PETA -- I did not know these things about them

[highnote]

I am very surprised to learn how PETA operates. I thought they would be more humane in their treatment of animals. Or maybe this article is just out to "get" them?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

[Tom]

No, i would believe it ot be true.
not the first place I have heard it.

PETA is not about animals - it is about politics and some very wack-o people.

[Actor]

While claiming to be an animal rights organization, PETA does not believe animals have a right to live. Instead, it believes that people have a right to kill them, as long as the killing is done "humanely,"I'd have to agree with that.

I see nothing unethical or contradictory in PETA's policy as described in the article. If I believe that people have no right to kill animals then I should stop eating meat and become a vegan. I have no intention of doing that. :rolleyes:

I also see no inconsistency in euthanizing perfectly healthy animals when there is no funding to feed them for the rest of their lives. The only alternative would be to release them into a feral existence where they would ultimately be killed by other feral animals, or else be captured and euthanized by animal control authorities.

It's not a perfect world.

[highnote]

While I can understand that there can be some necessity to put an animal to sleep, the article gives the impression that PETA has become a political entity that is more about money and power than about actually saving the animals.

I partially agree with that sentiment. According to Wikipedia: Critics claim PETA have changed to a top-down organizational structure to consolidate power and money in a centralized location rather than distribute the money and power to local organizations. This has caused many animal rights groups to cease operations.

PETA has done some good things -- like their lawsuit against the Institute of Behavioral Research who was conducting experiements on monkeys by severing their spinal cords. However, the research at the lab did lead to Neuroplasticity which helps stroke victims. But by looking at the pictures of the monkeys in the lab, you could only be thankful the work was done on a monkey and not on YOU! The pictures look terribly cruel.

I kind of agree with PETA's position that dogs should not be bred. People should instead adopt shelter dogs until the day comes that shelters are no longer necessary and at that time dogs and other shelter animals can be enjoyed from afar.

But then it would be inconsistent to think it is OK to own and breed racehorses but not dogs and cats. Owning racehorses is a holdover from earlier times when mankind needed to use animals for survival.

Would it be reasonable to stop breeding racehorses in an attempt to return to a time when horses only live in the wild? Or is breeding of horses necessary to ensure the survival of the species?


I'd have to agree with that.

I see nothing unethical or contradictory in PETA's policy as described in the article. If I believe that people have no right to kill animals then I should stop eating meat and become a vegan. I have no intention of doing that. :rolleyes:

I also see no inconsistency in euthanizing perfectly healthy animals when there is no funding to feed them for the rest of their lives. The only alternative would be to release them into a feral existence where they would ultimately be killed by other feral animals, or else be captured and euthanized by animal control authorities.

It's not a perfect world.

[DJofSD]

Any one ever read Orwell's "Animal Farm?"

[classhandicapper]

I'd have to agree with that.

I see nothing unethical or contradictory in PETA's policy as described in the article. If I believe that people have no right to kill animals then I should stop eating meat and become a vegan. I have no intention of doing that. :rolleyes:

I also see no inconsistency in euthanizing perfectly healthy animals when there is no funding to feed them for the rest of their lives. The only alternative would be to release them into a feral existence where they would ultimately be killed by other feral animals, or else be captured and euthanized by animal control authorities.

It's not a perfect world.

I can't agree with this at all.

I think there is a gigantic moral difference between humanely killing an animal for food and killing them for sport/fun/trophies, because irresponsible owners abandoned them etc...

The idea would be to address the issues that lead to excess unwanted animals so they don't need to be destroyed and not simply excuse it because some animals are killed for food.

[Actor]

The idea would be to address the issues that lead to excess unwanted animals so they don't need to be destroyed and not simply excuse it because some animals are killed for food."Excess unwanted animals" are a direct consequence of human civilization. There will always be more feral animals than we can possibly take in as pets or for other uses. A human city takes away from the natural ecosystem and substitutes a new ecosystem which some animals will thrive in. Mice and rats are very good at it and the human response has been to try to exterminate them. Cats, dogs and rabbits have been able to adapt as well and our response has been the same, exterminate them. But whereas we have a revulsion for rodents and are willing to use poisons and traps to kill them, cats and dogs have been our partners for centuries. Feral cats and dogs are pests just as are mice and rats but they trigger a different emotional response. Thus we handle the two groups differently. Mice and rats are the job of exterminators, usually a private business paid out of someone's pocket. Cats and dogs are the province of animal control authorities paid out of public coffers and are expected to use humane methods.

I know little about PETA and am not qualified to comment on their methods or agenda. I'm merely stating my opinion that euthanasia does not conflict with ethical treatment.

[Robert Fischer]

The way things work is that the biggest foundations for good causes, are primarily in the business of advertising and collecting donations.

Those two tasks are superordinate to the cause itself, often massively superordinate.

Nearly all,(possibly all) of the good cause foundations we hear about through the media work this way.

We get a good feeling from donating our money. We can make an economic statement of causes we feel are important. We might not have time or ability to take part in more intense hands-on work.

[iceknight]

I'd have to agree with that.

I see nothing unethical or contradictory in PETA's policy as described in the article. If I believe that people have no right to kill animals then I should stop eating meat and become a vegan. I have no intention of doing that. :rolleyes:

I also see no inconsistency in euthanizing perfectly healthy animals when there is no funding to feed them for the rest of their lives. The only alternative would be to release them into a feral existence where they would ultimately be killed by other feral animals, or else be captured and euthanized by animal control authorities.

It's not a perfect world. The inconsistency and moral bankruptcy come from registering themselves as "animal shelter" with the state and collecting donations and trumpeting the cause of animal rights, when they miss the main right - the right to a cruelty free life.

They have LOT of funding but they use most of it to raise more funds (or they spend it in a way that it shows up as fundraising, but it could just be a way to feed themselves expensive vegan foods at constantly organized events), By doing this cheaper euthanasia option, they can continue doing their contests to Hawaii, retreats to Sedona etc and other events which are self serving and collecting more money. They raise 0.16 for every dollar spent. Hello!

Neutered feral animals would die out naturally and will not sustain.

Anyone would become more aware after they visit Charity Navigator and check out PETA's score. Pathetic.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4314


Also just for fun (off topic from ths thread though) Top 10 Supersized Charities (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=24)

[PaceAdvantage]

I'd have to agree with that.

I see nothing unethical or contradictory in PETA's policy as described in the article. If I believe that people have no right to kill animals then I should stop eating meat and become a vegan. I have no intention of doing that. :rolleyes:

I also see no inconsistency in euthanizing perfectly healthy animals when there is no funding to feed them for the rest of their lives. The only alternative would be to release them into a feral existence where they would ultimately be killed by other feral animals, or else be captured and euthanized by animal control authorities.

It's not a perfect world.Wow.

You know what I see in that article? Psychosis.

PETA is one very ****ed up organization...and I hope publicity like this helps put them out of business...

[iceknight]

They raise 0.16 for every dollar spent. Hello!
I read this one wrong. Sorry.
They spend 0.16 to raise a dollar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Wow.

You know what I see in that article? Psychosis.

PETA is one very ****ed up organization...and I hope publicity like this helps put them out of business...

I knew some people that were proud members of PETA once upon a time and they were some very decent people. They really cared about awareness of testing, particularly for things that were nothing more than trivial consumer products.

I met a few several years ago. You want to have a non-conversation with some of the most irrational, self-loathing wretches on the planet? Find a few of these gems.

These people, it became very clear to me, had no interest in animals. What they cared about was having some reason to be hateful towards everyone that they came in contact with and giving some meaning to their wasted, useless, pathetic, miserable lives. Just pure disgraces that should have just done it the right way and started sucking on the bottle or mainlining heroin instead of helping to completely eviscerate any meaning to what was, in my opinion, probably a semi-legitimate activist group.

The PETA of today, as near as I can tell, is predominately a group of money grubbing whores that prey on social outcasts that have given up ever finding another human being that may bring some meaning to their pointless existences and have instead resorted on cycling through one outlet after another in which they can nonsensically and unintelligently engage in orgies of revulsion towards the society that they wish that they had the brain function and social skills to participate in, but never, ever will.

[Stillriledup]

PETA in the news again, this time going after horse racing.

[BlueShoe]

PETA's harshest critics have claimed that it is a de facto domestic terrorism organization. The evidence would seem to confirm that this position may not be all that far off.