PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

Giordano said:
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?").
Click to expand...

You realize that there is no hypocrisy in saying that mountain lions are morally considerable (that is, that they count, morally speaking) and that they are not morally responsible, so that our moral relationship to them is asymetrical?

As far as moral equivalence, your first link was informative. (I didn't watch the video on the second link, sorry. I just hate online videos as a source of information.)

There is a subtle issue one could raise. I read a paper by an ethicist -- forget who, maybe Singer -- arguing that every sentient (i.e., pain/pleasure-feeling) being is morally equal, but that doesn't mean that the suffering caused by, say, amputating an ant's leg is equal to that caused by amputating a human's leg. Greater mental capacities can result in greater degrees of pain and pleasure, so that, while one pain unit is one pain unit, no matter what species, the fact is that human suffering involves many more pain units than ant suffering.

I don't know that PETA has any such concept of suffering and I don't want to go too far in defending them, but that was just a thought I had.

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?
Click to expand...

I don't know if PETA has any utilitarian slant, but it's pretty plausible that frogs feel pain, less plausible that turnips do.
 
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...

Satire, irony. I satirically and very ironically say the same thing about women. It's an old joke between a friend and I. Sorry for not fully explaining the complete historical and social context before hand. Now that you're up to speed, the comment stands; no regret, no remorse, no shame, no guilt, no nothing, he said with a wry grin.
 
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is way, way ********** up. That would be like Repubs/Dems kidnapping each other and then putting each other down mercifully to put each other out of their misery. Independent voters would love it, but what about their grieving Lobbyists? Oh, the humanity, Hannity!

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.
Click to expand...

I wish this would go nationwide on t.v., billboards; or maybe throwing buckets of red paint on them in a public setting like they to women wearing fur coats. Imagine a political cartoon showing a PETA member with a beatific smile, blood splatter clothes and a blood smeared blade holding a cat with a collar saying, "someone's beloved pet" and an onlooking, horrified child.

PETA stands for Pet Annihilator.

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.
Click to expand...

I've always been in favor of the 'spirit' of what I thought PETA stood for, but not enough to give them any money. I got burned by Green Peace once so I never give any money to these types of causes.
Click to expand...
 
phiwum said:
You realize that there is no hypocrisy in saying that mountain lions are morally considerable (that is, that they count, morally speaking) and that they are not morally responsible, so that our moral relationship to them is asymetrical?

As far as moral equivalence, your first link was informative. (I didn't watch the video on the second link, sorry. I just hate online videos as a source of information.)

There is a subtle issue one could raise. I read a paper by an ethicist -- forget who, maybe Singer -- arguing that every sentient (i.e., pain/pleasure-feeling) being is morally equal, but that doesn't mean that the suffering caused by, say, amputating an ant's leg is equal to that caused by amputating a human's leg. Greater mental capacities can result in greater degrees of pain and pleasure, so that, while one pain unit is one pain unit, no matter what species, the fact is that human suffering involves many more pain units than ant suffering.

I don't know that PETA has any such concept of suffering and I don't want to go too far in defending them, but that was just a thought I had.



I don't know if PETA has any utilitarian slant, but it's pretty plausible that frogs feel pain, less plausible that turnips do.
Click to expand...

Exactly, in that mountain lions count big time in my moral views and that I don't hold them morally responsible for killing deer because that is what they do to live and they don't share our moral constructs. I have donated a lot of money and some time to protect them. I have and would suffer a reasonable amount of discomfort to protect a mountain lion. I would not even hold mountain lions morally guilty if they killed me or a child of mine. But if I had to choose and could, I would kill the mountain lion to save a human child. It would not take me long to do the moral equation. But from what I can tell of PETA this would be an equivalency to them. I value many things including ants, but I have a hierarchy.

You cite the ability to feel pain as a way of defining protected vs unprotected species. But that itself has a problem. A person can be killed in a painless way but that doesn't make it moral by me to drug my sister in her sleep and overdose her on heroin. Vets do this for cars and dogs all the time: a painless death. And I don't think that these animals even fear from an anticipation of death. I have seen my cat become seriously injured and yet give no outward evidence of pain- yet I felt he was in pain and something had to be done from a moral point of view. I also know that plants have a lot of sensors for their environment even if no neurons, so I have no idea how they feel when pulled from the ground or eaten still alive.

I tend to informally use intelligence and awareness in my own scales of moral significance, not cute. I will eat shrimp and chicken but not dog or octopus. I have mixed feelings about cows. Each person has their own scale, but I don't see how one can just claim complete equivalence. Evolution is based on different organisms exploiting their own species and others. I feel humans should protect other animals from harm whenever possible, but even that admits that we feel the right to interfere to interfere because we are intellectually and physically stronger.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
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.
Click to expand...

Up till now, I was one of these people. I've always been uneasy about their methods but never realized the depth of their radicalism. I'm grateful to ISF for this thread.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, it's not a joke. It's the opening move for possible subsequent negotiations. You should always, always demand more than you're willing to accept from a settlement, otherwise you're giving them no incentive to avoid a trial. It's only a joke if there's no way a jury would ever award anything close to that, but a jury very well might.
Click to expand...

Suing for a big number is also a way to attract publicity about the case. If the owner here sued for five grand and settled for two, nobody would know or care. But the publicity around a $9 million suit, no matter how it's resolved, means that people across the country will be taking a close look at what PETA is doing in their communities.
 
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...
How is not killing a dog, when we kill just about every other species on Earth, not the ultimate unequal treatment of one species over another? :boggled:

Gawdzilla Sama said:
"And, hey!, nobody was watching it."
Click to expand...
A couple of dogs that nobody was watching decided to play a game with my friend's cat (and by 'game' I mean chase her under the house and rip her to shreds).

That was over 10 years ago, but it still riles me up thinking about that poor animal and the irresponsible owners who let their dogs roam around. As far as I am concerned any dog that isn't 'nailed down' is fair game.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
How is not killing a dog, when we kill just about every other species on Earth, not the ultimate unequal treatment of one species over another? :boggled:

A couple of dogs that nobody was watching decided to play a game with my friend's cat (and by 'game' I mean chase her under the house and rip her to shreds).

That was over 10 years ago, but it still riles me up thinking about that poor animal and the irresponsible owners who let their dogs roam around. As far as I am concerned any dog that isn't 'nailed down' is fair game.
Click to expand...


How is the dog sitting on the porch where the dog lives "roam[ing] around"?

Did it bother you that your friend's cat was roaming around?
 
I absolutely detest PETA, and have been trying for years to convince people of many of the points made against them in this thread. But.... I have to point out the Humane Society of the US seems to share many of their view about "animal use" and speciesism.

http://www.humanewatch.org/

To clarify: the Humane Society of the US and the American Humane Society are not the same thing!
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Exactly, in that mountain lions count big time in my moral views and that I don't hold them morally responsible for killing deer because that is what they do to live and they don't share our moral constructs. I have donated a lot of money and some time to protect them. I have and would suffer a reasonable amount of discomfort to protect a mountain lion. I would not even hold mountain lions morally guilty if they killed me or a child of mine. But if I had to choose and could, I would kill the mountain lion to save a human child. It would not take me long to do the moral equation. But from what I can tell of PETA this would be an equivalency to them. I value many things including ants, but I have a hierarchy.
Click to expand...

Even someone who regards animals as moral equivalents can conclude that killing a child is worse than killing a mountain lion, because a child is capable of greater extremes of pain and pleasure and because the death of a child affects those humans near the child to a large degree.

Not, mind you, that I'm arguing the lion is the moral equivalent of a human, nor that I know whether PETA agrees with the above paragraph.

You cite the ability to feel pain as a way of defining protected vs unprotected species. But that itself has a problem. A person can be killed in a painless way but that doesn't make it moral by me to drug my sister in her sleep and overdose her on heroin. Vets do this for cars and dogs all the time: a painless death. And I don't think that these animals even fear from an anticipation of death. I have seen my cat become seriously injured and yet give no outward evidence of pain- yet I felt he was in pain and something had to be done from a moral point of view. I also know that plants have a lot of sensors for their environment even if no neurons, so I have no idea how they feel when pulled from the ground or eaten still alive.
Click to expand...

A person killed painlessly still loses out on the joy she would have experienced had she not died. (Her loved ones also suffer after her death.) Nothing in utilitarianism says that painful killings aren't bad.
 
Giordano said:
If you want a pet, for god's sake go down to a shelter and adopt one and save its life. Keep it at home and not roaming the streets. Often shelters can tell if an animal has been well cared for and just recently escaped, or has been left to its own devices by uncaring people for a long length of time, and will make extra efforts at contacting the owners of the former. Ideally have a microchip placed in your pet by a vet to help find it if it gets lost.
Click to expand...


This x1000. (Proud 'owner' of an abandoned rescue lurcher)
 
phiwum said:
Even someone who regards animals as moral equivalents can conclude that killing a child is worse than killing a mountain lion, because a child is capable of greater extremes of pain and pleasure and because the death of a child affects those humans near the child to a large degree.

Not, mind you, that I'm arguing the lion is the moral equivalent of a human, nor that I know whether PETA agrees with the above paragraph.



A person killed painlessly still loses out on the joy she would have experienced had she not died. (Her loved ones also suffer after her death.) Nothing in utilitarianism says that painful killings aren't bad.
Click to expand...
Just your last paragraph: yes, a person is aware of the joys that they might miss out on if they die early. I don't think most animals have this level of knowledge of their future possible joys and a corresponding loss if they were to die early; in fact i don't think most animals have a sense that they can and will die. Some might: chimps, whales, maybe even elephants. But even dogs? I doubt it. One day they go into the vet and are rendered unconscious and then dead. Of course it is a loss for many, including perhaps other dogs who knew them. But a sense of personal loss in advance to the euthanized dog? Probably not.

And what of the possible pain? Life in the wild is often short and hard for many wild animals. Does the sense of pleasure out way the harshness?

All I am saying is that it is a complex topic. For me, not hurting other animals if at all possible, and never for trivial reasons, makes the most sense. And to really, really be thoughtful about impacts on the most aware animals largely for the reasons you cite. But if a cat needs meat for good health I am happy to feed it chicken. And if my son needs a vaccine I want it tested in rats first.
 
phiwum said:
Even someone who regards animals as moral equivalents can conclude that killing a child is worse than killing a mountain lion, because a child is capable of greater ]Even someone who regards animals as moral equivalents can conclude that killing a child is worse than killing a mountain lion, because a child is capable of greater extremes of pain and pleasure of pain and pleasure and because the death of a child affects those humans near the child to a large degree. Not, mind you, that I'm arguing the lion is the moral equivalent of a human, nor that I know whether PETA agrees with the above paragraph.



A person killed painlessly still loses out on the joy she would have experienced had she not died. (Her loved ones also suffer after her death.) Nothing in utilitarianism says that painful killings aren't bad.
Click to expand...
Highlight: you are in fact stating that a child is not the moral.equivalent as a mountain lion, and giving a reason that they are not equivalent. And I don't disagree with you. But I think PETA would.
 
Desert Fox said:
I am making no comment about the amount that the lawsuit is for but just sad state of affairs

http://www.pilotonline.com/news/fam...cle_6715657f-db21-5630-8a1a-f87ad6471fde.html

Carey and Woods went to the Zarates’ trailer park home in Accomack County in October 2014 and took the young girl’s 3-year-old Chihuahua, Maya, off the family’s porch, according to court documents.

Carey was a contract worker for PETA and had been the nonprofit’s human resources director. Woods is PETA’s senior communications administrator and had volunteered to go with Carey on her own time.

Maya was euthanized that day, but state law required her to be held for five days.

Some of the comments are pretty much part of what I am thinking. . . .They were caught because of security cameras but how often have they actually done this in reality. How often have they actually stolen people's animals.
Click to expand...
Snopes has a good summary of this, the relevant facts are:

PETA was asked to help when an adjacent landowner reported that they should see how his cow with her udders ripped up from abandoned and stray dogs in the trailer park area amounted to a menace not to be tolerated. He complained to PETA that the abandoned and stray dogs attacked his livestock, injured his milking cow, killed his goat and terrorized his rabbits. Abandoned and/or stray dogs and cats have appeared to have been considerable in what is known as Dreamland 2. PETA responded and the trailer park management encouraged their efforts in an attempt to gather stray/abandoned cats and dogs. Additionally the leases provided that no dogs were allowed to run free in the trailer park.

Approximately three weeks before Mr. Cerate's dog [Maya] was taken by the women associated with PETA, Mr. Cerate asked if they would put traps under his trailer to catch some of the wild cats that were in the trailer park, and traps were provided to him as requested. Additionally, parties associated with PETA provided Mr. Cerate with a dog house for two other dogs that were tethered outside of Mr. Cerate's home.

On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained. Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.

Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, [they] had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth, it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing the property of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.
Click to expand...

The tl;dr version is:

1) A farmer called PETA to round up stray dogs from a neighboring trailer park because they were attacking his livestock.

2) PETA spoke to the Cerate's to ask if they could put cat traps under his house. They also gave Mr. Cerate a dog house for his dogs.

3) A few weeks later, PETA rounded up stray animals. Mr. Cerate's security camera shows that the chihuahua picked up by PETA was not collared, tethered, or chipped when it was picked up.

You don't have to like PETA to see that the whole "PETA steals peoples pets and kills them" narrative doesn't hold up in this case. PETA was certainly negligence for failed to properly identify and hold on to the strays before euthanizing, but given the facts it is not possible for Mr. Cerate to prove criminal intent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom