PETA

@Funnyguts: If we couldn't eat plants OR animals, would that leave pica as the only option that doesn't kill some form of life?

@washington: Well, I wasn't sure, because some things said that it was a general PETA stance and then that Snopes thing I quoted sounded like it was just a few people. Some of the reasoning behind a "kill dogs in shelters instead of letting them be adopted" sounded like they were thinking "well, I would rather die than be "owned" by someone, so I assume a dog must think the same way!" Which is taking the idea of "owning" a pet too literally, not to mention assuming a pet dog sees the humans around it as slaveowners instead of pack members or friends. I wonder what those PETA people think of dog or cat lovers who consider themselves not to be owning a pet, but adopting a new furry family member? I mean, if using the term "owning" a pet is the problem?

By the way, if there are people in PETA who want to separate humans and animals, how would they go about that in a humane manner? To do so would likely either kill any animal that came near humans, or kill any human who came near animals, and how do you stop insects and things like that from interacting with humans? Not to mention if they don't want humans to interact with animals, how else can humans learn what the animals want and that they have feelings? You'd think they'd want to encourage humans to form bonds with animals and get emotionally attached to helping them, not separate all humans from animals.

edited 13th Jan '11 5:40:50 PM by Rainbow

My take on them? Definitely Don't Shoot the Message. As far as I can tell, their hearts are in the right place, but they are more self-destructive to actually getting stuff done than anything else.

I love HSUS, though. I'm an animal welfare person through and through, and a bunch of PETA's causes, I'd actually support if they were more intelligent about how they did them.

Regarding their euthanization of animals, that frustrates me. I'd much rather the animals go to a good home. If they do that on the basis of doctrinaire beliefs, that's absolutely awful, and there is no punishment harsh enough. On the other hand, I also understand the necessity when shelters become overrun. The US animal control system is weird in that it's incredibly decentralized, so it's difficult for shelters to get help from other shelters when they're overrun. I hate euthanization, but it's ultimately not going to stop until we get both more adequate facilities and get institutions in place to help stop the puppy mills and irresponsible owners that allow strays to get so numerous to begin with.

^Agreed

PETA are basically a bunch of trolls for whom the fight is more important than the cause, more or less. I think HSUS does a lot of good work, and there are some important issues that really should have light on them. But I think that an ultra-moralistic, all or none stance quite frankly doesn't do anybody any good.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Salt and honey.

Honey exploits bees. To get salt you usually have to boil out plankton.

Unless it's rock salt.

Insult to Rocks?

Also, wtf is this

edited 13th Jan '11 8:10:10 PM by Pykrete

Somebody went and took the People Eating Tasty Animals joke to the next stage.

Fight smart, not fair.

I'm probably not going to click on that link, it can only annoy me.

Eh, it looks like the site hasn't been updated in fourteen years anyway. Which is odd.

Oh wow. September 6, 1996.

It is true that PETA done an undeniable amount of good along the way, yet this one cannot support their means nor their ultimate goal. Animal welfare groups this one fully approves of. But animal rights - no.

Besides, the worts thing is that, as been mentioned above, the actions PETA is infamous about were not carried out by some fringe loonies, but are fully supported by leadership.

This. They do compare themselves to abolitionists, by the way. Which demonstrates blatant lack of knowledge about biology, which is kind of strange for an organisation concerned with animals.

edited 14th Jan '11 6:31:53 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Let me be frank: I think they're Animal Nazis. To put Beast in a higher pedestal than Man is an affront to the natural order of life. If Beast is in the level of Man or higher, what would be the net result? Animal worship?

The Southpaw has no brakes!

If anything I'm my dogs' slave...

i. hear. a. sound.

I know what you mean; my dog comes over to me when i'm eating and gives me the eyes.

Play when tell me to, cuddle when they tell me to, feed them when they tell me to, walk them when they tell me to, clean up their messes, groom and bathe them... this is sounding pretty one-sided. PETA's pulling that slaveowner thing out their ass.

edited 14th Jan '11 9:43:08 AM by Bur

i. hear. a. sound.

But they love you unconditionally! How can you say no to that? Plus she helps me get laid; if anything I'm more of an indentured servant.

Agreed. My baby girl's a spoiled little princess who knows exactly what to do to get whatever she wants. -_-

As far as I'm concerned, dogs and humans have been evolving alongside each other for millennia, and at this point, the two species have symbiotic relationship, like clownfish and sea anemones.

Agreed. I have no problem "eating tasty animals" as the spoof group puts it, but I think it's fair that they live as decently as possible before I eat them.

On a lighter note, I think my Elkhound would be against PETA because she LOVES to eat meat and she wouldn't want there being a rule that she can't have any. Especially raw, living meat that is screaming its last screams.

Speaking of that, is PETA also against non-human animals eating each other? What about animals eating humans? Or do they want all animals to be herbivores?

edited 14th Jan '11 11:37:47 AM by Rainbow

Humans are not the most important creatures on the Earth. They appeared and they will end. Bacteria had more impact upon the planet. However, you are actually thinking too highly of PETA. They seem to have very strange ideas about what animals need, so they can't even promote their interests well.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

We taught a lion to eat tofu!

In all seriousness though, I doubt PETA has the brain capacity to think that far ahead.

The "pets are slaves!" mentality is inane because it assumes that animals think and feel the same way humans do. But they don't.

For instance, you might think a dog kennel looks too small for a dog because you wouldn't be comfortable in a proportionally-sized kennel. But dogs have a denning instinct; they feel safe in small spaces. Similarly, small animals like hamsters are happier in a cage or hamster ball than in an open space; open spaces excite their fear of predators, so you'll see them flatten down and scurry towards the nearest hiding spot.

The thing about dogs liking to have an enclosed den is so true, especially for my dogs. Even as I write this, Luna (the Pomeranian) is choosing to lay in her kennel (the door to it is open so she can go in and out as she pleases). If she thought of her kennel like a cage or a prison, then she wouldn't likely be just laying in there on her own.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's okay to lock a dog in his/her kennel ALL the time, but a kennel is more like an enclosed bed than a prison when used properly.

edited 14th Jan '11 2:23:46 PM by Rainbow

Mine tends to use her kennel only to escape from grooming. Otherwise, she tends to prefer her bed, which is stationed at an intersection between three rooms. However, that's mostly because she's a lhasa apso. They're bred to be watchdogs, and so she wants to see as much of the area at once as she can. In any case, her bed essentially becomes her den, because she'll bury herself in blankets in her bed.