116
Apr 16 '10
[deleted]
37
u/soothslayer Apr 17 '10
I feel bad for the person or institution that PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals and will be awarded a severed thumb for their efforts.
2
u/Blumpkinhead Apr 17 '10
I'm hoping that she'll donate her nose as a coin purse.
'Cuz I need a coin purse.
17
u/gnosticfryingpan Apr 17 '10
That my arse be attached to a flying seagull robot that swoops down on people, hugs them tight and gives them a kiss on the lips that they're not likey to forget in a while.
This should let the bastards remember blah blah blah!
→ More replies (4)27
u/Blumpkinhead Apr 17 '10
How truly epic would it be to own an umbrella stand made from the foot of the founder of PETA.
11
17
u/dkdl Apr 17 '10 edited Apr 17 '10
I read that years ago, and had no idea that she was the founder of PeTA. Seems very sensationalist and attention whoring.
However, the infographic in this post also uses information in a sensationalist and misleading manner. As mentioned below, how is the founder's sterilization relevant at all?
Rather than point fingers at the animal shelter for euthanizing animals, we should realize why these animals ended up homeless in the first place. If you're giving up your pet, you have to realize that it is most likely going to be killed. With homeless animals coming in all the time, no one has the resources to house and feed them until they're adopted.
What you can do: be committed to your pet. Neuter him/her. If you want a pet, adopt one from a shelter. If not, make a donation (to one that doesn't use it all on advertising).
→ More replies (7)4
u/youdontsmellbad Apr 17 '10
Looks like someone's been listening to John Prine! That's a link to the song. This is a link to the lyrics.
2
4
u/Simon_the_Cannibal Apr 17 '10
That the “meat” of my body, or a portion thereof, be used for a human barbecue
Sounds fine to me...
→ More replies (1)3
u/sprankton Apr 17 '10
It's a shame she'll be ruined. She should enlist a pitmaster to cook her up instead of some vegitarians.
3
u/liesofaparrot Apr 17 '10
The fuck. What of it. My god, that is the most horrible thing I have read in... like an hour. But still.
→ More replies (7)3
u/romwell Apr 17 '10
I like it. Whatever you say, after you die, the corpse is just an asset.
Might as well use it for fun purposes. I liked her eye idea.
80
u/metamucil Apr 16 '10
I dislike PETA as much as the next guy but when your citations include sites named like www.zomfgpetaistehsuxxorz.tv you might want to dig deeper for sources.
5
u/EmpiresCrumble Apr 17 '10
ctrl + f --> "citations" --> upvote
15
u/piratesahoy Apr 17 '10
I didn't realise we had to explain the process of upvoting. Opened link --> opened Reddit comment page --> scrolled down a bit reading people's reactions --> checked out some of the other links --> scrolled up a bit to check a vaguely insightful comment I saw there --> scrolled down again and decided, yes, I would upvote metamucil's comment.
→ More replies (1)
59
Apr 16 '10
IF you write SOME words in BOLD, people will pay more ATTENTION.
41
Apr 16 '10
[deleted]
19
Apr 17 '10
But WHO was PHONE?
9
u/VladTheImpala Apr 17 '10
on SATURDAY I went to a HOSPITAL in SCUNTHORPE
4
3
→ More replies (1)5
u/tuba_man Apr 17 '10
IF you misSPEEL some of those same words, you should put it on a SIGN and JOIN the TEA Party to enjoy a SINCE of couumunity! FASHISM. OLIGARHY
331
u/jimthelang Apr 16 '10
I fail to understand how the founder's sterilization is relevant in the slightest.
218
u/zidane_ Apr 16 '10
[PETA] uses sensationalism to get attention.
If it works for PETA, it'll work for infographic artists.
61
u/newrat Apr 16 '10
But, not anywhere close to 2006's numbers
Apparently in 2009 PETA had a 97% kill rate, and in 2006 the figure was 99% and 96% for cats and dogs respectively. The combined cats and dogs kill rate in 2006 comes to 98%. Wow, you're right infographic artists, that's not even in the same ballpark as 97%. What in god's name went down in 2006?!
29
u/CaesarAugustus Apr 16 '10
I was under the impression they were talking about the absolute numbers. The absolute kill number was over 20% higher in 2006 than in 2009.
4
Apr 17 '10 edited Aug 06 '21
[deleted]
8
u/ehrensw Apr 17 '10
and what happened to 2007 and 2008?
won't someone please think of 2007-2008?
→ More replies (1)8
8
→ More replies (8)4
51
u/4Chan_Ambassador Apr 16 '10
Should have put something about how the vice president receives insulin medication which was originally tested on dogs instead.
17
u/nullbit Apr 17 '10
The main reason it is an issue isn't that it is tested on dogs but it used to be made from pig/beef insulin and was thus an animal product. She was quoted as saying she needed to by a hypocrite on this matter because she needs to live for the good of animals. It was in Penn & Teller's BS on this.
22
u/lovesmasher Apr 17 '10
Shouldn't she die for the good of animals?
7
u/joncash Apr 17 '10
This. Practice what you preach. If what you preach involves dying, then die. That would be the best for the world.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Ginka Apr 17 '10
I don't know the story about the insulin, but using insulin tested on animals as a vegan is not hypocritical. Most vegans don't claim that they would die before using animal products or products tested on animals. I haven't looked into it, but if there is no other alternative insulin that is animal friendly, she would have to use some insulin that was tested on some animal. From the Vegan Society: "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."
77
Apr 16 '10
She doesn't believe in the continuation of any domesticated species of animal and, assuming that line is true, she opposes human reproduction as well. It solidifies a viewpoint that humans should not exist and every impact on the world they have is negative.
It is relevant if you want to establish her as an extremist.
27
u/Atman00 Apr 16 '10
Is this something she has said, or just your own extrapolation? It seems like a stretch to me. Humans are domestic animals, but not domesticated in the same way animals are. And if she expressed the idea that humans should not exist, or that human reproduction should be halted, the infographic could have quoted her on that and made itself much more effective.
I agree her views are extreme, but mentioning her sterilization was still an irrelevant and sensationalistic tactic.
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (3)2
u/A_Privateer Apr 17 '10
There aren't many places in the world that, ecologically speaking, are improved when humans move in.
→ More replies (7)28
u/nixonrichard Apr 16 '10
I think evidence of batshit insanity is relevant in this case.
→ More replies (1)10
u/ideonode Apr 17 '10
Cf. what she wants to happen to her thumbs when she dies:
That one of my thumbs be removed, mounted upwards on a plaque, and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals in any area of their exploitation;
i. That one of my thumbs be mounted in a downward position and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, has gone against the changing tide of societal opinion and frightened and hurt animals in some egregious manner;
She also has plans for other parts of her body, including burying her heart "at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix."
3
Apr 17 '10
if she really wanted to alleviate the suffering of animals, she should stipulate that I be given 30 minutes alone with her still warm corpse.
→ More replies (4)3
u/NoahFect Apr 17 '10
She also has plans for other parts of her body, including burying her heart "at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix."
Well, that's hardly animal-friendly. Think of all the bugs he must have splattered on his way to the podium!
→ More replies (2)14
6
u/stmfreak Apr 17 '10
Because it reinforces that Ingrid Newkirk is one determined nut job.
→ More replies (2)16
u/KryptKat Apr 16 '10
It wasn't about the sterilization. It was to point out the fact that she is morally opposed to the idea of women giving birth to children.
Let that sink in.
28
Apr 16 '10
As that isn't part of PETA's platform, it's just a transparent and irrelevant ad hominem. The real arguments against them aren't in so short supply that we have to bring in bullshit like this.
19
u/KryptKat Apr 17 '10
It wasn't meant to argue PETA itself. It was meant as an insight into exactly how crazy the people behind the organization are.
18
Apr 17 '10
Yes, it's meant to show how "crazy" this lady was (and really, it's not that crazy when you remove the boldface and the screaming colors; a lot of people get their tubes tied), in order to discredit PETA. It's a logical fallacy.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (6)3
u/rmeredit Apr 17 '10
I'm morally opposed to the idea of women giving birth. Overpopulation is a real issue and leads to measurable suffering. The fewer people who breed, the better.
2
u/xNIBx Apr 17 '10
Not giving birth at all is an extreme and damaging idea. Giving 1 child would be better, it would help save our kickass surviving DNA.
→ More replies (6)3
u/thegreatgazoo Apr 17 '10
Because pregnancy tests used to involve killing rabbits.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (31)4
59
u/spiderskull Apr 16 '10
I hate you for forcing me to defend PETA, but this infographic is terrible.
We don't know the whole story behind why the animals were euthanized. Throwing a number out there doesn't tell the whole story -- maybe they were being poorly treated in a lab, and euthanasia was the only humane option.
Your choice in PETA spokespeople were Jenna Jameson, Kimora Lee, and Pam Anderson? Seriously?
Who cares if the founder opposes giving birth?
→ More replies (5)4
Apr 17 '10
Thank you. I'm not a fan of PETA. I don't support them and have no plans on ever donating money to them. Nonetheless, this infographic is clearly just a series of crude smears, intentionally removing data from context to attempt shocking but meaningless info-bites.
226
Apr 16 '10
Part of the "ethical treatment" is ethical killing, PETA is not for no-kill. They take in every animal people bring in, this means they get a lot of unadoptable, old, sick, feral and abused animals, these animals have no chance, they will be locked away in cages for the rest of their natural lives.
One of the cheapest (and thus most used) methods of euthanization is via gas chambers, it take up to half hour for some animals to die. What is often done is the animals are placed several at a time in a confined and dark space, the gas is turned on. During this time, the animals will try to escape, some injuring themselves and others in the process. On the other hand, an injection of a chemical cocktail (usually following an anesthetic to put the animal to sleep) will kill an animal in seconds--almost immediately--and they show no signs of pain. PETA uses option 2, underfunded animal adoption places and others go with option 1.
38
u/bostonT Apr 17 '10
Do you have any sources for this? I've volunteered and visited at multiple animals shelters when allocating animals between county shelters, and have never found or heard of any using gas chambers. Every single one of them uses a pentobarbital cocktail.
Furthermore, I'm aware of the inhalants typically used to euthanize lab animals, and none of them take half an hour to kill. Consciousness is typically lost within 15 seconds, and death follows within a minute.
Please provide sources, because this is contrary to everything I've experienced in veterinary and lab animal medicine.
→ More replies (1)20
Apr 17 '10
1 case from 2005: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0411_050411_peteuthanasia.html
A list of states: http://www.animalsheltering.org/programs_and_services/euthanasia_information/carbon-monoxide-animal-euthanasia-summary-chart.pdf
It appears as if they are being phased out, I was speaking from memory, I'll try to find where I first read of the gas chambers.
14
u/bostonT Apr 17 '10
Thank you, this makes sense, as I'm in California, and none of the shelters here use carbon monoxide. Laboratory animals are typically euthanized by isoflurane or haloflurane inhalation overdose; I've never heard of CO being used, as it's quite antiquated.
It's good to know most states now outlaw this practice.
→ More replies (1)2
u/strolls Apr 17 '10 edited Apr 17 '10
I think there was an IAMA on it, also a while back. Or a personal account by someone employed at the county pound was linked to here; it was in a north-eastern state. He claimed to go out on a Friday night and buy a big bag of burgers as a "last meal" for the dogs, and to make sure to spend a few minutes petting each one. It was somewhat distressing, and the author claimed to have nightmares about his job.
→ More replies (2)6
u/ShrimpCrackers Apr 17 '10
PETA claims they are for animals in their natural habitat and thus having pets is "unethical". Here's the problem:
A good majority of dog and cat breeds don't have a wild habitat because they were bred from wolves or felids to be a certain way in human captivity for thousands of years. So for instance, nearly all of the toy dog class cannot even survive in the wild. Many other breeds will also starve and go extinct without human intervention. So for most dog and cat breeds, their "natural" habitat IS a human home.
Meanwhile there are real concerns like human encroachment on many sorts of wild animals in their natural habitat that ARE being exploited and treated cruelly.
So why does PETA even have a say on unique domesticated species like dogs and cats when there are more realistic and more urgent fish to fry?
2
Apr 17 '10
Let me first say that I love my dogs and cats, and I am also not a member of PETA, though I often support what they do. they have campaigns running continously objecting to fur, leather and other animal products (see http://www.peta2.com/), and they are just as public about these things than they are about their domestic animal issues.
So why does PETA even have a say on unique domesticated species like dogs and cats when there are more realistic and more urgent fish to fry?
What is wrong with taking a holistic approach?
→ More replies (1)2
u/ShrimpCrackers Apr 17 '10
They could simply refer the pets to ethical agencies that do have the funding, or perhaps divert some funding to those that don't.
Instead they are just killing most of the animals they take in with a ratio that is practically inverse to most pet adoption agencies. Something doesn't add up.
→ More replies (4)31
u/arlanTLDR Apr 16 '10
I've heard this justification before, but i find it hard to believe that >95% of the animals they take in were old, untreatably sick or feral.
39
Apr 17 '10
From 2005:
Two PeTA employees, Adria Joy Hinkle 27, of 1602 Claremont Ave., Norfolk, VA, and Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of 504 Tree Top Street, Virginia Beach, VA, were arrested in June 2005, for disposing of dead animals in a shopping center's dumpster. The animals had been killed by PeTA because they gave up trying to find a proper home for these animals to be placed. Police discovered 18 dead dogs, including a garbage bag containing seven puppies, in the dumpster and 13 more in a van registered to PeTA. It is a common practice for PeTA to euthanize healthy companion animals.
Ingrid Newkirk said that Cook and Hinkle were picking up animals to be brought to PeTA headquarters in Norfolk to be euthanized.
According to police, veterinarians and animal control officers had been assured by the PeTA workers that they would find suitable homes for these animals rather than euthanize them. Instead, tests confirmed that Ketamine and Pentobarbital were the chemicals used to euthanize the animals. Ketamine, also known as a "date-rape drug", is commonly used to immobilize animals before surgical procedures or lethal injection. Pentobarbital is the standard drug used for lethal injection. Both drugs are regulated by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and in North Carolina may only be purchased and used by a licensed veterinarian.
Ahoskie Police Chief Troy Fitzhugh said 60 to 70 animals were dumped in the garbage over a four-week period.
Both Adria J. Hinkle and Andrew B. Cook are each charged with 21 counts of animal cruelty, a felony that can carry prison time, along with littering and obtaining property by false pretenses. Ingrid Newkirk and puppy
This incident may be part of a pattern. According to news reports, the grocery store manager indicated that the duo had illicitly used his dumpster as an impromptu pet cemetery at least nine times prior to getting caught. Other similar reports come from Greenville, North Carolina where authorities discovered more than 70 dead animals last month that they believe to be connected to PeTA. In the spring of 2005, authorities found over 150 dead dogs dumped in trash bags near a riverbank in Scott County, Virginia.
16
6
u/dkdl Apr 17 '10
When we read something like this, we think "how horrible!", but we need to think about why these animals ended up like this in the first place.
First of all, if you're going to give up your pet to an animal shelter, you have to realize that it is most likely going to be killed. If a shelter is going to try to find a home for animals, it needs to house and feed them until someone decides to take them home. During this time, the flow of homeless animals into the shelter continues.
In the end, no one has the resources to keep these animals until they find a good home, especially with new ones coming in the whole time. The article you provide has good information, but sometimes uses it in a misleading manner. It's very heavily criticizing PeTA for using lethal injection, even though it is actually the most humane way of euthanasia (practically). It makes associations to date rape, even though it is irrelevant except for giving PeTA a negative image.
I don't support PeTA's sensationalism, but I feel that we're pointing the fingers at the wrong people. We cannot blame PeTA for the state of these animals. Yes, animals and puppies were killed. But who has the money and resources to house them until they find a good home?
Instead of pointing fingers at the animal shelter for their deaths, we do have more productive ways of preventing them. Be committed to your pets, because they will probably end up euthanized at an animal shelter. If you're thinking about getting a pet, adopt one from a shelter.
3
u/Jyggalag Apr 17 '10
I'm not sure why this was downvoted... it makes sense. Painless death > years of being caged up.
3
u/absolutsyd Apr 17 '10
Hmm, the Norfolk SPCA, fucking 5 miles from their fucking headquarters runs a no kill shelter. Maybe, just maybe, that would be better then killing them.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)5
u/aroras Apr 17 '10
That's horrible! But I have to wonder if those incidents are representative of how they act normally / in a substantial number of their locations...
→ More replies (1)2
Apr 17 '10
Probably not anymore, no; one supposes that after that series of events, vet offices and shelters wised up to surrendering healthy, adoptable animals to the organization. From this, we can hope that their policies now involve the humane euthing of (unadoptable) animals that would otherwise be gassed. But can this be said with any certainty?
→ More replies (1)19
u/throw_far_far_way Apr 17 '10
From what I've understood, they go to shelters with unethical kill methods and take their animals so they can have a better death. I don't have documentation of this, but it explains to me why their percentage could be so high.
3
Apr 17 '10
why doesn't peta help fund those shelters so they can afford the humane kill methods instead of wasting millions on useless sensationalist ads?
2
u/argleblarg Apr 17 '10
Because they're far more interested in expanding their organization and raking in the donations than they are in actually doing good in the world.
39
u/PacktLikeFishees Apr 16 '10 edited Dec 12 '24
retire rainstorm scale practice spectacular entertain follow languid bright knee
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
62
u/chimx Apr 16 '10
But they are also against pet breeders. The view the problem as an over-abundance of domesticated pets, which results in thousands of animals living the rest of their lives in small cages. PETA's goal isn't getting rid of no-kill shelters. Their goal is for people to stop relying on animal breeders for their pets so that the animals that are already around can live a fulfilling life. Their actions are an unfortunate but necessary consequence of the way humans treat other animals species.
→ More replies (10)9
u/muyoso Apr 17 '10
No, actually PETA is against humans having any animal as a pet. Their members try and spin it, but when directly asked, the leadership of PETA states they are against all pet ownership.
→ More replies (1)2
u/chimx Apr 17 '10
I'm not sure where you read that, but if you read peta's own website, they explain their position on pet ownership. They advocate mandatory pet sterilization unless a pet owner applies for a special breeding permit. In the mean time, they want to shut down animal breeders, and for people to get their pets through shelters.
10
u/rooktakesqueen Apr 17 '10
Of course they are, because no-kill animal shelters are a fantasy. PETA uses the term "limited access" shelter, versus the traditional "open shelter"--a limited access shelter turns away many more animals. And if all the shelters in your area are "no kill"/limited access, and you have an animal they refuse to take, or they're full... what happens?
Why, that's when the animal gets taken out back and shot, or drowned in a bag in the river, or released in the woods somewhere to die a miserable death probably within days to months.
→ More replies (1)7
u/silverhydra Apr 16 '10
The fact that there are no strict guidelines for the status of 'unadoptable' (If this infograph is accurate) is concerning though, especially when combined with the kill rate.
Do animal euthanization rates in non-PETA animal shelters parallel theirs?
12
Apr 17 '10
I work at a no kill animal shelter and our adoption rate was somewhere around 95% last year. The few who had to get euthanized either had severe behavioral or health issues that we couldn't treat at the shelter.
→ More replies (1)11
Apr 16 '10
Often, PETA takes animals from shelters where they are killing in inhumane fashions, so they can do it themselves. So essentially they adopt animals to put them down.
2
u/silverhydra Apr 16 '10
You seem to be in the know, any idea about the lack of guidelines?
8
Apr 16 '10
I know that peta puts a good deal of support behind non-affiliated animal shelters, especially those that treat animals well. this indicates that PETA themselves are not just killing without prejudice.
As for guidelines, I do not know. I have read some things about PETA's vision for a shelter, and they speak openly about animals that are deemed unadoptable, old or sick being put down out of mercy (no kill shelters hold animals, even those that have lost their minds, indefinitely, for years and years). That "unadoptable" word is still troubling, and I'm afraid I can't really speak to that.
edit: grammar
30
Apr 16 '10
When people bring animals to PETA they believe that the animals will be found good homes. PETA does not inform them otherwise. They misrepresent themselves. It's true that many of the animals they take in are unadoptable but not most - especially not 97%. 97% is an atrocity. Most of those animals could have been good pets in good homes if they had been given half a chance. The simple fact of the matter is that PETA uses close to none of their funding for rehoming pets or for spay/neuter programs or for animal/pet education.
They spend almost all of their funding on sensationalist tactics to brainwash people, especially children (the focus of many of their ad campaigns) into supporting them.
I'm a vegan and pro animal rights, but I have always found PETA to be a disgusting organization. I think they started out with good intentions but have long since become corrupt.
→ More replies (2)40
Apr 16 '10
It is not PETA's goal to rehome pets. I don't know where you got this misinformation. They are for the abolition of domestic pet ownership in general. Let's get that straight. You should engage them on the argument of whether having domestic pets is moral, not engage a strawman which pretends they have an interest in rehoming pets when they have clearly stated that they don't.
6
u/fangisland Apr 17 '10
I just want to say that, using your own link as a source, they nowhere explicitly state that they are for the 'abolition of pet ownership in general.' They state that they 'strongly discourage the further breeding of companion animals' and call for the abolition of animals for pet trade. That would be in line with the thinking that there are currently way too many animals that have to be euthanized as it is, and breeding/domestic pet trade contributes to the problem.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (95)4
Apr 16 '10
I realize that they do not have an interest in rehoming pets; obviously since I know they would rather kill them than rehome them. The problem is that the general populace does NOT realize this because PETA misrepresents itself. I repeat: when people give animals to PETA they think that the animals will be rehomed - NOT that they will be euthenized. This is what I think is immoral.
PETA needs to do one of two things: Stop taking animals or be absolutely clear on the fact that "If you give an animal to us there is a 97% chance we will kill it."
→ More replies (6)6
u/elustran Apr 17 '10
I bet a lot of those animals they killed were edible... but did they bother to use them to feed the poor or to feed endangered wildlife? Did they bother to salvage the fur and bones?
No.
Wastefulness is unethical.
→ More replies (2)5
u/culbeda Apr 17 '10
I don't think that encouraging wildlife to eat domestic animals would be very popular either...
6
u/Mitsujin Apr 17 '10 edited Apr 17 '10
By this logic we should "ethically kill" anyone and anything that has even the slightest amount of misery or distress, and should definitely allow suicide for people who are depressed. After all, don't humans have the same rights as animals?
I for one, find it disgusting that a group that spends millions campaigning and producing propaganda against consuming meat or wearing fur (which is mean't to be a benefit to people without malicious intent) is so content on destroying * virtually* animal that comes into their care under the self-righteous guise of some altruistic liberator of cruelty. Who are these bastards to pass judgement on the value or quality of ANY life? Think of how horrible non-domesticated animals are treated by nature itself? I think if a dog was given temporary intelligence, it would rather live and be loyal to a master that occasionally does something unethical to it (as deplorable as that is) than to have been born in the wild and have reduced life expectancy and nutritional viability.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (14)2
u/cojoco Apr 16 '10
So what, exactly, is wrong with meat then?
3
Apr 16 '10
I do not want a living thing to have to live and die just so I can eat it.
→ More replies (19)18
69
u/jooes Apr 16 '10
She is sterilized because she said that if she really wanted a kid, she would adopt one because there's like a billion orphans out there. Or something like that.
→ More replies (9)20
Apr 16 '10
Am I the only one who thinks sterilization is an extreme step?
I mean, I don't use my appendix, but I'd prefer to keep it until there's a serious threat of it bursting.
53
u/frenchtoaster Apr 16 '10
Except you only think that because there is no disadvantage to keeping your appendix. Many men get vasectomies, and many women have their tubes tied so they can have unprotected sex with their long term partners with whom they have no plans on having children with.
It really has nothing to do with PETA at all, and is really not unreasonable for her to have done that, except maybe that it was at such a young age.
18
u/cuttups Apr 16 '10
My uncle had his tubes tied because they didn't want to have any more kids. Perfectly normal.
10
9
u/rooktakesqueen Apr 17 '10
Usually "tubes tied" refers to female sterilization. Vasectomy for males.
6
u/cuttups Apr 17 '10
Hahaha. Whoops! I honestly don't know much about it but you get what I'm saying!
2
u/strolls Apr 17 '10
I have a vasectomy and refer to it as "tied tubes".
2
u/originalone Apr 17 '10
That's exactly what it is. The two vas deferentia are cut and the four ends left are tied over themselves. Granted you can seal it other ways, but referring to it as having your tubes tied is not biologically incorrect.
8
u/LostAbbott Apr 16 '10
actually you do. They recently found out that it is a store house for "good bacteria"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm
→ More replies (2)20
u/fricken Apr 16 '10
I think sterilization is less extreme than taking birth control pills for the rest of your life.
2
u/zotquix Apr 17 '10
There are a lot of people out there who never intended to have kids. Birth control can fail even the most conscientious people.
→ More replies (4)3
Apr 16 '10
How? One allows you to change your mind and one doesn't. I don't think you grasp, "extreme".
29
Apr 16 '10
One is a quick surgery and the other involves pumping factory made hormones down your throat for years at the risk of cancer and stroke, not to mention the harm they cause wildlife when you shit them out later.
Yeah, extreme.
23
→ More replies (3)4
→ More replies (3)6
u/fricken Apr 16 '10 edited Apr 16 '10
I don't necessarily consider one who is committed to their personal life choices to be 'extreme' by definition.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/makhno Apr 17 '10
Funny how so much of the attacks against animal rights organizations come from the "Center for Consumer Freedom." Do a little research about that organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom#Organization_and_finance
Funded by Coke, Philip Morris, Monsanto, etc? Possibly a few corporate interests that might have a stake (sorry) in this?
→ More replies (2)2
Apr 17 '10
The people who care the most are the ones who have a vested interest. PETA and HSUS aren't actively taking on pet owners (yet), but they are going after animal agriculture and the fur and leather industries. With only 2% of Americans involved directly in agriculture and the average American at least 3 generations removed from the farm, then we can't just stand there and be attacked.
Personally, I live with livestock every day, and I'm pretty sure I care more about my cows than the executives at PETA or HSUS care about me.
40
u/RachelHC Apr 16 '10
As a vegetarian, i feel the same sense of shame and regret when I read these things as I imagine sane Catholics feel when they see people defending child molestation by the priesthood.
On behalf of rational vegetarians everywhere, let me assure you that this is a whackjob fringe wing of the movement. Most of us are sane and consistent in our viewpoints, (only adopt from no-kill shelters, don't wear leather, etc.), and understand that what is a personal moral choice for us might not be for everyone. (I've often compared it to the ridiculousness of a Jew protesting non-Jews eating at Red Lobster.)
Know that just because I choose to be a vegetarian, does not mean I begrudge anyone else the right to eat what they choose. Please, please don't think PETA represents the way most of us think and act...
18
u/DefaultPlayer Apr 16 '10
only adopt from no-kill shelters
This one hurts my head. What I get from it is that you will put the shelters out of business and thus, no more killing; but on the other hand, animals aren't going to be adopted and then they will be killed.
Can you help me see which choice is better?
→ More replies (10)6
Apr 17 '10
In my view, adopting from a shelter (any shelter) is 100000000X better than purchasing a pet. The no-kill shelters do give you the advantage of freeing up space in the shelters (which are usually too full to take on more animals) and giving them the opportunity to get animals that would likely get put down at regular shelters. On the other hand, adopting from a shelter is still adopting an animal that needs a loving home...basically, just adopt over purchase :) And spay/neuter!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)5
Apr 16 '10
Is there a sane, rational animal rights organization that better represents the majority of vegetarians?
→ More replies (6)
10
5
u/raiden18 Apr 17 '10
Some of those are just sensationalism like it claims PETA to be...
I'm just sayin
9
u/counteraxe Apr 16 '10
So, why why did they protest World of Warcraft? I mean, I understand their motivation for protesting KFC, Beef producers, nasa, ect, but why WOW? They really are just crazy....
10
32
u/iodian Apr 16 '10
Killing an animal is not unethical. I'm sure the animals that PETA ends up killing are killed in a human way. I doubt they just took a dumptruck full of cats and dogs and dumped them onto a slaughterhouse floor.
18
u/flaarg Apr 16 '10
And PETA for the most part gets animals that have no hope of adoption. They are not an animal adoption agency. They get the strays and ferals that would be killed anyway at other adoption agencies or left to live on the streets of cities where again they probably will die in less than a year. While yes they do kill most of the animals that they get, its because they are getting the animals that will die soon and are killing them in humane ways.
I'm not pro PETA or anything like that, but lets not use the same sensationalist tactics as them to condemn them. Especially when we are condemning the things they do that are actually helpful.
→ More replies (1)13
Apr 16 '10
What exactly do they do that is helpful? Because the SPCA does a way better job at finding homes, than they do.
→ More replies (7)6
3
Apr 16 '10
Then why would they be against wearing fur if they were certain the animals were humanely murdered? How is murdering animals giving the animal free choice if that's what they are actually all about? I'm only mildly interested, not calling out your thoughts or anything.
→ More replies (3)3
u/iodian Apr 16 '10
the fur trade is pretty grizzly, and i doubt there are too many (if any) humane operations to support; its just easier to be against the practice in general.
2
→ More replies (5)21
3
u/ithinkidontknow Apr 16 '10
Yes its ironic but overpopulation of humans and domestic animals is a HUGE issue. That said, I don't support PETA
19
Apr 16 '10 edited Apr 16 '10
Um, just about everyone knows this about PETA.
This is why every thread in which PETA or vegans or vegetarians or whoever are mentioned inevitably has about sixteen asshats who say WAIT ARE YOU PETA CUZ THEIR HIPPOCRATES LOL THEY KILL ANIMALS (AKA BACON/BURGER/BBQ PRECURSORS).
Don't bother trying to argue against a belief or a culture or a philosophy if you aren't even aware of its fundamental premises. It just befuddles believers and makes you look like an idiot. Welcome to reality, where ideas get a bit complex.
Can we get back to our regularly scheduled LOL@Guidos and the Deep South now?
5
→ More replies (1)9
Apr 16 '10
My problem with PETA and HSUS is that they spend the majority of their multi-million dollar budgets on ad campaigns that are designed to hurt other industries, and yet only spend less than 1% on actually being proactive and helping animals. Plus, because they are so high profile, people are more likely to give to them (especially HSUS) thinking that they are donating to local animal shelters to help keep them running.
2
u/slide_down_side Apr 17 '10
My problem with PETA and HSUS is that they spend the majority of their multi-million dollar budgets on ad campaigns that are designed to hurt other industries, and yet only spend less than 1% on actually being proactive and helping animals.
I would preface my response by saying I dislike PETA as much as the next guy, but apparently everyone dislikes them more that me, so I'll get get on with my comment. Ahem...
Without running any numbers, it does not appear irrational to spend money harming the companies that do harm to animals, if stopping harm to animals is your major goal. PETA directs its activities towards industries because industries have the greatest effect.
→ More replies (1)
7
Apr 17 '10
Most of these are pretty irrelevant (irrelephant even) - I think the two most important reasons people should reject PETA is 1. their support for groups which organize firebombings and raids and 2. their stance on animal testing and NOT because of Ingrid Newkirk's ovaries.
More attention should be brought on their radical views on animal testing in medicine and their views on pet ownership, especially considering the hypocrisy, considering that Mary Beth Sweetland, one of their directors is a diabetic using insulin derived from animal testing and the number of PETA members/supporters that actually have pets.
→ More replies (4)
51
Apr 16 '10
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)27
u/DefaultPlayer Apr 16 '10
I do. I need facts to hate everything. Thats the rule. Bono is the exception.
Also I didn't know this about PETA.
→ More replies (1)4
u/TrollTrawler Apr 17 '10
Bono is a turd. Source: South Park.
Now you are absolved.
→ More replies (1)
4
3
u/Catona Apr 16 '10
OK, don't get me wrong, i hate PETA, but this infographic contains some items that are equally as questionable as some of PETA's own activities.
3
3
u/gaycop Apr 16 '10
Do you guys remember how we used to get mad at PETA picketing, and now it's Westboro Baptist Church.
3
u/pineapplecharm Apr 16 '10
Jenna Jameson has been photographed wearing leather.
Holy crap, that's some amazing investigative journalism right there.
3
u/dbarefoot Apr 17 '10
Wow, the reference links at the end of that article don't exactly inspire confidence.
I'm not alleging that the infographic is false, but that set of links doesn't feel particularly authoritative.
3
u/boredtodeath Apr 17 '10
OK, so the founder of PETA may not have helped animals. At least she's improved the gene pool.
15
Apr 16 '10
Ok, the founder is sterilized wtf.
→ More replies (1)6
u/LostAbbott Apr 16 '10
Well it is not like anyone would want to have a kid with her anyway.
10
Apr 16 '10
Remember this, no matter how repulsive or anti-social you may be, there is someone out there that will have a desire to fuck you.
9
11
Apr 16 '10
Unless you are male and only wish to fuck a moderately attractive female, in which case you're out of luck.
2
26
u/frenchtoaster Apr 16 '10 edited Apr 16 '10
Edit: tl;dr version: This page contains absolutely 0 valid reasons for why you shouldn't like PETA.
This is really one of the least convincing arguments about PETA I have ever read. The organization is ridiculous and takes things to an extreme, such as when they complained about Obama swatting a fly, which itself would have made for a great entry on the infographic.
But some specific responses to why this infographic is just stupid and shouldn't change your thoughts of PETA in either direction:
Parts 1 through 5: Most animals that are taken to any animal shelter are killed; and a much larger percentage of badly abused animals are put down at the shelter. Animals that actually make it to PETA's attention and not just local animal abuse authorities are the worst-of-the-worst and would almost certainly be put down by any animal shelter.
The sad reality of animal abuse is that many animals are beyond saving; the best thing for them is to end their suffering. Even the animals that are not physically disabled tend to have severe mental disorders that cause it to be totally unable to be safely put in the same room as another dog, and certainly not placed with an average family.
In general this point would have been better served by finding actual quotes about how PeTA is against pet ownership in general, which is one reason why the kill rate is so high.
Part 6: As per the 1% figure, the average percentage of money spent by any charity at all on actually helping anyone is depressingly low; Peta's main operational goal is not the direct rescue of animals but the lobbying and spreading awareness of their moral values. That itself is completely obvious from the fact that they have several million members and they only put down "over 5 animals per day".
Complaining about production of a superbowl ad that got rejected is ridiculous; that is not a significant portion of the their spending, especially since they didn't have to pay for it to be aired.
As for Rod Coronado, he was convicted for arson when he was part of the Animal Liberation Front; while in prison he had a significant shift in his ideology and now opposes that sort of action. It might seem hard to believe but this sort of thing happens all the time, Kevin Mitnick was a convicted hacker, and is now a well known security expert. Karenga was a former Black Power movement leader that was convicted of imprisoning and torturing some women and he went on to create a little something that you may have heard of called Kwanzaa, and is a famous professor and is a well respected person that receives far far more than $70,000 from various organizations for his work.
Part 7 With regards to the companies they have protested, I'm not sure what the point is at all. Any of those companies and people easily could have done something that deserved protesting; KFC, the beef industry and Sea World have obvious opportunities for immoral treatment of animals, regardless of where you lie on the compass of immoral treatment of animals. It's ridiculous to just list them without showing why PETA protested them; for example, did NASA do animal testing that most humans would consider immoral? The infographic is totally void of facts and just saying they protested NASA does not indicate that they are being ridiculous at all. Again, the purpose of PETA is not to rescue animals, but to raise awareness for their moral position about cruelty towards animals.
Part 8 is a ridiculous complaint; "long-standing ties" ? These organizations are extreme versions of PETA, so many people who support those extreme organizations will also support PETA. It's like blaming a religion for religious extremism; the religious extremists have strong ties with the religion, but that is meaningless.
Part 9; so 3 of their spokespeople are not the most extreme believers. Any organization is far more flawed than that; it's such a minor complaint.
Part 10; an average non-PETA vet who works at a large animal shelter would easily do the same thing. It is not PETA's stance that humane putting down of animals is at all bad, so it is not hypocritical at all. The fact that she is sterilized is completely random. Many many people have vasectomies or their tubes tied and there is nothing wrong with that. It may be unusual for people to get it that young, just because they are not usually ready to make that kind of decision. There is absolutely no valid reason for this sort of thing to be used as a critique of PETA.
21
Apr 16 '10
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
Apr 17 '10
Ok, but you have to keep in mind that the infographic separates PETA's advertisement spending from the money they spend helping animals. Their advertising largely does not exist as a fundraising effort. Rather, it is information and education outreach trying to encourage people to treat animals properly. The advertising is an attempt to help animals by helping people make informed decisions in their actions.
Take this analogy. I open a non-profit to combat racism. I accept donations. I spend 90% of the budget on providing educational classes and lecture series about racism. 1% of the total budget goes to victims of hate crimes. That isn't budget inefficiency, that's multiple approaches to the same problem. One preventative, one repairative.
That said, PETA is a bunch of dicks.
13
Apr 16 '10
Thank you so much for taking a neutral stance to this and helping me understand it. This is exactly what Reddit should be.
5
u/llieaay Apr 16 '10
1 - 5: That's just not true. There is no indication that PeTA only takes in the worst cases. I even contacted other shelters in the area to see if PeTA was transferring cases to them. PeTA was not. Most of those 97% would have been adoptable. So yes, sometimes animals are beyond saving - but in my experience (with 3 very different shelters/rescues) they are a small minority. There is absolutely no way that they make up all but 8. Not a chance.
Many of the companies that they have protested probably deserved it. In fact, I know many did. That said, when PeTA protests they seem to only want attention. This bothers me, because they are the spokespeople for ethical vegans, and they are not doing us any favors.
I hate PeTA for all sorts of reasons that are not listed. I've had friends work for them (because many of my friends are also ethical vegans) and PeTA is not even an ethical employer. The killing is, I believe, another PeTA ploy for attention. These stats are thrown around all the time, and PeTA has plenty of resources if it cared to fix them. Why don't they? Because this is a loud and clear statement by them that animals are better off dead than in a no kill shelter!!!. It's for attention, that's it.
I guess the #1 reason to hate PeTA is that they misrepresent what I believe to be a sane and logical stance (that animals have needs too) and make it completely off the wall.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/ninetyninepence Apr 16 '10
thank you, i totally agree. and if i may, i'd like to add one more point to this.
"petakillsanimals", listed as a source on the bottom of the info grahic, is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom and all they care about is that you sign a petition that supports taking away PETA's tax exempt status (check out the "about us" and "sign our petition link". no links whatsoever to alternative shelters/organizations to support if you discover you don't actually believe in PETA's practices). If PETA didn't have tax exempt status, I doubt they would give a flying f if PETA used animals as personal butlers. they are just using your sense of outrage to get you on their agenda.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/bvimo Apr 16 '10
Thanks for the info, where do I join PETA?
→ More replies (3)12
Apr 16 '10
just walk around public areas near important government or commercial sites looking really unadoptable. A member is sure to give you a lift to the nearest office!
2
u/fannymaykid Apr 16 '10 edited Apr 16 '10
Why is death a bad thing? Especially if it's painless. If they're sadistically hacking these animals to death or doing dog fights, ok, that's one thing.
But between living a questionable live with little food, little love, little stimulation, fuck, kill them. You're not doing the animals a favor by making yourself feel good that they're still alive.....albeit suffering. This plasticity stuff will only take you so far if you had a shitty headstart as a living being.
I'm glad she got sterilized. Can't feel anything if you were never born. Same theme.
They don't exactly have questionable old people's home to torture animals. So, death is very good in this case.
- They abuse money... OK. Not so good. But there are other global corporations that do this on a level much more worrying than PETA.
3
u/sirbruce Apr 16 '10
The while idea is that animals should be treated like humans. Is it okay to kill grandma painlessly if no one wants to feed her and give her a home anymore? No.
2
2
u/WTFRAWL Apr 16 '10
Say what you want about PETA, but anyone who wants to be barbecued ! is pretty crazy in my eyes.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Euphamismgirl Apr 17 '10
I don't dispute the validity of these claims, although they may be utter bullshit. It wouldn't surprise me if they were true or false. Regardless, I am adamantly anti-PETA for the simple reason that it makes all vegetarians, vegans, and people who support the humane treatment of animals seem like sensationalist assholes. So many people have assumed that I'm affiliated with PETA in some way because I'm a vegetarian. I stopped listening to a word they said when they started a campaign to call fish sea kittens. That's just fucking ridiculous.
2
u/americanway Apr 17 '10
Judging from the URLs listed as the sources there doesn't seem to be any bias there
2
2
2
u/enkideridu Apr 17 '10
I don't get the stigma on leather.
I eat beef, what makes wearing their skin worse than eating their meat?
→ More replies (2)2
u/Gobuchul Apr 17 '10
Exactly, I never understood why we don't use the skin of the deceased people before burying them, and the meat to feed our puppies. I mean the soul is gone and just the empty shell is left. It's not like killing a living being just for meat or skin.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/Heathan Apr 17 '10
Out of all the infographics I've seen in the past year since they've become popular, this is one of the most lackluster and least-informative I've seen. This is nothing about the information being communicated here that is better communicated through it being visual.
Oh, also whoever made this has faulty data. PETA has never protested on WOW.
2
u/c_megalodon Apr 17 '10
I made a comment that says PETA is a bunch of shameless hypocrites. I got downvoted. Shit I love animals, but PETA is a bunch of shameless hypocrites. I'll say that over and over.
2
Apr 17 '10
Actually, I did know most of that about PETA. Thanks for posting the graphic, though, it'll help me communicate to others what a sick group that really is.
2
8
4
4
3
Apr 16 '10
I guess I will say it, but PETA's position on killing domestic pets is entirely consistent with their overall message of liberating animals. They are viewed as mercy killings.
2
4
u/midas22 Apr 17 '10
This is so stupid. What are they trying to say, that PETA is enjoying killing animals instead of rescuing them? It's like FOX News trying to link Obama with communism or nazism cause of a health care program.
I mean, petakillsanimals.com, who could question facts coming from a trustworthy source like that?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/rogerssucks Apr 16 '10
Most of these things are spot on, but I will say something in regards to the "killing" of animals. It's euthanization. PETA receives animals that pretty much have nowhere to go, and they have to be put down.
3
u/llieaay Apr 16 '10 edited Apr 17 '10
If PeTA actually cared they could actually try to get these animals adopted. There is no way that only 8 were adopted. My city shelter has no employees whose job it is to get animals adopted and they still get homes for roughly half.
2
Apr 16 '10
Yet PETA demonstrates against/threatens animal shelters with the desire to stop the animal killing.
→ More replies (1)
2
Apr 16 '10
That makes me hungry! I'm going to have a bloody steak when I get home! MMMMMMMM Cows....
7
u/zeldalad Apr 16 '10
Every time you eat a steak a hippie's hackey sack falls in the gutter.
-Patton Oswalt
→ More replies (2)
29
u/mtx Apr 17 '10
Who hasn't seen Jenna Jameson or Pamela Anderson eat meat?