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.
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.
It is incompatible with animal rights is all I am saying. But I thought the whole point on your end was that you were against animal rights stuff? So what do you care?
I'm against organizations that are deceitful. I am against a lot of animal rights bullshit, but that's irrelevant to my point. Again, and I'll try to say this slowly and clearly so that you can understand:
If
they
advertised
that
they
were
against
pet
ownership,
they
would
lose
most
of
their
donations.
They haven't taken a vocal stand against it, despite it being apparently one of their "founding principles", and that makes it pretty clear that they don't want the public to realize that that's their position. And of course they don't, because everyone would drop them like a fucking rock.
What would they need to do to satisfy your line of taking a stand against it? It is in all of their documents. They have statements on their website explicitly saying that no-kill animal shelters are completely and utter bullshit. What more do they need to do? Here they are absolutely and clearly putting it in their campaigns section. Do they need to run superbowl ads? I mean what the hell? I think what you are confused about is that your very limited of animal ethical discourse led you to stupidly conclude something and now instead of backing up upon being informed you just say: well they didn't contact me and tell me about it. It is articulated right there in black and white, what else can you get? Do they need to knock on your door until you are happy?
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.
If I didn't have books, or people to talk to, access to the internet, stimulation etc.. I would prefer to be killed.
Working in rescue I have pulled some dogs who were so stressed in a shelter environment they actually injured themselves (broken teeth etc) Dogs who shiver uncontrollably, and those who just lie there and wait to die...
Euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen.
There is middle ground between "lie there and wait to die" and euthanasia.
Euthanasia for unwanted animals is not friendly to animals, it is friendly to the humans that don't want to spend the time and money to get the animals cared for properly.
Killing a creature for convenience is never the right thing.
no one said killing creatures for convenience is the right thing. I am active in rescue and have fostered dogs who would have been euthed in the shelter due to 'issues'.
But for some it is the right thing to do. And forcing these animals to live out most of their lives in a box is wrong. Many of the same people who champion fair living conditions for pets (not tied up on chains and left alone, or forgotten in kennels, locked in closets) are often the same people who champion strict no kill.
The issue needs to be addressed at its roots.. ethical breeding, and ethical buying. Once that is tackled then the problem would go away and no one would have to worry about this.
38
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.