETA's position on ants and other insects: it appears that on their public website, although they acknowledge that insects may need to be dealt with by a "lethal defense... just like a knife welding mugger," they actually only list and advocate ways to "control" them with a goal of not harming them. http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-about-insects-and-other-pests. On this basis (especially the phrase I underlined) and combined with PETA's other public writings, it seems to me that their view of the inherent rights of insects is that they are very, very close, or even equal, to those of humans beings. I gather from their writings that attacking "innocent" insects or "innocent" human beings is a no-no, but that self-defense against either can be considered, if only when absolutely necessary.

I should note that I am one of those people who try to capture most insects and spiders in my house alive and release them outside. I only try to do anything lethal to mosquitos, wasps, and to large ant invasions. So I am in favor of trying to not harm even insects; it is the philosophy that suggests that there is a real moral equivalence to people to which I object.

As to using animals in experiments to improve human health- that is a strict no-no by PETA, and I see no evidence that they are only against experiments on cute animals (they clearly include mice and rats in their public discussions, do not limit to vertebrates what they mean by "animals," and emphasize that " animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way." Of course their ads use pictures of monkeys and kittens, but PETA is against use of animals in human health testing in any way because that is specieism, one species valuing itself above that of another species. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/

I will try that argument next time I encounter a mountain lion ("You know you seeing me as food is a specieist violation of the natural rights of all animals?").

By the way- "entertainment" does not just mean zoos- it means one keeping cats in one's house.

So to reiterate my prior post- if someone tells me that the antibiotic that my child needs to rescue them from a life threatening infection has never been tested in a non-human animal, I don't see that as a plus. I would want it to be tested on a thousand rats before they ever use it in any human being. And although I am not certain of PETA's current position, very recently they were urging that new drugs be tested on prison inmates rather than on rats. Gee, that is a unique definition of "Ethical" isn't it?

Frankly I don't know why PETA doesn't view plants have the same rights as animals. I have seen some frogs with about the same level of awareness as a turnip. PETAP?
 
Last edited:
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...

Or they want to have PETA royally ********** in the ass , and frankly I would do the same. As a pet owner PETA are terrible organization and getting it sued out of existence would be great.

People should donate to real shelter or humane association, not the PETA killer.
 
baron said:
I don't know much about PETA so I'm not defending them, but $9m? That's a joke. I guarantee that this family didn't love their dog more than I love mine, but if someone did this to me I wouldn't for a minute think of becoming a multi-millionaire on the strength of it (and it wouldn't do me any good in any event as I'd likely be in jail for making paraplegics of the people who'd done it). If there's a call for millions in compensation then let the bulk of it go to other animal charities, not a greedy family profiting from the death of their dog.
Click to expand...

Suign them for 10000 dollar + lawyer cost would be a JOKE laughed at by PETA, it would be seen as the cost of doing business. If you want to mark a wound, you need to of or the throat : loads of money.
 
blutoski said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would you still agree with that sentiment knowing humane associations actually do place 45% of the animals they get, whereas PETA euthanize far more quickly animals , and barely place less than 10% of them back ? Note even counting that at some point they were simply dumping them in dumpster and euthanizing them in poor conditions leading to animal suffering ?
 
Aepervius said:
Would you still agree with that sentiment knowing humane associations actually do place 45% of the animals they get, whereas PETA euthanize far more quickly animals , and barely place less than 10% of them back ? Note even counting that at some point they were simply dumping them in dumpster and euthanizing them in poor conditions leading to animal suffering ?
Click to expand...

Remember that is 10% of what they are willing to admit to. . . .
 
How is killing a dog, even a stray, not the ultimate unequal treatment of one species over another? :boggled:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
How is killing a dog, even a stray, not the ultimate unequal treatment of one species over another? :boggled:
Click to expand...

It is a little known fact that for every dog euthanized PETA kills a human being to even-up. Hope you don't have a PETA shelter near you!

They are strong believers in fair, if not in reality or even human kindness.

I suspect the term "a humanitarian gesture" is a curse as PETA sees it.
 
jakesteele said:
I thought PETA is all about helping and saving animals. Why on earth would she steal a dog and put it down?

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

What's wrong with sluts? All men love them unless A) there are women listening, or B) the slut isn't slutty with you.

There is a male version of a slut - it is called a "man", so we need to appreciate our female counterparts. Long live the slut!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom