guy incognito
Well-Known Member
You realize this link was what started this thread and is in post #1?
To anyone that supports PETA...
- Thread starter BygonEra
- Start date
hempyninja309
Well-Known Member
I might get some flack for saying this but I personally think norml is a cash cow and Keith Stroup needs to go.
BygonEra
Well-Known Member
It's ridiculously hypocritical, that's why. They don't just take in the worst of the worst cases... they consider themselves a shelter, which means they take in animals... they can't pick and choose the "worst cases". I have a big problem with where and how they spend their money and what they stand for. It's all just full of bullshit. If they truly cared about the welfare of the animals they take in, they'd do their part just like any other shelter and attempt to get the adoptable animals adopted out. Otherwise they shouldn't call themselves a "shelter". Like I said, I don't support no-kill shelters and beleive its in everyone's best interest to euthanize sick or potentially dangerous animals right off the bat... but this is PETA we're talking about - an animal welfare nazi group that feels the need to lie out the ass to gain support. May not be a cause for outrage in general, I'm only outraged personally by their hypocritical attitude that clearly has much more to do with the money aspect than the animal welfare aspect.
SunnyJim
Well-Known Member
To me, all this just sounds like rhetoric with little substance, I'm afraid. I also think you're a little confused as to exactly what PETA is. PETA is an animal welfare organization, not an animal shelter. To suggest that the bulk of their work involves rescuing homeless pets is, unfortunately, wholly inaccurate. They're in business to influence animal welfare policy, including but not limited to: animal suffering, culling of pests, animal testing, and factory farming.
To get bogged down with one aspect of their practices seems a little short-sighted. If you look at the bigger picture, they're a charitable organisation. They don't have limitless financing to rescue all, or even most suffering animals. Instead, they work to have legislation passed making certain acts against animals a criminal act. That, in theory, reduces the amount of suffering animals face on the whole at the hands of certain people/businesses for fear of prosecution.
I'm not sure how they're an animal welfare 'Nazi' group, or precisely what they've lied to you about. I agree that some of the methods they use to convey their messages can be fairly grotesque, but they don't spend many advertising dollars. They run 'shock' campaigns for notoriety so they get picked up by newspapers, which doesn't cost any money. And I'm confident that if they had an endless pot of gold, they would not euthanise any animal, ever. I don't understand what you mean by '.. that clearly has much more to do with the money aspect.." They probably feel their income is better spent on campaigns to influence policy, which could save millions of animals from suffering, rather than funnel that money into saving a few thousand from being euthanised. Right or wrong, that doesn't sound hypocritical or Nazi-ish to me.
In some cases, in order to achieve something, it is inevitable and necessary that something be destroyed. I'm not convinced PETA takes that responsibility lightly.
SunnyJim
p.s. I'm not trying to be controversial, I just swim in different waters to you.
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
Any better ideas on controlling overpopulation?
Peta at least kills them humanely, unlike slaughterhouses. And they also have other methods of controlling overpopulation.. http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/spay-neuter.aspx
Even if these dogs and cats were adopted from peta, many of the owners would be reckless and their pet would either become pregnant or impregnate another pet. There's too many dogs and cats, not enough homes. you might ask why peta doesn't create a home for them (shelter), but how can you house millions of cats and dogs? and if peta did find new homes for most of their "strays", that's just a house that another pet missed out on. The root of the problem is overpopulation, which is what they're trying to fix. This is a strange topic, but I'm kind of siding with peta humanely killing them. It's sad, but not as sad as seeing many starving animals on the street. just my opinion, which I haven't really thought too much on, so cut me some slack if there's a huge hole in my logic
Peta at least kills them humanely, unlike slaughterhouses. And they also have other methods of controlling overpopulation.. http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/spay-neuter.aspx
Even if these dogs and cats were adopted from peta, many of the owners would be reckless and their pet would either become pregnant or impregnate another pet. There's too many dogs and cats, not enough homes. you might ask why peta doesn't create a home for them (shelter), but how can you house millions of cats and dogs? and if peta did find new homes for most of their "strays", that's just a house that another pet missed out on. The root of the problem is overpopulation, which is what they're trying to fix. This is a strange topic, but I'm kind of siding with peta humanely killing them. It's sad, but not as sad as seeing many starving animals on the street. just my opinion, which I haven't really thought too much on, so cut me some slack if there's a huge hole in my logic
SunnyJim
Well-Known Member
You had me at "..I've seen pictures of slaughter houses for chickens and pigs, that's fine with me.."
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
we're mainly responsible for this overpopulation mess. In nature, many would die alot sooner than when kept in captivity. We changed "mother nature's course", now peta is doing the ugly part of it. the part many of you don't want to see. It's not like their killing animals for sadistic pleasure.
gR33nDav3l0l
Well-Known Member
That'd be Ted Nugent.
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
I need a new zebra thong! Bring me my gun!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There was an article in our local paper about some turkeys who were being fed beer in the months leading to Thanksgiving. It is said to improve the birds' flavor. I was amused to note that PETA decried the practice, calling it cruel. I wonder if giving some animals slated for imminent slaughter a bit of a buzz is really cruel.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
A real operator gets the zebra to willingly give you her thong.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
beer for months? these animals are in captivity like prisoners, imminent slaughter or not. you can marinate the bird's dead carcass in beer later. just sounds like it might not be optimal for the bird's health.
but i've never see a drunk turkey, maybe they enjoy it and it's not all that bad for them physically. i bet they jive it up a bit more when buzzed, those turkeys.
joe macclennan
Well-Known Member
If the animals are gonna be put down anyway why not use the furs to make clothes for the homeless? Seems a total waste just incinerating them. Or sure..feed them to the homeless....why not?
one of the only things america is good at anymore is breeding unwanted pets...why not put this tremendous resource to work?
see..this is where many ppl. are just fucked. They would rather pay to get rid of a problem than turn that problem into an asset.
randybishop
Well-Known Member
That is interesting, because the links you cited in your first post are written by Nathan Winograd, the leader of the no-kill movement.
Nathan Winograd's first passion is attempting to tear down all other animal welfare organizations including ASPCA, Humane Society and Best Friends Animal Sanctuary.
Now that is fucking interesting
BygonEra
Well-Known Member
Hm. Very interesting indeed! Now I'm starting to question the validity of the article in the OP period...
i believe when i stated this:
i was correcting in assuming that both sides of both articles were to the extreme