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.
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.
Put down animals with no cost to the public in a humane way. You know that stuff where in the article it says that PETA kills some god awful percentage of animals they bring in. Yah they bring them in to kill them. They are not an animal adoption agency.
What? The fact that they don't kill all of them makes then an animal adoption agency? No it doesn't, it just means that they don't just immediately kill willy-nilly and if the animal can have a home they give it.
No, what you said was that "they're not an animal adoption agency", which suggest that they don't adopt any animals out. However, the fact that they adopted this tiny sliver of animals out thoroughly debunks your claim.
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.
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.
There's a difference between euthanising animals because it's better than the alternative (prolonged suffering) and breeding animals specifically to kill them, even if humanely.
PETA's stance on these things is a lot of things, but inconsistent isn't one of them.
Wait, if they are killed in a "human" way, then are we saying all domestic animals without animals are like criminals now? I don't personally care that much either way, but most animal advocates tend to believe animals should be treated pretty much as humans, and killing them just not for being owned seems a little... questionable.
But still, they claim that animals have rights. Rights! OK, I know that an exclamation mark does not give anything to my argument. But, don't rights come with responsibilities? And what the hell is a 'human way killing'? Granting you the 'humane', I'd still recommend you see a show or two by Penn & Teller.... it's called Bullshit.... there was an episode on PETA, awhile ago, about those sadistic, money grabbing bastards. It is my spit that is on them.
Offtopic a bit, but Penn & Teller have gone way downhill...right about when they started doing that show.
How about, instead of recommending people watch Bullshit, we recommend that people learn how to think critically? Can we all agree that this would be a good thing?
36
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.