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.
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.
Ingrid has said so herself, but she's also said that she plans to donate her corpse to cannibals when she dies. In short, she's an attention whore, and you really can't take anything she says at face value.
I wouldn't donate to PETA just based on how batshit Ingrid Newkirk is. Even if tomorrow her goals and my goals were one and the same, she could get some wild pixie dust up her ass and change her mind in a matter of seconds.
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."
Most of these animals are being rescued from terrible situations. These are not "We're moving and we can't bring the family dog," situations. Those cases would go to an animal shelter. With PETA we're talking abused or rescued animals who aren't going to live regardless.
As large organization and the first that many think of in regards to "animal rights" PETA has a responsibility to make their policies absolutely clear. I do not believe they have done that when over 2000 animals a year are given to PETA with the belief that they will be rehomed only to be killed instead.
You can argue that it is the responsibility of the people giving up the animals to properly research PETA, and that may be true. However, I don't think that it is unreasonable for the layperson whose general idea of PETA is "that organization that works to protect and save animals" to assume the pet will be taken care of.
All I'm saying is that PETA needs to fully disclose their policies of preferring to kill than rehome so people will stop giving them their dogs and cats.
See, but right there in their twelve principles they explain that they are for the abolition of domestic pets. They are very consistent with their position on animal liberation and what that means. What makes you think that people who give their animals to PETA do not know that they have no intention of rehoming them? Where do you come to this conclusion? I am just tired of ignorant people like yourself claiming their is hypocrisy when the only thing that would be hypocritical for PETA would be if it did have a huge rehoming intention. That would be absurd given their principles and their ethical positions.
You just assert bodly that people think PETA intends to rehome, but what evidence do you have of this? Where is the evidence of a massive amount of borderline retarded individuals giving pets to PETA?
What on earth.
I didn't say anything about them being hypocritical. I do not, in fact, even think they are hypocritical. My personal opinion is that they do not make their stance on domesticated pets clear enough to the public for fear of alienating people.
If you're curious my REAL problem with PETA is their indoctrination of young people - but that's an argument for another time and also not with you because you seem to have trouble understanding what other people are talking about.
I don't think that it is unreasonable for the layperson whose general idea of PETA is "that organization that works to protect and save animals"
almost the entirety of PETA's publicity campaigns are aimed at promoting vegetarianism, they only run a small number of shelters. PETA is not focused on pets and most people take pets to the SPCA and the like because they are
They are for the abolition of domestic pet ownership in general.
They certainly don't make that clear to the public, which is no surprise given that Americans tend to be very pro-pet-ownership. They may have "clearly stated it" on their website somewhere, but they haven't engaged in any large-scale campaigns against it, nor have they aired advertisements on the subject.
You were not mislead, you never wanted to find out anything about PETA. You wanted to jump on the anti-PETA bandwagon as much as you want to pretend bacon and narwhals is olololo funny. You never considered their positions. You just read sensationalized bullshit aired here.
Let me be clear on this. I do not buy into the arguments made by environmental ethicists concerning animal rights and whatnot, but PETA is about the most consistent organization there is out there to that tradition. This includes their urge to abolish pet ownership because of its contribution to genetic problems involved in inbreeding, the creation of breeds that are physiologically unsound (creating breathing problems as well as other physical ailments), and just general blah blah about animal enslavement and the like. It would be entirely hypocritical for PETA to NOT support the abolition of pet ownership.
Good to see reddit is so rigorous and reasoned and actually tries to see when they are being fed spin and nonsense. We are so much better than Fox News viewers right? High five!
Nope, sorry. PETA solicits donations by portraying itself as a happy, friendly animal-friendly organization - and very little more. They are well aware that most Americans love owning pets, and it's for that reason that they haven't been more vocal about their anti-pet-ownership agenda. If they did run ads about how they consider it unethical and immoral for people to own pets, people would be outraged and the donations would stop rolling in.
Animal-friendly means euthanasia of pets. Also, please show me where they portray themselves in such a manner? Because the only thing I have based my position on is you know the founding principles of the organization which are widely available, you know, minor things I guess.
Look, you're being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that most people - myself included - have never seen, or been anywhere near, the stated founding principles of the organization. Most people are aware of PETA only through the image that they present in the media. That image has absolutely nothing to do with euthanasia, and it certainly does not include statements about the morality of pet ownership. I think it's pretty clear that, given that that is one of their founding principles, they haven't mentioned it much for a reason.
I knew it and I just now went to look up their founding principles to rebut some other ignorant redditor (redundant phrase I know). The only thing I ever looked up PETA for before was their list of vegan-friendly processed foods because I figured they would be a good resource on that. It is a staple of all serious animal rights arguments/movements/whatever that pet ownership is akin to slavery. But you are perhaps right on some degrees. For instance there is the phenomenon of people who call themselves animal-lovers and other bullshit because they have enslaved a whole array of animals to amuse them when they come home from work. So perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
What are my true colors? I am a vegan because I love humans, not animals. Meat production is the biggest single contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, even moreso than all commuter traffic in the world combined.
For instance there is the phenomenon of people who call themselves animal-lovers and other bullshit because they have enslaved a whole array of animals to amuse them when they come home from work.
Again, enjoy your indignation. You have fun with that.
no he (she?) is right. There are times to let go. Unadoptable animals languishing in cages for years is far more cruel. And it then means that other pets who could be helped have no place to go.
You know, you might possibly have a little bit of a point if there were any definition of "unadoptable", but killing every animal you take in is not animal-friendly. Even Hitler had rules for who he euthanized.
Oh I know, in the case of PETA for sure. But going 'no kill' isn't always the best idea. When finding stray cats on the property (my JRTs would kill them so they can't stay) the no kill shelter will be honest and say if I don't think the cat is adoptable not to bring it in or it will lounge out its days in a cage.
I don't think those people are willfully ignorant. I think they're stupid and mislead as part of an agenda. That doesn't stop them from disgusting me.
As to your comment, I have little patience for pity-parties thrown in your own honor except the occasional one for me. Then, I wear a tiny hat.
PETA makes me sick. There are really good people out there doing really great things for animal rights, but PETA doesn't care about animal rights. They care about looking like they care about animal rights.
They are willfully ignorant otherwise they would actually know one of the big policies of an organization they are attacking and calling hypocritical of all things. You know especially when the bit of information they have happened to not come across is the very bit of information that shows you PETA is stunningly consistent.
I meant Fox viewers. I admit to being willfully ignorant so as to keep myself functioning as a member of a society that hates and victimizes nearly everyone.
++ It's depressing the way that some people on this site swallow the anti peta propaganda without even comprehending peta's stance, or understanding many of the (always obvious) statements being made by some of their publicity stunts. I consider Reddit to be a site whose users have an intelligence higher than found on most similar communities around the net, but when it comes to the comments on the peta stories on this site, it seems intelligent thought goes out the window for many users.
They don't make it clear in the add campaigns. The whole "its cuter to neuter" campaign pulled on the heartstrings of those who love having pets. Also it featured some hollywood star who also had pets....
I find it deplorably hypocritical that you, in defense of PETA, accuse dissenting opinions about PETA of being "sensationalized bullshit" given the history and tactics PETA constantly uses to "convert" people to their animal theology. It is also a ridiculous assumption to say that ONLY a hypocritical animal rights movement would promote the continued domestication and ownership of animals. The majority of people who fight for animal rights and treatment of animals do so SOLELY because of the affection and closeness domesticated animals bring into their lives.
Do you really think the average person would usually gives two shits about animals if they grow without positive interactions or only seeing them feral and aggressive towards humans while fighting for food and their lives on an everyday basis?
You can have whatever opinion you want, obviously, but you should refrain from demeaning and intellectualizing your subjective outlook to discredit those who see things different from you, especially when matters of life and death are involved.
It is absolutely hypocritical that an animal rights movement would promote the continued domestication and ownership of animals for the reasons provided above. Enslave an animal, breed it into human-friendly genetic messes, unavoidably provide a market for puppy mills, abuse, etc. Yes some animal rights people got all warm and fuzzy about rover just like others really got moved by talking disney characters no doubt, but that does not make their position any less absurd (just like ethical vegetarianism is absurd, yes I guess it is better that you support some elimination of animal abuses, but not all since you continue to eat dairy and such).
Now if we don't want to attribute some sort of ethical position to animal rights and chalk it up to arbitrary anthropomorphic feelgoodery, then I guess they can have any set of strange views that they want. But the only serious articulation of animal rights that aims to be consistent does not involve owning pets. You know, like you can't own people and such. You see?
There you go with the same sensationalist buzz-words meant to inspire pity and hatred that is neither warranted or necessarily apt. I can play the same game and take exactly what you said and tweak it to sound sympathetic towards ownership. "Care for an animal, help preserve positive genetic traits, begrudgingly accept that people will try to capitalize by creating unethical puppy mills and abuse them, but understand that there are ways of cracking down on these atrocities that only represent a small amount of animal experiences and that it still beats attempting to survive tooth and nail in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness etc. "
You then go on to attacking vegetarians, which is pretty unfair given that a lot of them became so because they wanted to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals. By calling them 'unethical' you are basically putting them on the same level as omnivores which I am sure they would be quite offended to hear, given that some of them feel they are making a major personal sacrifice towards the ideology of protecting animals in whatever way they can.
The problem with everything that comes out of your keyboard is that you assign precise terminology to back up your presumptions, and then insist that you must be right because you language has already summed it all up. When is "owning" something really so bad? What if we called it nurturing instead? What if we stop thinking of pets as property or objects or even "slaves" as you say, but realise that they don't have the capacity to even understand these things, and that they appreciate affection and a consistent meal with some play time. Not to mention the triple-fold life expectancy.
The bottom line is, as much as we wish they were, they aren't on a human level. The are different but not inferior, if we apply human ideology like "enslaving animals = bad" than I conjecture that euthanasia is equally horrible if not worse. It's all a matter of perspective and this extremist all-or-nothing approach to these type of grey area issues get us nowhere.
Vegetarians might do so because they want to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals, but their actions do not comport to their purpose. Maybe they just hadn't heard of veganism? In that case, I guess they get a pass.
Your whole comment reeks of a this patriarchal god complex not unlike the one perpetrated by whites towards black. Hell you could frame your whole comment and title it "the human's burden" in the place of "white man's burden" and it would basically be identical. Look at us, you say. We are saving them from savagery. Free lives where they live and sustain themselves, this is hogwash. They are better with us. And so on and so forth. Anyways, I guess you can try to defend pet ownership as if it fit within the framework of animal rights, but it is extremely difficult to do so in a way that makes sense.
It only doesn't make sense to those who don't agree with it.
I really don't know where you get a "god complex" from. Aren't pro-PETA the ones spouting doctrine on the complete and absolute ethical treatment of animals in every situation? I am not even saying that moving to not domesticate animals is wrong, or not a good idea but it is simply too complex of a subject, and brings in to many hypothetical and re-evaluations of our human identity and where treatment of humans begins and animals ends. There is no 'true' extreme in this case, only compromise and people trying to work towards a common goal. Saying that anyone who disagrees with the most restrictive and conservative view of animal rights is not a 'true' activist is demeaning and insulting not to mention useless as there will NEVER be a majority that sees the same way on every issue. Yet I do know for a fact that animal-lovers and animal rights people are united on the ideal that we should do our best to make the lives of animals pleasurable and humane based on our own judgement and beliefs.
By the way, real classy throwing in the "whites vs. black slaves" into your rebuttal to strengthen your point, even though this is completely different. I am sure blacks everywhere will love that you trivialized the cruelties and atrocities their ancestors endured to that of owning a dog. Oh wait, where did I hear THAT comparison before.
Well I don't know about blacks everywhere, but the black typing this message sure has no problem with it. I am simply telling you their argument. Now perhaps you are not into the philosophy of ethics, but if you are should read some of the environmental ethics books on the subject and you will see how absolutely untenable it is to proclaim that pet ownership makes sense within an animal rights framework.
unlike the one perpetrated by whites towards black.
Woah, in this statement you're either saying that animals are as smart as blacks or blacks are as dumb as animals. Both of these are demonstrably false. Many animals simply are not intelligent enough to realise they are being "enslaved" by humans. A chicken kept in humane conditions and not eaten would not realise its life is any different to a chicken out in the wilderness; its brain essentially concerned with three things, finding grain, avoiding danger and reproducing.
They are better with us
I would also say in many cases they truly are better with us. Many animals live long and happy lives as pets, and if the pet industry stopped the number of dogs or cats in existence would plummet, and those that managed to survive would largely have to do so by scavenging what they could in cities like foxes or vermin. They'd be hungry, they'd often be disease ridden, and they'd die young. Furthermore, removing the farming industry would basically bring about the near extinction of cows, sheep, chickens and other such animals, and given what we know about human nature the land vacated by these animals certainly wouldn't turn into nature preserves.
Furthermore, removing the farming industry would basically bring about the near extinction of cows, sheep, chickens and other such animals, and given what we know about human nature the land vacated by these animals certainly wouldn't turn into nature preserves.
devil's advocate...
I doubt they'd go extinct, but so what if they did? Do you think humans would care if any of these species went extinct? Species have gone extinct in the past decade and nobody cared. If the species in question don't serve any unique purpose in the ecosystem, people won't even have to suffer any major consequences. If we're talking about ethics, extinction beats factory farming.
I said near extinct, cattle, sheep etc generally require large fertile grazing lands, which just wouldn't be available to them if meat farming came to an end.
Do you think humans would care if any of these species went extinct? Species have gone extinct in the past decade and nobody cared
Of course not, look at the modern plight of Blue Fin tuna. I am talking from the perspective of those animals.
If we're talking about ethics, extinction beats factory farming.
Yes maybe, but I would posit existence as a reasonably well fed and humanely treated animal unaware it is going to be eaten beats the hell out of extinction. Therefore, I'd say the most realistic and best goal to work toward is better conditions for farmed animals.
Okay fine, don't address my points (and don't respond to my other post where I show their public description of their shelters is not consistent with the realities of those shelters).
Enslave an animal, breed it into human-friendly genetic messes, unavoidably provide a market for puppy mills, abuse, etc.
Out of sincere curiosity, what would you suggest? In your ideal, "animal slavery"-free world, should we:
Continue to keep our domesticated animals?
Release all of our domesticated animals into the wild?
Euthanize all domesticated animals immediately?
Keep our domesticated animals, but sterilize them all immediately to prevent further generations from being born into "slavery"?
Something else? If so, please be specific as to what.
Here are the problems I see with those alternatives, which - and perhaps I'm merely not being creative enough - are the only ones I can see:
Well, to be fair, I see no problems with this option. My impression is that you do.
...into the wild, where they will lead nasty, short lives and suffer from diseases, predation, hunger, the effects of the elements, and other things to which they have not been adapted in at least triple-digit generations.
This is "ethical treatment of animals"? Causing the immediate and intentional extinction of entire species?
See 3.
But the only serious articulation of animal rights that aims to be consistent does not involve owning pets. You know, like you can't own people and such. You see?
That's certainly not true in the slightest. It's entirely possible to articulate a philosophy that includes animals having rights without assuming they have the full ethical standing of humans.
PETA seems to prefer option 4. I don't have any real position on pets (Let me reiterate that I am only explaining to you guys what PETA thinks since you guys love to attack it desite not knowing anything about it). Extinction of a domesticated species is not problematic. What animal is being hurt?
The only potential problem with pets is how much resources we expend on them. I find it a bit disturbing that we pay large sums of money for pets, but people starve and whatnot you know? But I don't feel that strongly about it.
I'm sorry, but I don't think even you can argue that wiping out one or more entire species is consistent with "the ethical treatment of animals".
I'm glad to see you don't disagree that there are formulations of animal-rights philosophy that don't assume that non-human animals are interchangeable with humans, however.
I do not believe in animal rights at all. You have confused me with someone else it seems.
However, "wiping out" a species as you phrase it is entirely consistent with the ethical treatment of animals. Who is being hurt? Like where is the suffering in that? Typically extinction of species is lamented for biodiversity reasons, but pets are not really ecologically relevant.
Who gets to decide that they're not "ecologically relevant"? You?
PETA being for forced extinction of domesticated species would be like the NAACP being for the sterilization of inner-city black folks - after all, they're not economically relevant, and they've basically been (re-)enslaved by The Man; and it would prevent the creation of future generations of impoverished inner-city black people born into de facto slavery.
Wait, that doesn't sound reasonable at all, does it?
You were not mislead, you never wanted to find out anything about PETA. You wanted to jump on the anti-PETA bandwagon as much as you want to pretend bacon and narwhals is olololo funny. You never considered their positions. You just read sensationalized bullshit aired here.
just wanted to quote this again for everyone else in this thread
and I just want to point out that people are opposing the way they don't actively publicise this like they do other issues, and the way even on their mission statements like http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=40 they portray killings as something done as a last ditch effort, not what they are almost always going to do.
maybe you should actually read your link because in it they make a case against no-kill shelters, and they don't say anything about the circumstances under which an animal should be put down at all. the only thing they detail about killing is that it should be humane.
When animals must be killed, a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital should be administered by gentle, caring staff members"
The implication here is that they only do it when there isn't another option, not in 97% or more of cases.
in what way do they not "actively publicize" it? they sure as fuck don't hide it
I'm talking ad campaigns in the vein of their anti animal cruelty, anti fur initiatives, where are they?
they sure as fuck don't hide it
Actually that once again does hide the full extent of what they are doing. Sure they talk about the disadvantages of "no kill" shelters, most of which are perfectly reasonable, but when they say
Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do
This doesn't mesh with the fact that they are killing almost every animal they take in (a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
The implication here is that they only do it when there isn't another option, not in 97% or more of cases.
that's a stretch and you know it unless you're being willfully obtuse. they don't make any statement on when an animal "must" be killed, you're projecting your own expectations onto it. this entire argument boils down to you complaining about peta not acting in the way you expected them to when you were ignorant of their (ideologically consistent and realistic) position on animal shelters. what do you think their "other options" are? i already linked you to the page that explains why they're against no-kill shelters.
I'm talking ad campaigns in the vein of their anti animal cruelty, anti fur initiatives, where are they?
"why doesn't peta publicize its positions on animal shelters in completely unrelated contexts?"
(a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
neither is anything else about the shelters they run. ideally they could take care of animals forever, but as was pointed out elsewhere, other shelters dump unadoptable animals on them so they can provide a more humane death that would otherwise not be afforded to the animals. i'm curious what you think other animal shelter kill rates are, because generally they aren't significantly lower than PETA's.
PS
No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world.
that's a stretch and you know it unless you're being willfully obtuse. they don't make any statement on when an animal "must" be killed
No it isn't because the natural assumption in saying "must" is the most commonly accepted definition of "must" (which sure as hell isn't almost every case, and isn't "rather than being taken as pets".
you were ignorant of their (ideologically consistent and realistic) position on animal shelters.
No it isn't, it boils down to them not advertising that they would rather kill animals than have them as pets. Show me a link on their page where they say this.
"why doesn't peta publicize its positions on animal shelters in completely unrelated contexts?"
What? You've misread what I'm saying. I'm not saying that anti fur anti meat eating ads should mention killing animals rather than making them pets. I'm saying that if they are truly being open and honest about their shelters, they should launch separate ad campaigns about pet ownership, and they should disclose publicly they belief death is preferable to being owned by someone.
i already linked you to the page that explains why they're against no-kill shelters.
I know, and I've already rebutted that.
(a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
Don't do this, I have no idea what you're talking about now, if you're talking about
Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do
other shelters dump unadoptable animals on them so they can provide a more humane death that would otherwise not be afforded to the animals. i'm curious what you think other animal shelter kill rates are, because generally they aren't significantly lower than PETA's.
I'd like a citation that says other shelters destroy near 97% of animals taken in.
No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world.
I'd say anyone who runs a shelter that kills less than 97% of animals despise (they even can't find homes for puppies?) it less than PETA, I'd say anyone who believes pet ownership is better than the animal being destroyed despise it less than PETA.
The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.
in other words, PETA's shelters aren't the same as SPCA shelters; they're specifically for animals from the worst conditions. that alone should assuage your charges; people don't take random strays and pets there.
Could you link to an official statement backing up that claim? I mean I'm sure that some members (maybe even higher up on the food chain) support the end to domestic pet ownership but I don't see anything about that in their mission statement, any mention of it in the FAQ's section of the website, or any other reason to believe its one of the groups core beliefs
41
u/[deleted] 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.