Comment by busterarm
4 years ago
> I imagine that, as a prospective donor, I would certainly much prefer if there were some form of legal assurance that the Dog-Grooming Union that I would be giving money to will continue advancing the cause of well-groomed dogs tomorrow, rather than deciding that it would instead rather fight for the cause of creating salons for cats, or even completely turn around and say that it will now fight against human intervention in the natural phenotypical fur-styles of dogs.
How many pet-owning PETA supporters actually know that PETA believes that pet ownership is equivalent with slavery, wants to abolish it and that its shelters have the highest euthanization rates because they consider killing domesticated animals to be a mercy.
Support your local SPCA.
PETA does not believe pet ownership is equal to slavery, it ran an ad campaign comparing abused animals captive for things like circus acts, marine parks, and factory farming to slavery. That said it does believe animals should not be domesticated, but has never suggested that owning a pet is the same as slavery. Okay fine you can disagree with that as I do, but don't exaggerate their position.
Finally the reason it has the highest euthanization rates has nothing to do with mercy, but because it never refuses to take in any animals, period. Other shelters, especially no-kill shelters, achieve their objective by refusing to take in an animal when they reach capacity and they avoid reaching capacity in the first place by refusing animals that are unlikely to be adopted such as those that are aggressive, or old, or are injured.
PETA never refuses any animals and as such people go to PETA often as a last resort when no other shelter will take their animal. In cases where PETA comes to the same conclusion that a no-kill shelter will come to about the prospects of an animal finding a suitable home, and after PETA confirms that no other nearby shelter will take in the animal, instead of simply refusing the animal which often results in dumping, or further neglect of said animal, PETA euthanizes it. Consider that there are over 60 million stray dogs in the US roaming about compared to about 3 million dogs living in a shelter. It's simply not possible to shelter all abandoned animals, so either PETA euthanizes them, or the animal lives out in the wild where it ends up reproducing and introducing or exacerbating negative effects to its environment.
All of these are positions that you may disagree with and criticize without exaggerating or misrepresenting them.
PETA literally sued in federal court to try and get _all animals_ protected under the Thirteenth Amendment. That's the one abolishing slavery, in case you didn't know.
In the no-longer-circulating Statement on Companion Animals, PETA said: "As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves."
John Byrant's book was published by PETA. He writes: "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."
PETA's cofounder, Ingrid Newkirk, states: "Although we have, in theory, abolished human slavery, recognized women's rights, and stopped child labor, we continue to enslave other species who, if we simply pay attention, show quite clearly that they experience parental love, pain, and the desire for freedom, just as we do."
You may agree with such positions, but please don't lie about it. I misrepresent nothing.
And if you think any of this is radical, you haven't even heard what they've had to say about human beings yet.
You are wrong once again. PETA sued to free 5 orcas in captivity at SeaWorld using the 13th amendment, not all animals/pets.
Also, John Bryant, while being an animal activist who you quote as opposed to animal domestication, was never a member of PETA. I also doubt his book was published by PETA as it predates their founding. It looks like the publisher is Fern House.
Your quote from Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's cofounder had nothing to do with pets. I agree that PETA does compare certain forms of animal captivity to slavery, for example circus animals, animals used for experimentation, those used for factory farming, but not pet ownership in general.
Such a great example of the tailspin of modern activism. We better come to terms with the reality that modern activism is proselytism for secular causes, framed as moral imperatives. Rapidly morphing into proselytism by the sword: either you repent and fully embrace the cause, or we will destroy your livelihood.
Dark times ahead.
Eh, I think this framing discounts the fact that sober moderation and extremism tend to be present in every human endeavor, and have always been. Some people make their country's traditional food on holidays; some people garb themselves in flags and yell at immigrants. Some people went to Chopin concerts and went home peacefully; others succumbed to Lizstomania. Some people fought wars with chivalry and granted a dignified surrender to their enemies; some massacred and pillaged.
I don't think there's anything "modern" (or religious) about the fact that there's a wide range of opinions on how to treat others.
You describing "normal case" - when there is harm to poor pets or even (only sometimes) humans there is natural need for action. And probably it is most usual case.
But we living in modern or /post+/ modern times. When there is knowledge about natural reactions then someone can do meta-action - abuse knowledge for some purpose. Like ad-business do all the time. Like politicans do. Or like seduction manuals describe. Heck, what sects do, there is even term "conventional brainwashing" !
And that "fake" activism have scale too - from personal to goverment and intelligence services doings.
So with humans knowledge and intelligence progression everyone should be caution for "mixed signals". Or just common scams like "Nigerian prince want your help" or "grandson in troubles".
Or "Green Party care for ecology" - actually brings anarchy to your country and such "activists" just look for easy living from "donations". Or even actively supporting some businesses, like described in that sub-thread...
But yes, there was a better times when captured soldiers give a word that they do not escape and they hold to it. Sometimes even they was allowed to keep theirs saber while being captured. But that natural honesty ended with communism in Russia and spreaded almost everywhere else.
Also there is strange following of ways of looser that as idol had other murderous idol (looser too), Machiavelli...
Edit:
And here are my gripes with psychology - useless like reading/writing before common education. People fall to sects where there are well know mechanism how they work and psychologians are straight guilty of neglecting to protect very often most volnerable parts of our societes, like kids. Big words but psychology basics should be learned in basic schools, IMO. Sadly psychologians are too busy with pushing bullshit on all fronts... Or making money from wasting time on listening or straight "improving" sport performances... Or deeppening movie scenarios.
O, btw: you hear about that "Maslow Pyramid" ? Someone even wrote how to apply it to software projects ! Looks damn usefull to explain eg. how poor peoples behave and how to help or self-help in such situations. But you know what ? I talked once to psychologian about Maslow pyramid and imagine my surprise when she look strangely on me and say: but, but modular programming is outdated ! Yep, exactly like this just insert Maslow Pyramid there... And modularity comes from 60's, predates very outdated "structural programming"... And such is psychologians lag in helping others.
2 replies →
Links please. Not really a fan of PETA but I've heard so much misinformation about them that I really don't think they're as bad as everyone makes them out to be.
From their own website:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/at-petas-sh...
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-...
It's interesting though -- all of this is easily searchable online. If you really read into their own literature and statements of people behind PETA, you'll find some real radical takes. People hear all this, but still choose to disbelieve and not do their own research. They don't hide anything. They're open about all of it.
I agree mostly with their two paragraphs. I rescued an exotic parrot and while I certainly had mixed feelings before I got him, I now know that parrots, for example, should not be pets whatsoever. It's not fair to them, and we breed them pretty much entirely out of selfishness.
So that, by itself, doesn't really convince me of much. I do appreciate the links, however. Thanks.
> all of this is easily searchable online.
Searchable, yes, but only within an ocean of hot takes, tabloids and tweets.
I don’t think there’s much difference for my cat, except that they know where they can always return for food and a dry place to sleep.
I’m not convinced they’d be better off if they’d been born in the wild.
1 reply →
The only thing I’ve learned from this discussion is that PETA is a disgusting organization, and it’s best that I have nothing to do with them.