Why is PETA so bloody dam stupid....

[Belz...]

My guess is that lack of protein in their diet has driven them crazy.

 

[Drudgewire]

WTF was THAT?!?!?!?

It's part of a trippy Tool song called "Disgustipated."

 

[GreNME]

I don't know about that. It kind of sounds like they are against pets

We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes

Yeah, sounds a lot like that.

You must have some kind of reading comprehension problem. What part of the following don't you understand: "we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed." I underlined and bolded the important parts of the quote here. The organization has, as a set belief, that it would be best for all animals if there were no pets. They don't make any bones about it at all. Just because you're ignoring the blatantly obvious doesn't make your incorrect impression magically correct.

Hey, you oppose euthanasia. That's cool (I guess). PETA doesn't. That's cool too.

They not only don't oppose euthanasia, they take animals from other shelters specifically so that they can kill the animals. Newkirk used to do this before she started PETA (back when she ran a shelter for a city), and she's just continuing her bat$#!* crazy activities as an organization now. Just because your friend is too ignorant to realize this does not make your friend's or your impressions of the organization any more correct. The organization was created by people who are against people having pets-- there are plenty of quotes online of their saying precisely that-- the organization has a history of not complying with normal animal treatment regulations (the dumping incident is just one where they got caught), and for an organization that claims to be in favor of treating animals ethically they do a whole lot of killing (more than 95% in each of the past 12 years) of the animals they do get their hands on. That isn't even getting into their legal department, which when it isn't supplying or supporting known AR terrorist groups is either harassing any entertainment group that deals with animals that it can or fighting for legislation that is designed to make it progressively more difficult for people to have pets.

If you would rather argue that a large number of people who work on the 'ground level' or who might support PETA are in favor of pets and really just want people to treat animals nicer, I won't disagree. Much like other organizational scams like Scientology and such, PETA draws its support from people who are just ignorant enough of the leadership's activities, stated goals, and past behavior that they don't bother looking too deeply into it. Ignorance is not an excuse for PETA as an organization, however, despite whether it's an excuse for you or your friend.

 

[GreNME]

Good observation. A lot of JREF members are animal lovers. I strongly believe in animal welfare. Animals rights? That's a different thing.

Precisely. Over the years, the extremists in the animal rights crowd have hijacked the term 'animal rights' to mean something quite different from what it was when 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare' were a fairly interchangeable term (early-to-mid 20th century).

 

[Alt+F4]

I warned PETA.

KFC will be delivering another 'Bucket o Hostages' to my house tonight.

Hehehe....that made me laugh.

Personally, I prefer "sea kittens" over the bucket of hostages.

 

[Cuddles]

Question: How is it any less dumb to increase your meat consumption based on what PETA says than it is to decrease your meat consumption based on what PETA says? Either way, you're basing what you eat on what PETA says. I'd rather eat what I want to eat based on what tastes good and what's healthy. At least four people in this thread disagree?

It's not a question of basing what you eat on what PETA says, it's a question of finding an amusing way to piss off a bunch of crazies. Childish? Yes. But also tasty.

 

[mumblethrax]

Over the years, the extremists in the animal rights crowd have hijacked the term 'animal rights' to mean something quite different from what it was when 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare' were a fairly interchangeable term (early-to-mid 20th century).

Can you support that claim? I'd specifically like to know when and in what context 'animal rights' is first attested, that it was in common circulation prior to the 1970s as a synonym for animal welfare, and any evidence of its having been hijacked (which would entail, at the very least, any sign of people complaining about it).

 

[Segnosaur]

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat five.

Maddox already suggested this with his "Sponsor a vegitarian" program...
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Hmmm... I wonder how PETA would feel about a nice game of wack-a-kitty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_udqEp_YR4

 

[Cicero]

Dumb.
(EDIT: PETA's actions, not the thread or the OP.)


The thing about PETA being anti-pets is a myth. There may be PETA members who are anti-pets, but it's not an institutional thing. I have a good friend who will be starting this fall working as an attorney for PETA. She owns a dog, the person who interviewed her has pets (at least one dog, IIRC), she said a lot of people she met there have pets. It's a myth.
(Puzzling Evidence.)

PETA considers your lawyer acquaintance a "selfish and manipulating" propagator of animal "suffering." Maybe she should reconsider defending PETA and represent Z and Vielpunkt.

"This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to."

Those PETA chotskies sold on the internet only reinforces their underhanded tactics to solicit funds from people who are oblivious to PETA's dogma.

 

[linusrichard]

Those PETA chotskies sold on the internet only reinforces their underhanded tactics to solicit funds from people who are oblivious to PETA's dogma.

And catma - didn't you see the other page?

 

[Segnosaur]

Hey, you oppose euthanasia. That's cool (I guess). PETA doesn't. That's cool too.

I suppose it depends on what you define as 'euthanasia' (or, more appropriately, what you define as a valid reason for euthanasia).

Technically, Euthanasia simply means to kill an animal with a minimum of distress/pain. And its quite possible that that's what PETA is doing.

The issue is the REASON. Most people would want animal shelters to keep healthy animals alive for as long as possible (with only sick/suffering/uncontrollable animals put down). Most shelters do try to follow that plan, and only put healthy animals down when they run out of space/money.

PETA, on the other hand, seems to kill a much higher portion of animals than your average animal shelter. With all of PETAs financial resources, they certainly could afford to expand their shelter program (one less tacky Pamela Anderson billboard might save dozens of real living animals.)

 

[Cicero]

And catma - didn't you see the other page?

Cats are the perfect PETA critter. They wander the neighborhood ("their natural behavior"), don't respond to any commands, and are indifferent to affection.

BTW: PETA has yet to hear of the Doggie Door as they believe domesticated animals only "urinate when humans allow them to."

 

[PitPat]

Well, this one reason they're dam stupid.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009319216_apwapetathrowingfish.html

PETA heard that the American Veterinary Medical Association planned a Pike Place Fish Market demonstration at next month's convention at the convention center.


PETA sent a letter to the association saying people who care about animals are appalled fish would be treated as toys. A spokeswoman for PETA in Norfolk, Va., Lindsay Rajt, says veterinarians should show compassion.

For those who are unfamiliar, this is the practice they find offensive.




Edit: Ugh, I don't know how to do youtube embedding...here's the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHqIfitIcqk

 

[ponderingturtle]

I suppose it depends on what you define as 'euthanasia' (or, more appropriately, what you define as a valid reason for euthanasia).

Technically, Euthanasia simply means to kill an animal with a minimum of distress/pain. And its quite possible that that's what PETA is doing.

The issue is the REASON. Most people would want animal shelters to keep healthy animals alive for as long as possible (with only sick/suffering/uncontrollable animals put down). Most shelters do try to follow that plan, and only put healthy animals down when they run out of space/money.

PETA, on the other hand, seems to kill a much higher portion of animals than your average animal shelter. With all of PETAs financial resources, they certainly could afford to expand their shelter program (one less tacky Pamela Anderson billboard might save dozens of real living animals.)

Why? they would only be perserving their lives to be further enslaved by the pet owners.

 

[dudalb]

What concerns me is PETA has been caught giving behind closed doors support to groups like the Earth Liberation Front. Sooner or later PETA will have Human Blood on it's hands.

 

[Segnosaur]

PETA, on the other hand, seems to kill a much higher portion of animals than your average animal shelter. With all of PETAs financial resources, they certainly could afford to expand their shelter program (one less tacky Pamela Anderson billboard might save dozens of real living animals.)

Why? they would only be perserving their lives to be further enslaved by the pet owners.

But then they HAVE actually arranged SOME animal adoptions (although fewer than would be expected when compared to other shelters). If they thought enslavement was so bad, why didn't they have a 100% kill, 0% adoption ratio?

 

[GreNME]

Can you support that claim? I'd specifically like to know when and in what context 'animal rights' is first attested, that it was in common circulation prior to the 1970s as a synonym for animal welfare, and any evidence of its having been hijacked (which would entail, at the very least, any sign of people complaining about it).

You're derailing. Yes, somewhere in the 1970's is when the 'animal rights' name began swerving into the areas where groups like PETA now sit firmly. Some of those roots go back to the 1960's. And before that-- which would be the early to mid 20th century-- the terms were interchangeable. If you have a problem with my wording, by all means let me know and I can clarify, but it's not really helpful to the conversation to jump to conclusions about what I mean compared to what you think I'm saying.

 

[mumblethrax]

You're derailing. Yes, somewhere in the 1970's is when the 'animal rights' name began swerving into the areas where groups like PETA now sit firmly. Some of those roots go back to the 1960's. And before that-- which would be the early to mid 20th century-- the terms were interchangeable. If you have a problem with my wording, by all means let me know and I can clarify, but it's not really helpful to the conversation to jump to conclusions about what I mean compared to what you think I'm saying.

I'm challenging you on a specific claim you've made, which I don't think is supportable. Surely, if it is not relevant whether or not animal rights is historically equivalent to animal welfare, the responsibility for derailing lies with you. Otherwise, you're just trying to privilege your own irrelevant statements.

'Animal rights' is first attested from 1879, the same year as the publication of Edward Nicholson's Rights of an Animal, which argued strongly in favor of rights of life and liberty for animals.

An interesting excerpt which foreshadows the debate on the ownership of pets:

Hitherto I have said nothing about the keeping of animals for pleasure rather than use—in a word of pets. Many captive pets, especially captive birds, are bereft of their freedom only for man's pleasure, and not because of any struggle for food between him and them: indeed as captives they mostly cost more than when free. This is a breach of right for which I see no warrant.

I don't see how your argument that 'animal rights' was hijacked can be sustained in light of the history of the movement.

 

[Steelmage]

I think we are all members of PETA:

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

 

[GreNME]

I'm challenging you on a specific claim you've made, which I don't think is supportable. Surely, if it is not relevant whether or not animal rights is historically equivalent to animal welfare, the responsibility for derailing lies with you. Otherwise, you're just trying to privilege your own irrelevant statements.

And you're apparently keen on turning this into some kind of argument about me instead of, as I already suggested. asking for clarification instead of constantly inserting your own jumped-to conclusions.

'Animal rights' is first attested from 1879, the same year as the publication of Edward Nicholson's Rights of an Animal, which argued strongly in favor of rights of life and liberty for animals.

An interesting excerpt which foreshadows the debate on the ownership of pets:



I don't see how your argument that 'animal rights' was hijacked can be sustained in light of the history of the movement.

You're being overly pedantic in your interpretation, specifically ignoring the directions that this philosophy took over the decades that followed. Instead of taking a look at the larger scale of influence, which began having legislative influence (in the US) in the early-to-mid 20th century (though earlier in some of Europe), you're picking at nits over a word or two that supports your confirmation bias.

So, sorry, but I'm not really inclined to play your pedantic games. Again, you can either ask me for clarification on what I said or you can continue to jump to conclusions for whatever reason.