PETA reportedly stole a family's pet chihuahua from their porch, and killed it.
You heard that right. Yes, we're talking about that PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The theft was caught on video, and has been reported by WAVY.com, local media in Accomack County, Virginia.
County Sheriff Todd Godwin insists that he charged the two PETA workers with larceny. The prosecutor has apparently refused to pursue the case, however, citing insufficient evidence of "criminal intent."
Let's try to comprehend this: we have a home surveillance video clearly demonstrating that a van marked "PETA" pulled up to the house of Wilbur Cerate, and that someone took the family's chihuahua, Maya. PETA has reportedly admitted that Maya was killed: they arrived later with a basket of fruit as compensation, says Maya's owner. (For some bizarre reason, PETA thinks that a nice basket of food makes killing pets okay.)
Hence, we have what we are told is pretty strong evidence that a crime was committed. An admission of guilt has been alleged. What part of the notion "criminal intent" am I missing here?
We also seem to have powerful evidence that the girl who owned Maya is inconsolable. The New York Daily News reports:
"The Mexican immigrant said the tiny dog had been the only thing that cheered his daughter, who was having difficulty adjusting to her new country."
PETA has refused to comment. Local reporter Anita Blanton has tried valiantly to elicit a statement from PETA headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, and has thus far had no luck.
It's hard to believe, but People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a long history of this kind of abuse. You'll find it documented in ugly detail here: "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies." Even more difficult to believe is that they tend to get away with it.
In 2005, PETA employees killed numerous healthy dogs and cats in the back of their van, and deposited the bodies in a dumpster behind a mall. They were charged with "21 felony counts each of animal cruelty," but were convicted only of "littering."
The littering conviction was later overturned. PETA has very good lawyers. "Essentially, the littering charges against Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook were overturned because the prosecution failed to prove that a dumpster is not the proper place for trash." ("Trash" here being dead pets.)
Since then PETA has been careful to dispose of bodies legally, using a professional crematorium. (They have killed over 29,000 animals.) But they are not being careful enough, it seems, when it comes to rounding up neighborhood animals. PETA are keen on eradicating strays -- in particular, they urge the mass killing of feral cats -- but they do not have permission to grab a family's pet dog from their home. Clearly they did not expect that the Cerate house would have a surveillance camera.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
PETA would prefer that people not keep animals for their amusement. If you personally find this unacceptable, however -- the alleged theft and destruction of a family dog -- then please let the local prosecutor know how you feel. Yes, PETA has a huge budget, and powerful lawyers, but public outrage can be effective.
The Commonwealth Attorney's name is Gary Agar. His office number is 757-787-2877; the office email is commatt@verizon.net.
You can also make your displeasure known to The Sam Simon Foundation. Sam Simon, co-creator of The Simpsons, has long done wonderful work for animals, and his foundation works towards -- among other things -- saving strays from so-called "euthanasia."
Mr. Simon is currently fighting cancer, and has announced that he is leaving a substantial portion of his 100-million-dollar fortune to PETA. It seems clear that this is a truly decent man, who hasn't the faintest idea what kind of organization he has decided to leave his money to. The situation is not unusual: most celebrities are kept in the dark regarding PETA's nature.
Mr. Simon is very ill, and it's perhaps best to tweet your outrage to his foundation (whose work PETA is busy undermining): @ssfoundation1
And please let PETA themselves know what you think: @PETA
The citizens unlucky enough to share their neighborhood with PETA headquarters have long been concerned that the group will target their pets. Not many of these people have the means to pursue a civil suit against PETA, but this is why we have criminal laws: it is absurd that a family's dogs and cats cannot be protected from the depredations of this organization.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK about the USA but in the UK to kill someone's dog would be a criminal offence.
Barring animal cruelty laws, pretty sure it falls under destruction of property. As mentioned in the article however, seems the prosecutor is unwilling to take the case.
Wouldn't be terribly surprised if this is the unvarnished truth, Oxayotl: PETA has a pretty ugly history of euthanising most of the animals in its care, and while I doubt corporate would steal someone's pet, the run-of-the-mill members tend to be zealous enough to pull this kind of bull.
PETA is shady enough that I wouldn't be surprised if it went down exactly like the article says. They are also galvanizing enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the story is embellished.
The salient takeaway here is that people SHOULD encourage Sam Simon's foundation not to support PETA. That's a worthwhile endeavor no matter what the specifics of the chihuahua story. There are tons of groups out there, from the ASPCA to the WWF, that benefit animal rights.
It is a pretty known fact that PETA is against the concept of humans owning animals, stating that said ownership causes the animals great deals of pain and suffering, and that their end goal is that humans aren't even allowed to own pets. It is also a known fact that PETA alleviates the suffering of animals almost exclusively by killing them.
Put two and two together and it becomes entirely plausible that some of the more militant members would actually enter someone else's yard and take away their dog to be "euthanised".
It is a pretty known fact that PETA is against the concept of humans owning animals, stating that said ownership causes the animals great deals of pain and suffering, and that their end goal is that humans aren't even allowed to own pets. It is also a known fact that PETA alleviates the suffering of animals almost exclusively by killing them.
Put two and two together and it becomes entirely plausible that some of the more militant members would actually enter someone else's yard and take away their dog to be "euthanised".
I am fething shocked and appalled to read this. I have always ignored PETA so I'm surprised to read their practices are something out of a comic book's villain's.
Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.
d-usa wrote: Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.
This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.
How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?
d-usa wrote: Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.
This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.
How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?
Is the porch enclosed or open? Did the dog have a collar and a tag?
We have cats, rabbits, and even a dog or two on our porch sometimes. All of them were strays and did not belong to us.
Because real people are not comic book villains, they need motivations to do stuff, and they usually do not do stuff that they would themselves consider evil (except if it is bringing them tons of money, maybe, but that is not the case here).
As a rule of thumb, I always assume that anyone preaching ethics or morality is simply filling an economic niche. With that viewpoint, there's really nothing surprising with PETA torturing or killing animals, because they're not actually in the business of ethical treatment of animals, they're in the business of selling the idea of ethical treatment of animals.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that these are all things that are completely ignored by the article and things that PETA might try to use as a justification.
Entering into somebodies property and removing a dog.
Happens all the time, all over the country and yours. A stray dog doesn't become any less of a stray dog just because he parks himself in a front-yard. Many places have laws that say a dog has to be on a leash or in a fenced yard, no idea if that was the case in that city though.
Also what gives PETA the legal right to remove animals and destroy them on assumptions?
I don't know of any place where PETA has contracted animal-control duties. But anyone can pick up strays and take them to shelters.
PETA are a bunch of scumbags, but just because they are scum doesn't mean that the article is in any way objective.
Edit: and obviously killing =\= taking them to a shelter, but considering their "anti-shelter it's better to kill than suffer there" stance it's not shocking that they did that.
Because real people are not comic book villains, they need motivations to do stuff, and they usually do not do stuff that they would themselves consider evil (except if it is bringing them tons of money, maybe, but that is not the case here).
Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.
Generally PETA has issues with people owning animals or using any sort of animal products...Unless it's to benefit themselves, such as Ingrid Newkirk's use of Insulin, along with funding of the Animal Liberation Front Terrorist group, and support for them.
Well I hope that one, or more, of them gets shot when they enter the wrong property and attempt to steal someone else's pet.
I don't understand how a private entity, specifically a charitable organisation, has the right to remove property through assumptions and trespass. It just boggles the mind that people would be OK with that. Feth the officials for being so spineless as to not pursue the case.
Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.
That's why PETA is the butt end of so many jokes. This is not a myth. it's not made up. It's dead serious. PETA kills nearly every animal it takes into its shelters, and seemingly with zero discrimination. They mock Pokemon as advocating animal cruelty, but they euthanize thousands of animals every year (and yes, PETA members and employees have been charged and convicted several times of animal cruelty). They vehemently lobby in the defense of Euthanasia laws, try to shut down no kill shelters, and at the same time demand we stop using virtually all animal products. I assume this is so they can euthanize all the animals, since barring those products, there's little point to them living in a world dominated by man.
This is a group with more than enough money to run no kill shelters. Hundreds of them. They simply choose not to, and its utterly baffling. What's the difference between killing a rat with an experimental drug, and killing a dog who has no owners? The rat's death might ultimately have meaning.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.
Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.
Animals should not be caged,. The ideology is animals are better off dead then with humans, or serving humans in any manner or way.
Comparably they are basically hypocrites and suffer from cognitive dissonance. They also are known for being under dealers and for getting away from political backlash, as most of this is not known that well. Even though peta kills more animals than you would think each year.
It should be commonly associated that business with PETA or its affiliations to be basically akin to financial/political suicide. I mean as a company that makes fur coats from the 'finest' fur around I get, you want to have a supplier why else would you ally with the devil?
Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.
That's why PETA is the butt end of so many jokes. This is not a myth. it's not made up. It's dead serious. PETA kills nearly every animal it takes into its shelters, and seemingly with zero discrimination. They mock Pokemon as advocating animal cruelty, but they euthanize thousands of animals every year (and yes, PETA members and employees have been charged and convicted several times of animal cruelty). They vehemently lobby in the defense of Euthanasia laws, try to shut down no kill shelters, and at the same time demand we stop using virtually all animal products. I assume this is so they can euthanize all the animals, since barring those products, there's little point to them living in a world dominated by man.
This is a group with more than enough money to run no kill shelters. Hundreds of them. They simply choose not to, and its utterly baffling. What's the difference between killing a rat with an experimental drug, and killing a dog who has no owners? The rat's death might ultimately have meaning.
Basically. They are also known to be in-league with a terrorist organization and to fund them.
Medium of Death wrote: I don't understand how a private entity, specifically a charitable organisation, has the right to remove property through assumptions and trespass. It just boggles the mind that people would be OK with that. Feth the officials for being so spineless as to not pursue the case.
They do not have that right. They should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law
d-usa wrote: Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.
This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.
How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?
Is the porch enclosed or open? Did the dog have a collar and a tag?
We have cats, rabbits, and even a dog or two on our porch sometimes. All of them were strays and did not belong to us.
Given that they came back later (before the news story came out) with a "we killed your dog, here's a fruit basket", it's pretty easy to say that they knew exactly what they were doing.
Medium of Death wrote: I don't understand how a private entity, specifically a charitable organisation, has the right to remove property through assumptions and trespass. It just boggles the mind that people would be OK with that. Feth the officials for being so spineless as to not pursue the case.
They do not have that right. They should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law
Life would be better without PETA, if it was disbanded I don't think anyone would complain.
Medium of Death wrote: I don't understand how a private entity, specifically a charitable organisation, has the right to remove property through assumptions and trespass. It just boggles the mind that people would be OK with that. Feth the officials for being so spineless as to not pursue the case.
They do not have that right. They should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law
Life would be better without PETA, if it was disbanded I don't think anyone would complain.
Many Animal Rights activists would actually celebrate, as pretty much all non-PETA animal rights groups now consider PETA a complete detriment to their movement, both because they make a mockery of it, and because they suck up millions of dollars in donations every year (mostly spent on killing animals and large amounts of nonsense).
Medium of Death wrote: I don't understand how a private entity, specifically a charitable organisation, has the right to remove property through assumptions and trespass. It just boggles the mind that people would be OK with that. Feth the officials for being so spineless as to not pursue the case.
They do not have that right. They should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law
Life would be better without PETA, if it was disbanded I don't think anyone would complain.
Many Animal Rights activists would actually celebrate, as pretty much all non-PETA animal rights groups now consider PETA a complete detriment to their movement, both because they make a mockery of it, and because they suck up millions of dollars in donations every year (mostly spent on killing animals and large amounts of nonsense).
Yeah. Thats why I yelled at my school board a few years ago for supporting peta. Which they continued to support much to the protest of hundreds of former high school students.
This. I read this story elsewhere and it's fishy as hell. Why did PETA take that dog (allegedly)? Why did they come back in 3 hours? Why was there a fruit basket? Why did the prosecutor decline charges despite video evidence which would be a slam-dunk conviction?
I mean, I don't dispute PETA sucks and can't dispute they kill very nearly any animal they "rescue", but I'm not going to let the fact I dislike them mean this story isn't flaky as hell.
There's another part of this story that has not been reported.
This. I read this story elsewhere and it's fishy as hell. Why did PETA take that dog (allegedly)? Why did they come back in 3 hours? Why was there a fruit basket? Why did the prosecutor decline charges despite video evidence which would be a slam-dunk conviction?
I mean, I don't dispute PETA sucks and can't dispute they kill very nearly any animal they "rescue", but I'm not going to let the fact I dislike them mean this story isn't flaky as hell.
There's another part of this story that has not been reported.
I don't disagree. But I mean with the evidence presented that is all the evidence we have right now.
Well it could also be what twitter is to feminism as well.
There are some crazy people who identify as a 'feminist'
Just like how PETA is basically as much for animal rights is to being given a thoughtful memorial to being burned alived.
Most of the feminist insanity I see comes from tumblr.
I've never actually gotten to talk to one of these man hating crazies, cause I got a few questions for them...
What about transgenders (specifically men who want to be women and vice versa) how about gender fluid people.
And etc.
Ouze wrote: Why did PETA take that dog (allegedly)?
Because they're crazy.
Why did they come back in 3 hours?
Original source says 3 days, not 3 hours. Also because they're crazy.
Why was there a fruit basket?
You know what I'm going to say.
Why did the prosecutor decline charges despite video evidence which would be a slam-dunk conviction?
Because he knows the first rule of crazy is that you don't feth with crazy (and that the media circus probably wasn't going to be worth it).
Granted, I get what you mean. But really, I see zero reason to doubt the story as true, especially with PETA seemingly being utterly silent on the matter which is odd for a group that has a long storied tradition of stealing animals from just about anywhere that they considered bad for animals (which as far as I can tell is everywhere) and bragging about it in public (while telling the FBI they don't advocate violence or violations of the law). Barring evidence to the contrary, I see zero reason not to take the story as true on its face.
Well it could also be what twitter is to feminism as well.
There are some crazy people who identify as a 'feminist'
Just like how PETA is basically as much for animal rights is to being given a thoughtful memorial to being burned alived.
Most of the feminist insanity I see comes from tumblr. I've never actually gotten to talk to one of these man hating crazies, cause I got a few questions for them... What about transgenders (specifically men who want to be women and vice versa) how about gender fluid people. And etc.
I have it wasn't pretty. They stick their head up their arse. when ever I bring up those points, they then accuse me of hating women or simply as a misogynist., and then all my followers on tumblr basically say. "UHhh. What? He's not a Misgoynist, you are a Misandrist missy."
But the most interesting bit is that some really active men haters are actually men. Which I found fascinating. I would love to do a research project on sometime, and research to see if there is a reason for it. Then I could point at someone like McIntosh and know exactly what is his problem.
Meanwhile, PETA is the political equalivent to Westboro Church Baptists. No one wants to associate with them. It is kind of baffling, as the two are so bloody similar.
And this makes me double careful about PETA's view being misrepresented on Dakka, actually.
Go and look up femitheism. You might find an interesting read Hybrid. That started originally on tumblr. Heres what it means. It is basically a feminist theory/ideology that believes in the eradication of men, because women are completely superior.
But that topic is completely offtopic so I will discontinue it.
The eco-terrorism group Animal Liberation Front took it upon themselves to free 10,000 minks from a fur farm in Sultan, Washington, back in 2003. On paper, this probably seemed like a no-brainer -- who would be against preventing a bunch of adorable furry animals from being euthanized and having their flayed corpses worn around by a Kardashian? But the reality is that the ALF dumped thousands of weasels, probably in their hundredth generation of domesticity, into the middle of an urban sprawl and then drove home to pat themselves on the back in between sips of Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Tragically, the area hadn't yet erected that year's mink net.
You see, the minks had absolutely no idea how to function outside of the farm. For example, hundreds of them were run over by cars within the first few hours of their release. Every meal they'd ever had up to that point had been delivered to them via a motorized cart, so they'd come to associate deliciousness with the sound of an approaching internal combustion engine and bounded gaily into traffic expecting Mink Treats.
The ones that weren't blasted into spreadable meat paste all over the road descended upon the town of Sultan to murder the gak out of pets and livestock like the swarm of angry weasels they were. A local man was forced to pick up his shotgun and personally kick 20 right off the damn planet after they attacked him and his dog and tore through his property, killing his ducks, chickens, and fish (he apparently owned a small zoo).
An adorable, delicious zoo.
The bloodbath didn't stop once the minks were rounded up, either. Minks are rodent-size balls of violence, and will literally kill and eat any living thing they can, including other minks. The only thing safe from a mink's hungry wrath are members of its own family, so on the fur farm, they can be kept in cages with their litter-mates in relative harmony. But minks don't have name tags or distinguishing tribal tattoos. After they were recollected, the fur farmers had no way to tell them apart, and thus had no choice but to randomly dump them in cages together and hope for the best. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in no small amount of mink cannibalism.
As far as acts of selfless activism, the release of the minks is essentially the same as kidnapping a bunch of home-schooled kids, dropping them off at an inner city high school in Baltimore, and then never speaking to them again.
PETA is an organization that cares a lot more about 'fighting for animals' than it does about animals. A lot of their policies and lobbying efforts are completely counter productive, and more destructive than helpful.
*For clarity, ALF is an organization that is almost solely funded by PETA and some of its top ranking members. EDIT: Incidents like the above are part of why PETA moved to eliminate its grassroots origins and become a more centralized national organization, which coincidentally only exacerbated their problems rather than fixed them.
Well it could also be what twitter is to feminism as well.
There are some crazy people who identify as a 'feminist'
Just like how PETA is basically as much for animal rights is to being given a thoughtful memorial to being burned alived.
Most of the feminist insanity I see comes from tumblr.
I've never actually gotten to talk to one of these man hating crazies, cause I got a few questions for them...
What about transgenders (specifically men who want to be women and vice versa) how about gender fluid people.
And etc.
I have it wasn't pretty. They stick their head up their arse. when ever I bring up those points, they then accuse me of hating women or simply as a misogynist., and then all my followers on tumblr basically say. "UHhh. What? He's not a Misgoynist, you are a Misandrist missy."
But the most interesting bit is that some really active men haters are actually men. Which I found fascinating. I would love to do a research project on sometime, and research to see if there is a reason for it. Then I could point at someone like McIntosh and know exactly what is his problem.
Meanwhile, PETA is the political equalivent to Westboro Church Baptists. No one wants to associate with them. It is kind of baffling, as the two are so bloody similar.
And this makes me double careful about PETA's view being misrepresented on Dakka, actually.
Go and look up femitheism. You might find an interesting read Hybrid. That started originally on tumblr. Heres what it means. It is basically a feminist theory/ideology that believes in the eradication of men, because women are completely superior.
But that topic is completely offtopic so I will discontinue it.
Classic example...these women want to be able to wear whatever they want and not be judged - fair enough, I agree
when a man does it (despite doing something monumental for science) they throw a bitch fit.
Tumblr, and the internet in general has turned feminism into a walking joke...
PETA was always a joke, a scary, unfunny joke.
Like Apple or Games Workshop
Being readily obtuse about PETA and their disgusting actions is just baffling. It's that kind of idiocy that's allowed them to proliferate so well around the world as a reasonable charitable organisation.
The feminism comparison is cute and all but can we actually have a thread without it, please?
If I get videotaped stealing a PETA member from in front of their office and return days later with a fruit basket after euthanizing them, does this mean the prosecutor won't charge me with murder?
squidhills wrote: If I get videotaped stealing a PETA member from in front of their office and return days later with a fruit basket after euthanizing them, does this mean the prosecutor won't charge me with murder?
squidhills wrote: If I get videotaped stealing a PETA member from in front of their office and return days later with a fruit basket after euthanizing them, does this mean the prosecutor won't charge me with murder?
squidhills wrote: If I get videotaped stealing a PETA member from in front of their office and return days later with a fruit basket after euthanizing them, does this mean the prosecutor won't charge me with murder?
LOGIC! Begone my brother!
XD
Well. I wouldn't be surprised. By their logic it would be freeing the poor thing of its restrictions.
This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
I am not surprised they can screw up big time. But OP does not speak about a screw up.
This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
I am not surprised they can screw up big time. But OP does not speak about a screw up.
Their own records show that they euthanize nearly 98% of the animals they "rescue". What part of that doesn't show to you that they kill animals, purposefully, all the time?
Laughing Man wrote: [
Barring animal cruelty laws, pretty sure it falls under destruction of property. As mentioned in the article however, seems the prosecutor is unwilling to take the case.
IIRC, there's plenty of places in the US where, unless you're a vet, you can't kill your own pets. (as in, family dog bit kid, I'm going to take it out back and put a .45 into it's brain for an instant kill)
I had a friend who did exactly that, and, for a short period of time, was looking at some serious charges.
A mother cat and her two kittens, all perfectly healthy and adoptable and none in danger of being killed until they were given to PETA by a veterinarian who was trying to find them homes and was told by PETA employees that they would have no problem adopting them out. After PETA lied to him and the mother and her kittens were entrusted to their care, they reportedly killed them, within minutes, in the back of a van.
Despite $35,000,000 in annual revenues and millions of "animal-loving" members, PETA does not even try to find them homes. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a "humane society" or "animal shelter."
According to inspection reports by the Virginia Department of Agriculture, the PETA facility "does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody... The shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody."
Routine inspections often found "no animals to be housed in the facility" or, at best "few animals in custody," despite thousands of them impounded by PETA annually. Since they take in thousands per year, where were they? "90% [of the animals] were euthanized within the first 24 hours of custody," according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture inspector.
This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
That's more than a screw up. That's neglect of basic reality. If you grab a bunch of Minks, and just release them in the streets, chaos is going to ensue. Ignorance of reality isn't an excuse. Hell you'd think they'd take them and euthanize them all or take them to a secret shelter here they could frolic and live as notfurcoatminks, but no. They just dumped them in the street. That might not be purposeful, but it's pretty god damn brain dead.
I can get behind no cruelty to animals. I like my steak, but I can get behind it. PETA doesn't stand up for animals though. PETA stands up for standing up for something (and give us your money). There are far better organizations that do what PETA pretends to do and isn't anywhere near as crazy or stupid as PETA.
This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
I am not surprised they can screw up big time. But OP does not speak about a screw up.
Their own records show that they euthanize nearly 98% of the animals they "rescue". What part of that doesn't show to you that they kill animals, purposefully, all the time?
Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.
I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.
I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.
PETA pays people to protest animal shelters that euthanize animals while simultaneously doing the same thing. There is a disconnect somewhere.
Different topic, same debate, same people on the side of evidence, same people on the side of wishful thinking and willful ignorance. You've gotten stale, OT.
This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
I am not surprised they can screw up big time. But OP does not speak about a screw up.
Their own records show that they euthanize nearly 98% of the animals they "rescue". What part of that doesn't show to you that they kill animals, purposefully, all the time?
Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.
I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.
I think the dozens of points in this thread do a pretty good job in condemning them.
This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
I am not surprised they can screw up big time. But OP does not speak about a screw up.
Their own records show that they euthanize nearly 98% of the animals they "rescue". What part of that doesn't show to you that they kill animals, purposefully, all the time?
Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.
I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.
PETA is well known for euthanizing perfectly healthy and adoptable animals. None of this is new information.
Their kill rate is abominable, and indefensible. Plain and simple.
"They came to the office last Wednesday and picked up the cat and two kittens.... They were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that.... So imagine my surprise when I learned they allegedly dumped dead animals in a trash bin later that same day." He said the animals "were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens."
Proctor was asked to examine one of the dead animals taken from the PETA crime scene. "The animal that I found was a very healthy six-month puppy that had been killed that day," he told TV station WNCT Channel 9. "It was a six-month-old lab mix and appeared to be in very, very good shape... and he had received some type of injection in his front right leg," he said. "PETA will never pick up another animal from my practice."
Kilkrazy wrote: Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.
I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.
PETA pays people to protest animal shelters that euthanize animals while simultaneously doing the same thing. There is a disconnect somewhere.
More than that, what animal shelter euthanizes puppies and kittens? Barring serious medical problems, there's no reason for puppies and kittens not to be adoptable. PETA claims it only kills the sick, but the case in NC years ago proved that wasn't true, and their kill rates say they kill everything, not just the sick. I know of no shelter that goes around promising to find animals homes and get them adopted (as PETA regularly does) then ships them off to a death chamber and kills them all within the same day.
I don't think anyone is arguing that "PETA euthanizes animals and thus is bad." The argument is "PETA, an organization proclaiming to fight for animals rights, protests animal shelters, pet ownership, and animal use, gather up animals and kills them en masse daily." That later statement is, completely bonkers because its completely true. PETA is an organization that runs on insane troll logic.
Kilkrazy wrote: Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.
I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.
PETA pays people to protest animal shelters that euthanize animals while simultaneously doing the same thing. There is a disconnect somewhere.
I think the major difference between actual shelters and PETA, is that one actually tries to adopt out pets. Most that I've talked to (my wife and I have been looking for a dog for some time now, but haven't found the right one yet) have some sort of time table from the moment a dog or cat is brought in.
Most shelters now, when the bring a dog in, they clean it up, check it out medically, then "test" the dog's behavior for any issues with children, other dogs, cats, etc. Obviously, if they fail medical then they're euthanized. If they cannot be trained, and have a pretty violent streak, they'll get put down. Beyond that, they'll be in the shelter for whatever period of time the shelter has. There's also a ton of adoption agencies that take those dogs out of euthanizing shelters and have foster families, etc. until they are adopted.
I think PETA probably just takes them on a van ride to the "doggie oven", and probably doesn't even try to adopt out. Probably also due to their public stance that having ANY kind of animal is cruelty to that animal.
lord_blackfang wrote: Different topic, same debate, same people on the side of evidence, same people on the side of wishful thinking and willful ignorance.
You are being a bit rude here. In the face of so much evidence, I am going to agree that apparently, PETA has no qualm with killing animals. Yes, it has taken me some time to accept the fact, and I am still quite surprised from it, but I am not the willful ignorant you describe. Do you change you mind instantly on any subject without calling for more information and taking time to reconsider and all that?
lord_blackfang wrote: Different topic, same debate, same people on the side of evidence, same people on the side of wishful thinking and willful ignorance.
You are being a bit rude here.
In the face of so much evidence, I am going to agree that apparently, PETA has no qualm with killing animals. Yes, it has taken me some time to accept the fact, and I am still quite surprised from it, but I am not the willful ignorant you describe. Do you change you mind instantly on any subject without calling for more information and taking time to reconsider and all that?
I don't have a "reconsider" phase, if I believe something and it is proven wrong then I must then accept I was wrong and adapt what is right to myself, there is no "considering" things.
I don't let feelings impact facts.
But maybe I am an odd sort, but to me it's just logical to keep feelings away from facts like that, probably why I can't at all comprehend religion since a lot of it is based on feelings.
Rainbow Dash wrote: I don't have a "reconsider" phase, if I believe something and it is proven wrong then I must then accept I was wrong and adapt what is right to myself
You do not need time to check the proof that it was wrong? For most people, it takes time to do that.
(more seriously, I doubt anyone makes up their mind instantly, but I think we've all seen how even we ourselves will often jump to conclusions about a variety of subjects). I wouldn't say Hybrid, especially being from France probably not as familiar with PETA as us 'Muricans, is being ignorant or stubborn with being skeptic, especially with certain comparisons made in thread.
I mean obviously it's a bit more indepth then hear something, think its true, believe.
Generally things don't just jump out at you to change one's perceptive of something, but take this for example. I mean all the evidence needed is clearly present and offered and if I had come here believing PETA to be good, what would I need to dwell upon, there's proof they kill animals, alot of it.
What's to think over?
I mean obviously it's a bit more indepth then hear something, think its true, believe.
Generally things don't just jump out at you to change one's perceptive of something, but take this for example. I mean all the evidence needed is clearly present and offered and if I had come here believing PETA to be good, what would I need to dwell upon, there's proof they kill animals, alot of it.
What's to think over?
Not that I wan't to jump to Oxayotl's defence, but there is allot to think about.
The general's public perception of PETA, especially to people outside the US, is that they are a genuinely good organization when it comes to the defence of animal rights and having that perception take a 180º turn takes a bit of getting used to. Personally it took me another thread like this one a few months ago to make me investigate PETA's actions a bit more thoroughly and be able to spot the appalling behaviour that goes on bellow all the PR crap that makes up PETA's public image so I can understand how it took Oxayotl a bit of time to see it as well.
I am a bit skeptical to how things like this is reported. There still might be more to it. And from being friends to animal rights people in Sweden, I know that the prejudice against vegans sometimes makes reporters believe anything.
But if there is any truth to it, PETA are just hurting the cause for animal rights and veganism.
d-usa wrote: Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.
This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.
How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?
Is the porch enclosed or open? Did the dog have a collar and a tag?
We have cats, rabbits, and even a dog or two on our porch sometimes. All of them were strays and did not belong to us.
none of your points matter,
*at all*
its on private property, you cannot just walk up and take it... let alone walk up, take it, and kill it.
im sure your porch could have your neighbors package delivered to it by mistake too... doesnt mean PETA or some fly by night postal rights activist group can steal it and destroy it...
PETA is well known outside of the "believe everything on facebook" type emotionally driven zealots who unquestioningly support it for being full of warp gak
Takes a special kind of "skepticism" to look at a video that directly proves someone from PETA stole the dog off private property and ask "yes, but are we SURE peta stole the dog? maybe that dog had a sign off camera asking to be put down or something?"
Considering that petakillsanimals.com is a campaing from The Center for Consumer freedom, which wikipedia describes as...
The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly the Guest Choice Network, is an American non-profit entity founded by Richard Berman that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries.
...this whole affair makes me even more worried that it is just some part of some kind of media war.
I think part of the issue is that, even more so than Feminism or Gun Rights, the Animal Rights movement suffers from a lot of talking heads with really bad PR (in the US) that horribly influence the public perception of the movement.
Take a look at the Cracked article I linked, #3 specifically. While I actually understand the position of the Humane Society in its support of Vick, that press is bad. Bad. Bad. BAD. Throw in that the 2 most well known groups State side are the ALF, due to many high profile and reported incidents in the 90's, and PETA, and people get a really bad idea of Animal Rights activists and the movement.
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.
I know in my area, a dog being outside without appropriate shelter and a leash, even on private property, especially when the weather is cold is illegal. I have numerously had dogs seized by authorities because people would leave them outside during the cold or simply 'put' the dogs outside.
Even in good weather, many areas have laws where dogs are not supposed to be outside for consecutive periods of time without appropriate shelter and there are specif rules for tethering.
The reason PETA will not be charged is a reasonable call that this dog was being neglected or abused due to the situation he was in could be made. And I guarantee someone called PETA if/when the local animal people didn't address it. When they found a dog, outside, in close to freezing weather, the took him.
So seeing the situation the dog was in, and knowing the weather of that period of time, that dog should not have been outside, alone, unattended, period. While I would have preferred the dog was taken to a shelter and found a new home, that dog needed to be removed from that house. If I would have observed that happening to a dog, I would have had animal services investigate and seize he animal.
jorny wrote: ...this whole affair makes me even more worried that it is just some part of some kind of media war.
Everything in the US is a media war, but facts are facts and there's a long list of incidents in PETA's past that make this believable, a lot of it coming from PETA themselves or public records. Petakillsanimals.com is a rather fancy presentation of mostly public record information, not something invented or proclaimed by CCF.
CCF of course, has its own issue, namely that it exists solely for Richard Berman's tax benefits. And it has a super deceptive name
There are various levels of animal rights activism. The I might say "normal or mainstream" level is the RSPCA and RSPB, and their US equivalents, who are large, popular organisations with a high level of governance, proper charitable constitution and so on. The kind of people who ensure that "No animals were harmed in the making of this movie".
At the far-out end of the spectrum are the kind of people who dig up the graves of the parents of biologists who use animals in drug safety testing.
PETA in the UK has the image of occasionally throwing paint on to supermodels on the catwalk wearing fur coats, that kind of thing. Thus would be in the middle of the range.
To accept PETA or the completely off-piste as representative of the whole animal right movement, requires people to ignore the huge, influential mainstream organisations who are often in the news, or doing charity drives and the like.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I do know some animal right activists that I would consider completely out of touch with reality. But really, some of us are just people trying to be good without harming anyone in the process.
wow...just wow... people are trying to jusitfy killing a living animal because it was outside for a bit? in 40 degree weather.... about +4 celcius to the whole planet outside of the states...seriously... thats not cold, not even a little bit. ESP not to animals with fur.
Since there is no proof the animal wasnt outside for an unreasonable amount of time, nor proof that there wasnt a dog house or shelter for it, its not a valid arguement to make.
the person in the vid who stole the dog didnt even attempt to knock and talk to the residents... what a lack of good faith.
"hey fred, that dog looks cold, how cruel. I know Id want someone to kill me if I was outside, and to err on the side of killing me even if there was a good chance i was just outside to poop."
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.
I know in my area, a dog being outside without appropriate shelter and a leash, even on private property, especially when the weather is cold is illegal. I have numerously had dogs seized by authorities because people would leave them outside during the cold or simply 'put' the dogs outside.
Even in good weather, many areas have laws where dogs are not supposed to be outside for consecutive periods of time without appropriate shelter and there are specif rules for tethering.
The reason PETA will not be charged is a reasonable call that this dog was being neglected or abused due to the situation he was in could be made. And I guarantee someone called PETA if/when the local animal people didn't address it. When they found a dog, outside, in close to freezing weather, the took him.
So seeing the situation the dog was in, and knowing the weather of that period of time, that dog should not have been outside, alone, unattended, period. While I would have preferred the dog was taken to a shelter and found a new home, that dog needed to be removed from that house. If I would have observed that happening to a dog, I would have had animal services investigate and seize he animal.
So you are saying that it was better for the dog to die than for it to be cold, is that it?
Its entirely the owners fault that their dog was taken from their private property by a private company that has 0 legal jurisdiction and KILLED within a period of hours, because it was cold? Is that it?
In your eyes, its illegal and neglectful for a dog to be placed in a cold environment, but its perfectly A-OK to kill that same dog for no reason?
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
In the UK, the police accompanied by RSPA people would attend and recover a dog to a refuge if it was reasonably clear that it was being ill-treated by its owner. But they would not kill it without good cause, such as it having suffered extreme neglect leading to permanent ill-health.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
One does not base it off "In their opinion" for legal law.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
No, the primary reason why they will not be charged is because the joke that you guys call a justice system is designed to protect companies and not individuals.
So apparently it is now legal in the US for a company to go into your house, steel your property and destroy it! FREEDOOOOM!
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
No, the primary reason why they will not be charged is because the joke that you guys call a justice system is designed to protect companies and not individuals.
So apparently it is now legal in the US for a company to go into your house, steel your property and destroy it! FREEDOOOOM!
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.
So you are saying that it was better for the dog to die than for it to be cold, is that it? reason?
better dead then forced to suffer +4 degrees C!!!
dont tell PETA what the weather is in canada... we will all be put down...
seriously... does peta go around shooting every animal ever in +4 weather?
that is warm... calling +4 weather a fate worse then death, to justify killing an animal is just silly.
The fact that PETA killed the dog within hours speak volumes to how little they care about the dog and its owners.
they didnt look for a dog house, they didnt knock or in any way confirm the dog was being left out for extended periods of time, they did NOTHING but walk up, steal the dog, and kill it as fast as they could.
heck, got someone you dont like? do they own a pet?
call PETA on them and get that pet killed, risk free, no questions asked!
There are other organizations in the US that are for animals, such as the Human Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). It isn't as if it is just PETA or no one. PETA just happens to be louder and more obnoxious than the others.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
According to you I abuse my dog because I leave my dog outside to play in the snow. He loves snow. He is a Labrador Retriever, he actually wants to be outside, so your telling me I am neglectful for having my dog outside to play in the snow for lets say... An hour?
Because I want him to be healthy?
That is your logic. I know he won't run because he's 12. Wheres he gonna go. I know when he needs to come in, because he will be at the door.
Better keep that shotgun ready and a constant watch though, because it took them less than 30 seconds to get in and take that dog. If you had to use the bathroom your dog would be long gone (and probably already dead). And PETA would have been completely within the law to do so, apparently...
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I do know some animal right activists that I would consider completely out of touch with reality. But really, some of us are just people trying to be good without harming anyone in the process.
I do apologize for my previous comment.
I come from a place with a strong militant vegan presence. I've grown allergic to being judged inferior by some arbitrary code of ethics that seems to me invented specifically so some people can feel superior to others.
I am also a biologist, meaning I am professionally trained in animal testing, so I get branded a monster for much more than just my dietary choices.
I don't think any normal person condones animal suffering just for the sake of it. But we can differ in what we deem an acceptable trade-off.
I've never met someone who enjoyed sacrificing lab animals. My animal physiology professor at uni said they only ever had one such student, and he was convinced to drop out.
jorny wrote: I am a bit skeptical to how things like this is reported. There still might be more to it. And from being friends to animal rights people in Sweden, I know that the prejudice against vegans sometimes makes reporters believe anything.
But if there is any truth to it, PETA are just hurting the cause for animal rights and veganism.
Its quite common of animal right activists to harass and threaten honest working breeders in Sweden. They earned their reputation
lord_blackfang wrote: I don't think any normal person condones animal suffering just for the sake of it. But we can differ in what we deem an acceptable trade-off.
Yes. I consider creating medicine that can save human lives (and other animal lives, too, sometime) a completely acceptable trade-off. I do not consider getting tastier food an acceptable trade-off, so I do not eat meat. And I would defend my choice against people attacking it, or even just initiating a discussion on it themselves, but I basically never push for this kind of discussion, that ends up unpleasant most of the time.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I do not consider getting tastier food an acceptable trade-off, so I do not eat meat.
How is eating meat conflated with animal testing? I think there is probably to much meat in peoples diets in the US but I'm not sure how you got from A to B here. People have been eating meat (and veggies) long before animal testing. Are you referring to things like Factory Farms?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I do know some animal right activists that I would consider completely out of touch with reality. But really, some of us are just people trying to be good without harming anyone in the process.
I do apologize for my previous comment.
I come from a place with a strong militant vegan presence. I've grown allergic to being judged inferior by some arbitrary code of ethics that seems to me invented specifically so some people can feel superior to others.
I am also a biologist, meaning I am professionally trained in animal testing, so I get branded a monster for much more than just my dietary choices.
I don't think any normal person condones animal suffering just for the sake of it. But we can differ in what we deem an acceptable trade-off.
I've never met someone who enjoyed sacrificing lab animals. My animal physiology professor at uni said they only ever had one such student, and he was convinced to drop out.
My Philiosphy teacher was actually a veterinarian, he operated on dogs and cats, but he became an ethics veterinarian officer and closed down many animal shelters for dog fighting and everything.
He had seen it all, he was probably the most intelligent person who more degrees than I had fingers.
There is nothing wrong with eating meat, I actually eat balanced. Only 1 type of meat a day.
Ahtman wrote: How is eating meat conflated with animal testing?
It is not. I was giving example of what I consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives and what I did not consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives.
Ahtman wrote: How is eating meat conflated with animal testing?
It is not. I was giving example of what I consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives and what I did not consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives.
I think there is too much killing of animals for food. You should have some meat and a lot of vegetables.
easysauce wrote: wow...just wow... people are trying to jusitfy killing a living animal because it was outside for a bit? in 40 degree weather.... about +4 celcius to the whole planet outside of the states...seriously... thats not cold, not even a little bit. ESP not to animals with fur.
Since there is no proof the animal wasnt outside for an unreasonable amount of time, nor proof that there wasnt a dog house or shelter for it, its not a valid arguement to make.
the person in the vid who stole the dog didnt even attempt to knock and talk to the residents... what a lack of good faith.
"hey fred, that dog looks cold, how cruel. I know Id want someone to kill me if I was outside, and to err on the side of killing me even if there was a good chance i was just outside to poop."
My old mountain dog pants when its 40 degrees, even with a stiff wind.
I want to know more about why the prosecutor didn't pursue charges. "Couldn't prove criminal intent"? WTF is that? The woman trespassed onto the mans property, stole some of his property, and it's on video. I mean, she knew it wasn't her dog, right?
Again, why would the woman return with a fruit basket? The whole thing is sort of wacky.
The pest part about this thread is how you awkwardly tried to shoehorn in some tumblr\feminism\SJW derp despite this being utterly, wholly unrelated in any way and no one at all even breathing a whisper of anything relevant. Keep trying, sir! No matter what the topic is, make sure everyone knows about your weird little obsession!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I do not consider getting tastier food an acceptable trade-off, so I do not eat meat.
How is eating meat conflated with animal testing? I think there is probably to much meat in peoples diets in the US but I'm not sure how you got from A to B here.
No, he's right. I do actually consider meat eating as part of that trade-off scale. Not arguing morals or biology here, just the fact that meat eating does increase animal suffering and you have to ask yourself if you're okay with that.
I am, under certain conditions (humane treatment of livestock) and I think everyone's free to decide for themselves that they're not... but it doesn't make them better people. Morals are a personal choice, not a cosmic law.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
The reason no one will be charged, direct from the horse's mouth in the article, is that the prosecutor doesn't believe he can prove intent. Essentially, there's no way to prove that this woman who takes the animal is directly responsible for euthanizing it. That is all.
This whole "dog was at risk" bs is exactly that. bs that you have made up in your head and presented as an argument. With no factual basis or proof of anything, beyond the animal was outside. We can show, with factual evidence, that this woman walks up takes the animal. Later, a basket of fruit is delivered with a "we killed your dog" message from two PETA reps. This is factual; it's in the frelling article. There is no other explanation, no other anything. Anything else is bs you made up in your frelling head.
I have no choice but to wonder who is actually behind this.
PETA dognapping and killing pets doesn't make sense.
PETA demonstrating against factory farming and animal testing in research centers makes sense.
Like most animal lib pressure groups its not very well organised and it probably has a very loose reign on its members. Just about anyone who wants to save the fluffy bunnies can join, and in all likelihood most don't think much beyond that.
However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.
I cannot believe that the mainstream of PETA is behind this.
Is it not reasonable to suggest that PETA has been infiltrated? The motive to discredit them is there, and it would be easy to do. Get your guy to join PETA with green credentials and a veneer of competence, then when inside quietly recruit crazies with extremist agendas, animal rights crazies who hate pets aren't that hard to find. Mobilise them to commit repugnant acts in PETA's name, PETA's reputation is tarnished increasingly over time, so when it comes to the lobbying to remove gestation crates or stop dripping hair conditioner into rodents eyes they have very little moral standing to get the changes they want.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
They are not government employees. they trespassed and killed the family dog. I'd be hunting them.
nkelsch wrote: Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.
Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.
I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.
But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.
According to you I abuse my dog because I leave my dog outside to play in the snow. He loves snow. He is a Labrador Retriever, he actually wants to be outside, so your telling me I am neglectful for having my dog outside to play in the snow for lets say... An hour?
Growing up we had beagles -- hunting dogs -- who lived outside year round. We insulated their boxes with straw, and brought them inside during bitter cold snaps. But otherwise they lived outside and acclimated to the weather. I don't know how well-equipped a chihuahua is for dealing with cold, but yeah, that statement seems pretty over the top.
Besides, Snoopy lived outside year-round. Should he have been seized from Charlie Brown, the world-famous animal abuser?
*Article mentions it, but I'll post it here for those that don't read the article. The shelter has stopped using the scare tactic of "adopt or animals will have to be euthanized".
Also, from the article:
The last animal killed for lack of space in Shelby County was on May 27, 2008. Since then, they've enjoyed a save rate that is almost precisely the inverse of PETA's kill rate. Whereas PETA slaughters 97% of the pets delivered to their hellish "Shelter of Last Resort," in 2011 Shelby saved 98.52% of the cats and 94.46% of the dogs in their care.
Shelby County runs an open admission shelter: They do not turn animals away. They have an impeccable history -- despite PETA's dire predictions, their No Kill community has never been associated with hoarding or animal abuse of any kind. (In fact, none of the legitimate No Kill organizations has been guilty of these crimes, but that's another story.) The Shelby program has a tiny budget: $147,000. Compare that to PETA's annual plunder: over $32.3 million from unsuspecting donors.
While we're talking numbers, I should mention Shelby's 2011 live release rate for creatures other than dogs and cats (rabbits, etc.): a sterling 99.5%. This is a relatively small category -- just a handful of animals -- but I'm one of those people who believes that even a single rabbit matters. And in this category, PETA managed a live release rate of 7%. (For the mathematically challenged, that means that in 2011, 93% of these animals did not survive their visit to PETA's headquarters in Norfolk.)
Not going to bother underlining/bolding. Those three paragraphs tell you all you really need to know.
Better keep that shotgun ready and a constant watch though, because it took them less than 30 seconds to get in and take that dog. If you had to use the bathroom your dog would be long gone (and probably already dead). And PETA would have been completely within the law to do so, apparently...
Mine has torn apart three pit bulls, been bitten twice by a water moccasin and shrugged it off. Bring it.
I cannot believe that the mainstream of PETA is behind this.
Is it not reasonable to suggest that PETA has been infiltrated? The motive to discredit them is there, and it would be easy to do. Get your guy to join PETA with green credentials and a veneer of competence, then when inside quietly recruit crazies with extremist agendas, animal rights crazies who hate pets aren't that hard to find. Mobilise them to commit repugnant acts in PETA's name, PETA's reputation is tarnished increasingly over time, so when it comes to the lobbying to remove gestation crates or stop dripping hair conditioner into rodents eyes they have very little moral standing to get the changes they want.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or genuine tin-foil hat gak.
PETA's own tax records, which are public record thanks to their status as an NPO, show that they give money to known eco terrorists. That they euthanize the vast majority of the animals that they take in. That a convicted felon is on their payroll, showing college students how to make gas bombs.
I try to avoid posting Pen and Teller's bs, since many people just write off anything they say, but here. If you can look past some of the grandstanding that they do, you can and will see numerous accounts, factual accounts, of PETA's bs.
They are, never were, and probably never will be a "pristine" organization. They are as dirty as it is possible to be. They are basically the clean glitzy public face of a very ugly, ugly group of people.
Growing up we had beagles -- hunting dogs -- who lived outside year round. We insulated their boxes with straw, and brought them inside during bitter cold snaps. But otherwise they lived outside and acclimated to the weather. I don't know how well-equipped a chihuahua is for dealing with cold, but yeah, that statement seems pretty over the top.
Besides, Snoopy lived outside year-round. Should he have been seized from Charlie Brown, the world-famous animal abuser?
There are also plenty of products available now for animals outdoors. Our cat has a heated pad, for instance, that will keep her warm to about -40. -40. +40 is frelling nothing.
Orlanth wrote: I have no choice but to wonder who is actually behind this.
PETA dognapping and killing pets doesn't make sense.
PETA demonstrating against factory farming and animal testing in research centers makes sense.
Like most animal lib pressure groups its not very well organised and it probably has a very loose reign on its members. Just about anyone who wants to save the fluffy bunnies can join, and in all likelihood most don't think much beyond that.
However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.
I cannot believe that the mainstream of PETA is behind this.
Is it not reasonable to suggest that PETA has been infiltrated? The motive to discredit them is there, and it would be easy to do. Get your guy to join PETA with green credentials and a veneer of competence, then when inside quietly recruit crazies with extremist agendas, animal rights crazies who hate pets aren't that hard to find. Mobilise them to commit repugnant acts in PETA's name, PETA's reputation is tarnished increasingly over time, so when it comes to the lobbying to remove gestation crates or stop dripping hair conditioner into rodents eyes they have very little moral standing to get the changes they want.
I used to be a major fan of PETA to supporting them finacially. Then they went off the deepend into the areeas of enviro terrorism.
I doun't know about GB. But there have been a couple of scandals now about PETA and pets. I suggest you do more research, They are not what they started out being.
2.) Bad PR for who? That a private organization stole and killed a little dog isn't exactly the sort of thing you can put a spin on. Would you want to defend that case in court? There's no winning it.
3.) Putting aside animal ethics, how is this any different from them walking up to this guys porch and stealing 400 dollars?
Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.
According to you I abuse my dog because I leave my dog outside to play in the snow. He loves snow. He is a Labrador Retriever, he actually wants to be outside, so your telling me I am neglectful for having my dog outside to play in the snow for lets say... An hour?
Because I want him to be healthy?
That is your logic. I know he won't run because he's 12. Wheres he gonna go. I know when he needs to come in, because he will be at the door.
Whose to say that this family didn't do that?
If you leave a dog outside, in the snow, for 1 hour, unsupervised without appropriate food/water and shelter, you are abusing your dog by the laws of many areas. There are laws for tethering, confined spaces, appropriate shelter, length of time and unsupervised periods of time for animals which vary for jurisdiction. You are also putting your community at risk as an unsupervised and untethered dog is a danger to himself and others, and it would be your fault for putting him in that situation.
Cold temperatures, and outside is a red flag for animal neglect and abuse. Many people do not provide the needed insulated shelter an outside dog needs to have at his disposal and don't provide the adequate square footage required for tethered or tethered outdoor activity. Just because your dog loves the snow, doesn't mean you are not obligated to provide him a shelter outside should he want to use it. If you lived in my area, your actions would be considered animal neglect and you would be breaking leash laws.
The problem is people abuse their animals, they neglect their animals. They push them outside and leave them there in cold temperatures way too long. They don't supervise them and they don't give them the needed options the animal should have if forced to be 'outside'.
If I saw a dog, outside, not in a fenced area, without supervision when it was below 40degrees outside, I would call animal services to investigate. If I heard a dog barking outside for an extensive period of time on a 40degree day, I would call animal services to investigate. The same way I will call the police when I see a dog in a car on a 90 degree day.
I have testified in court multiple times as the reports resulted in finding animal neglect and cruelty. And those dogs found better homes because of it. No more sitting in a car while the owners eat a 90 minute meal at a steakhouse, no more being tied to a chain outside after 9pm when it is freezing outside.
A lot off people abuse and neglect their pets and claim to love them and morally equivocate 'my borderline neglectful 'loving home' is better than the alternative of shelter or death. That is why hoarders have dozens of animals they can't give appropriate care for or owners believe 'they are just dogs, they are here to serve me at my whims, who cares if they are cold outside'. I believe it is better to seek help and rescue the dogs opposed to letting them languish in abuse and neglect.
Growing up we had beagles -- hunting dogs -- who lived outside year round. We insulated their boxes with straw, and brought them inside during bitter cold snaps. But otherwise they lived outside and acclimated to the weather. I don't know how well-equipped a chihuahua is for dealing with cold, but yeah, that statement seems pretty over the top.
Besides, Snoopy lived outside year-round. Should he have been seized from Charlie Brown, the world-famous animal abuser?
Appropriate shelter is the key. There are laws about length of tether, square footage needed for roaming and food/water/shelter which all factor in to how long an animal can be left outside.
Lots of people do not have insulated outdoor shelters for their dogs when they push them outside for periods of time. And depending how they do it, they may be breaking local laws.
40degrees is too cold for a dog to be outside without being directly supervised, or provided appropriate shelter. From the story and the videos, It does not appear as if either of those were the case so it does sound like animal services should have investigated this situation. I would be genuinely curious to see if someone had reported neglect and it went unanswered or not investigated... or if it was investigated and found to be ok.
I have seen and reported a lot of animal neglect and abuse, I am always disgusted on how poorly people treat animals they claim to love.
Ouze wrote: Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.
I'm with Ouze on this one Frazzie...
@Thread: Do we have more info on this besides the original post? I'm trying google-fu here and I'm all over the map.
Ouze wrote: Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.
They will have banners screaming fur is murder and how they're being evilly opppressed and oh yea fur is murder. Come on dude you know how this stuff works. This is TV news dream come true.
Ouze wrote: Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.
They will have banners screaming fur is murder and how they're being evilly opppressed and oh yea fur is murder. Come on dude you know how this stuff works.
I think most folks mock those kinds of protest nowadays Frazz...
Ouze wrote: Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.
They will have banners screaming fur is murder and how they're being evilly opppressed and oh yea fur is murder. Come on dude you know how this stuff works.
Yes, which is why I am confused as to how such an abstract argument as "fur is murder" is going to trump a little crying girl saying "they stole my puppy, and killed it", either in or out of court.
Again, I think there must be a more specific reason why the prosecution was dropped, other than "it would be a hassle".
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or genuine tin-foil hat gak.
Neither. I am not being sarcastic, as for tin-foil, it would be tin foil if someone 'confirmed' dirty tricks, it's not tin foil to keep an open mind about that being a possible reason for PETA's behaviour.
PETA are up against some big players, do they commit dirty tricks, I don't know. But other similar groups, such as those who opposed Big Tobacco faced plenty of dirt, and examples of that are in the public record. e.g Wigand.
PETA's own tax records, which are public record thanks to their status as an NPO, show that they give money to known eco terrorists. That they euthanize the vast majority of the animals that they take in. That a convicted felon is on their payroll, showing college students how to make gas bombs.
So you have to come to a conclusion here. Either PETA is full of nut jobs or it is not.
To help you here PETA is an international organisation, and while you may have this type of behaviour in the PETA in the US, you don't have it over here. The Uk has had animal rights extremists in the past, and some groups now, but by and large most rare responsible, including PETA. In fact the organisation is pretty well respected.
Why is the US branch of PETA so very different? It must be the staffing somewhere, no one is stopping crazies from joining, no one is kicking them out, and no one is taking positive responsibility when crazies do crazy things.
If this happened over here PETA in the UK would distance itself quickly from the activities, as such it keeps it lobbying credibility; PETA in the UK has made much headway in helping change legislation regarding factory farming.
They are, never were, and probably never will be a "pristine" organization. They are as dirty as it is possible to be. They are basically the clean glitzy public face of a very ugly, ugly group of people.
Again mainstream PETA outside the US would not condone actions like we see in the OP. PETA is a vegan organisation, but most vegans are vegans on doctrine not dogma. A vegan who doesn't want animal suffering would not kidnap and euthanise pets, in fact most PETA members in the Uk do not have a doctrine against pets. Vegans are a whole would not endorse the kidnapping of pets, many actually keep pets, many have several including those who have sympathies with PETA or are members in the UK.
And for the record PETA in the UK which is a whole lot less ugly than what we have seen on this thread.
PETA UK wrote:Why Animal Rights?
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: why should animals have rights?
Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way
Pet ownership, or "animal companions" in animal right parlance is not against PETA conditions. From the US PETS site you get the same doctrines listed. So it is not against PETA ideology to keep pets, its against the ideology only of the crazies. Who let them in and why?
There is a logical gaping hole in what is happening in PETA that begs the question of the actual real motives of some of those in authority in it. A question that could (not necessarily is) be more easily explained if some of those in authority in PETA do not have the interests of the naimal rights movement at heart but are working to destroy it from the inside.
I try to avoid posting Pen and Teller's bs, since many people just write off anything they say, but here. If you can look past some of the grandstanding that they do, you can and will see numerous accounts, factual accounts, of PETA's bs.
I don't like Penn and Teller's grandstanding either and have a dim view of partisan politics from comedians, because comics have less cultural safeguards than other public figures and are supposed to adhere to Fools Licence to counter-balance, and increasingly dfo not.
However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.
PETA is also a business. As I already said, they are in the business of marketing the idea of the ethical treatment of animals. Being nice to animals doesn't put food on PETA's table, convincing people to donate for the cause does.
Ouze wrote: Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.
They will have banners screaming fur is murder and how they're being evilly opppressed and oh yea fur is murder. Come on dude you know how this stuff works.
Yes, which is why I am confused as to how such an abstract argument as "fur is murder" is going to trump a little crying girl saying "they stole my puppy, and killed it", either in or out of court.
Again, I think there must be a more specific reason why the prosecution was dropped, other than "it would be a hassle".
However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.
PETA is also a business. As I already said, they are in the business of marketing the idea of the ethical treatment of animals. Being nice to animals doesn't put food on PETA's table, convincing people to donate for the cause does.
They should really just drop the pretense and demand money to not hurt animals. "We are for the ethical treatment of animals, but only if you pay us"
Ouze wrote: Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.
I'm with Ouze on this one Frazzie...
@Thread: Do we have more info on this besides the original post? I'm trying google-fu here and I'm all over the map.
You'd have an argument if the press was all over this. But they aren't are they...
Your honor the Prosecution rests, with a cigar and a bottle of Jack!
However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.
PETA is also a business. As I already said, they are in the business of marketing the idea of the ethical treatment of animals. Being nice to animals doesn't put food on PETA's table, convincing people to donate for the cause does.
They should really just drop the pretense and demand money to not hurt animals.
"We are for the ethical treatment of animals, but only if you pay us"
It would be honest, at least.
Proof again the organisation branch in the US has been thoroughly corrupted.
However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.
PETA is also a business. As I already said, they are in the business of marketing the idea of the ethical treatment of animals. Being nice to animals doesn't put food on PETA's table, convincing people to donate for the cause does.
They should really just drop the pretense and demand money to not hurt animals.
"We are for the ethical treatment of animals, but only if you pay us"
It would be honest, at least.
Proof again the organisation branch in the US has been thoroughly corrupted.
Can you please elaborate? I am not too familiar with US politics.
Frazzled wrote: [You'd have an argument if the press was all over this. But they aren't are they...
Well, I don't see the big 3, but it's on both Huffpo, the NY Daily News, and The Blaze (along with many smaller sites), so I think it will be, soon enough.
Frazzled wrote: [You'd have an argument if the press was all over this. But they aren't are they...
Well, I don't see the big 3, but it's on both Huffpo, the NY Daily News, and The Blaze (along with many smaller sites), so I think it will be, soon enough.
I hope so but I doubt it.
Interesting color on Huffpo. Note there are links in the article to the other articles mentioned if you go to it.
PETA Reportedly Steals and Kills a Family Dog
Posted: 11/14/2014 1:33 pm EST Updated: 11/14/2014 3:59 pm EST Share Tweet Email Comment
tumblr
stumble
reddit
PETA reportedly stole a family's pet chihuahua from their porch, and killed it.
You heard that right. Yes, we're talking about that PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The theft was caught on video, and has been reported by WAVY.com, local media in Accomack County, Virginia.
County Sheriff Todd Godwin insists that he charged the two PETA workers with larceny. The prosecutor has apparently refused to pursue the case, however, citing insufficient evidence of "criminal intent."
Let's try to comprehend this: we have a home surveillance video clearly demonstrating that a van marked "PETA" pulled up to the house of Wilbur Cerate, and that someone took the family's chihuahua, Maya. PETA has reportedly admitted that Maya was killed: they arrived later with a basket of fruit as compensation, says Maya's owner. (For some bizarre reason, PETA thinks that a nice basket of food makes killing pets okay.)
Hence, we have what we are told is pretty strong evidence that a crime was committed. An admission of guilt has been alleged. What part of the notion "criminal intent" am I missing here?
We also seem to have powerful evidence that the girl who owned Maya is inconsolable. The New York Daily News reports:
The Mexican immigrant said the tiny dog had been the only thing that cheered his daughter, who was having difficulty adjusting to her new country.
PETA has refused to comment. Local reporter Anita Blanton has tried valiantly to elicit a statement from PETA headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, and has thus far had no luck.
It's hard to believe, but People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a long history of this kind of abuse. You'll find it documented in ugly detail here: "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies." Even more difficult to believe is that they tend to get away with it.
In 2005, PETA employees killed numerous healthy dogs and cats in the back of their van, and deposited the bodies in a dumpster behind a mall. They were charged with "21 felony counts each of animal cruelty," but were convicted only of "littering."
The littering conviction was later overturned. PETA has very good lawyers. "Essentially, the littering charges against Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook were overturned because the prosecution failed to prove that a dumpster is not the proper place for trash." ("Trash" here being dead pets.)
Since then PETA has been careful to dispose of bodies legally, using a professional crematorium. (They have killed over 29,000 animals.) But they are not being careful enough, it seems, when it comes to rounding up neighborhood animals. PETA are keen on eradicating strays -- in particular, they urge the mass killing of feral cats -- but they do not have permission to grab a family's pet dog from their home. Clearly they did not expect that the Cerate house would have a surveillance camera.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
PETA would prefer that people not keep animals for their amusement. If you personally find this unacceptable, however -- the alleged theft and destruction of a family dog -- then please let the local prosecutor know how you feel. Yes, PETA has a huge budget, and powerful lawyers, but public outrage can be effective.
The Commonwealth Attorney's name is Gary Agar. His office number is 757-787-2877; the office email is commatt@verizon.net.
You can also make your displeasure known to The Sam Simon Foundation. Sam Simon, co-creator of The Simpsons, has long done wonderful work for animals, and his foundation works towards -- among other things -- saving strays from so-called "euthanasia."
Mr. Simon is currently fighting cancer, and has announced that he is leaving a substantial portion of his 100-million-dollar fortune to PETA. It seems clear that this is a truly decent man, who hasn't the faintest idea what kind of organization he has decided to leave his money to. The situation is not unusual: most celebrities are kept in the dark regarding PETA's nature.
Mr. Simon is very ill, and it's perhaps best to tweet your outrage to his foundation (whose work PETA is busy undermining): @ssfoundation1
And please let PETA themselves know what you think: @PETA
The citizens unlucky enough to share their neighborhood with PETA headquarters have long been concerned that the group will target their pets. Not many of these people have the means to pursue a civil suit against PETA, but this is why we have criminal laws: it is absurd that a family's dogs and cats cannot be protected from the depredations of this organization.
Reading this topic made me read more into this practice of peta. It reminded me of a pet dog from my youth when I lived in America. It was always Strange to us that they broke into our house but only took our dog.
After doing some more reading I now realized my family might of been victimized by peta. I have no proof but some of the stories I read sounds a lot like what happened to my dog.
To be frank, even referring to a Chihuahua as a dog for the duration of this thread is taking a concerted effort.
Well, despite being a barking rat they're still dogs and thus part of the Great Wienie.
In the Great Wienie army, ALL canines have their roles.
Exactly. Chihuahas make excellent spotters. They are so nevrous any little thing will set them off in a tizzy. You need that kind of scanning capacity when you're deep in country, surrounded by the foul beings known as cats.
Cheesecat wrote: Don't vegetarians start to hate the taste and texture of meat after awhile as they to lose there familiarity with it?
I have no idea how meat taste or is texture, so I cannot tell. I have tried some vegetarian sausage when I was in Canada, did not taste very good imho, but was from what I heard very close to actual sausage.
Burger are usually good though, and those from the small fast-food where I go? Freaking delicious!
Cheesecat wrote: Don't vegetarians start to hate the taste and texture of meat after awhile as they to lose there familiarity with it?
I have no idea how meat taste or is texture, so I cannot tell. I have tried some vegetarian sausage when I was in Canada, did not taste very good imho, but was from what I heard very close to actual sausage.
Burger are usually good though, and those from the small fast-food where I go? Freaking delicious!
That may be a thing. I eat mostly poultry for health reasons, and after eating turkey burgers for a few years ground beef tastes a bit gamey, and I just plain can't stand the smell or taste of pork. Steak tastes fine to me though.
Cheesecat wrote: Don't vegetarians start to hate the taste and texture of meat after awhile as they to lose there familiarity with it?
I have no idea how meat taste or is texture, so I cannot tell. I have tried some vegetarian sausage when I was in Canada, did not taste very good imho, but was from what I heard very close to actual sausage.
Burger are usually good though, and those from the small fast-food where I go? Freaking delicious!
That may be a thing. I eat mostly poultry for health reasons, and after eating turkey burgers for a few years ground beef tastes a bit gamey, and I just plain can't stand the smell or taste of pork. Steak tastes fine to me though.
I actually had a room mate who went for a long time not eating any meat except fish.
He got super sick from beef grease getting into his food. Bassicly because he went so long with out eating meat, he lost all that bacteria in his colon that helps you digest red meat.
His diet actually caused him a ton of health issues because it got so bad. The horror stories that man went threw basically showed me how bad veterinarian diets can be if one does not watch their nutrition intake carefully.
I can't believe someone told me today that apparently leaving my dog outside to play in the snow..... In 8 acre area would lead to my dog getting kidnapped. Sure.. Lets go with that.
I am an animal abuser for letting my pet have freedom of choice.
Man our cat loved snow (odd, cause she's blacker than black and watching her try to sneak up up anything in all that was kind of hilarious). We had to go out there and collect her to get her back inside
LordofHats wrote: Man our cat loved snow (odd, cause she's blacker than black and watching her try to sneak up up anything in all that was kind of hilarious). We had to go out there and collect her to get her back inside
My dog is old he is quite stubborn and sometimes refuses to go inside. I mean.... look at him:
Spoiler:
He never wants to go inside, I have to sometimes drag him inside. He's a Yellow Labrador its kind of his home to live in the snow. It is unnecessarily cruel to see him in the summer, he's really sad, but during the winter, he always wants to be outside. Much to my parents disapproval.
Lockark wrote: The horror stories that man went threw basically showed me how bad veterinarian diets can be if one does not watch their nutrition intake carefully.
Veterinarian? Do you mean vegetarian?
I have a terrible diet. About 50% pasta, tons of french fries (with ketchup and mayonnaise), pizza, very few vegetables and all that.
LordofHats wrote: SO what your saying is that beef is like drugs. Quitting cold turkey feths you up
yes, exactly that (well with regards to meat in general, not just beef)... there is a large amount of general good stuff that started to happen to mankind once meat was on the menu, expecially in meaningful quantities.
that, combined with the idea that our guts bacteria cultures are very much a product of what we eat, can lead to issues with cutting out any large group of food.
but, its not just meat, cutting out vegetables, legumes, oils/fats, meat, having/not having dairy, can all be bad for you... and in some cases good for you
what I find interesting is that some people can just eat anything, from mouldy cheese (mmm brie) to raw meat (mmmm steak au poivre tartar)
while some people die from eating peanuts, or having reactions to gluten/lactose/ect
its like, I dont see one giraffe eating a leaf and keeling over while the one next to it falls over
(last sentence is in jest, I apologize to any giraffes that were offended)
Well, I have been regularly depressed these days, but likely unrelated to my diet.
easysauce wrote: If I asked you to run a mile, are we talking single digit minutes, double digit, or feth that!
I have no idea. I am not even sure how much it does in meters. However, I go to my lab every day by bike, and it is atop a relatively steep hill. Also able to climb 5C+/6A, French notations. Not an athlete, but not a wreck either.
LordofHats wrote:SO what your saying is that beef is like drugs. Quitting cold turkey feths you up
It isn't just meat, but really just about anything you go a long time without changes your taste. Knew a guy who cut out all chocolate from his diet and after about a year or so couldn't stand the taste of chocalate. I would think cutting out sugar would have a similar effect.
Orlanth wrote: Why is is head-in-sand to comment that PETA members in the US display a completely different ethos to PETA members elsewhere?
Commenting that PETA in the US holds different positions than its branches elsewhere is fine, the issue is your completely unsupported claim that this is the result of infiltration by anti-PETA agents rather than sincerely-held beliefs.
Many cats are quite allergic to cream, and as you may have heard, cheese is actually terrible for mice. They'll eat it, but it doesn't sit well with them.
LordofHats wrote: cheese is actually terrible for mice. They'll eat it, but it doesn't sit well with them.
Considering that we tend to use it in mouse traps.... no gak it doesn't "sit well" with them
Also, if you pay attention to anatomy, ours is closer to that of dogs, bears, and other "carnivorous" creatures, and I've seen quite a few places where it's been explicitly said that we humans are designed to NOT be vegetarians. If you look at a truly vegetarian animal, you'll see some similarities with each other that we clearly don't have ie, multiple stomachs and the ability to "chew cud"
Well, really it's much more of an argument against eating any form of grain products than it is anti-vegetarian. But, I'd go so far as to say we weren't meant to be vegans
Grey Templar wrote: If you want to give your cat a treat, just give them a very small sliver of meat(no bigger than your thumb nail).
Yep. One of our cats usually sits in the kitchen while my mom cooks (she ignores my dad because when he cooks she knows she ain't getting nothing ) and eventually she gets a tiny sliver of ham, chicken, something. Only thing she doesn't like is pork.
Grey Templar wrote: If you want to give your cat a treat, just give them a very small sliver of meat(no bigger than your thumb nail).
Yep. One of our cats usually sits in the kitchen while my mom cooks (she ignores my dad because when he cooks she knows she ain't getting nothing ) and eventually she gets a tiny sliver of ham, chicken, something. Only thing she doesn't like is pork.
Our cats beg just like a dog would.
We can't leave dishes on the table because they'll hop up while our back is turned and steal leftovers(or raid the butter dish)
The funny thing about chickens in cages, the cages are actually better for the laying chickens.
Leghorns are EXTREMELY hyper birds. If they are kept in cages which allow more freedom of movement, they tend to injure themselves. Especially if spooked by something. And even the smallest wound can trigger cannibalism. And leghorns are horribly cannibalistic. A couple hours and the other 4-5 birds in the cage will kill and begin to eat the injured bird, which only leaves more room to run around in, and for the rest to injure themselves. And once a chicken tastes blood, its becomes prone to cannibalism and will actually start pecking at a healthy bird and open wounds itself.
This is on top of the drastic loss in feed efficiency. Instead of putting energy into laying eggs, the bird runs around its cage and doesn't lay as much.
Pet ownership, or "animal companions" in animal right parlance is not against PETA conditions. From the US PETS site you get the same doctrines listed. So it is not against PETA ideology to keep pets, its against the ideology only of the crazies. Who let them in and why?
Many members of PETA would consider the keeping of pets to be equivalent to using animals for entertainment, especially if those pet animals are the result of selective breeding; which nearly all pets are. This line of thinking often leads to the conclusion that pet animals are necessarily having their rights violated by simply existing, and that death is the only way to grant them "freedom" from their state of exploitative servitude. PETA doesn't come right out and say this, because they're smart enough to know that the vast majority of people would think the organization was dominated by crazy people. However, it is absolutely borne out by the variance in the organization's treatment of traditional pet animals, and non-traditional pet animals or non-domesticated animals.
There is a logical gaping hole in what is happening in PETA that begs the question of the actual real motives of some of those in authority in it. A question that could (not necessarily is) be more easily explained if some of those in authority in PETA do not have the interests of the animal rights movement at heart but are working to destroy it from the inside.
PETA doesn't have the interests of the entirety of the animal right's movement at heart. PETA has its own vision of what the animal right's movement should be at heart, and what that vision happens to be is demonstrably extreme.
Pet ownership, or "animal companions" in animal right parlance is not against PETA conditions. From the US PETA site you get the same doctrines listed. So it is not against PETA ideology to keep pets, its against the ideology only of the crazies. Who let them in and why?
Many members of PETA would consider the keeping of pets to be equivalent to using animals for entertainment, especially if those pet animals are the result of selective breeding; which nearly all pets are. This line of thinking often leads to the conclusion that pet animals are necessarily having their rights violated by simply existing, and that death is the only way to grant them "freedom" from their state of exploitative servitude. PETA doesn't come right out and say this, because they're smart enough to know that the vast majority of people would think the organization was dominated by crazy people. However, it is absolutely borne out by the variance in the organization's treatment of traditional pet animals, and non-traditional pet animals or non-domesticated animals.
Thanks for the input. However what you say doesnt tally up with PETA's own policies as indicated. PETA is against the pet industry, but not the keeping of 'animal companions'.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
In animal rights parlance "animal companion" and pet are interchangable terms, with the former being more politically correct.
Kidnapping of pets doesnt fit in with the above ethos.
There is a logical gaping hole in what is happening in PETA that begs the question of the actual real motives of some of those in authority in it. A question that could (not necessarily is) be more easily explained if some of those in authority in PETA do not have the interests of the animal rights movement at heart but are working to destroy it from the inside.
PETA doesn't have the interests of the entirety of the animal right's movement at heart. PETA has its own vision of what the animal right's movement should be at heart, and what that vision happens to be is demonstrably extreme.
Again there appears to be a void between PETA's declared policies and those carried out by extremist members. This begs the question who is running the organisation, and how many subfactions there are, as the groups policies are directly contradictory and only makes sense if we conclude that some PETA organisers have directly contradictory goals. This goes back to the question as to how and why the organisation is so self opposed and why it cannot rid itself of disruptive elements.
Orlanth wrote: Why is is head-in-sand to comment that PETA members in the US display a completely different ethos to PETA members elsewhere?
Commenting that PETA in the US holds different positions than its branches elsewhere is fine, the issue is your completely unsupported claim that this is the result of infiltration by anti-PETA agents rather than sincerely-held beliefs.
Good analysis includes evidence presented by recognising the boundaries of a void of information; and even so the possibility of infiltration is only raised as said, a possibility, no direct claim is made.
d-usa wrote: Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.
This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.
How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?
Is the porch enclosed or open? Did the dog have a collar and a tag?
We have cats, rabbits, and even a dog or two on our porch sometimes. All of them were strays and did not belong to us.
Who has the right to decide what is and isn't a stray and take it off the street for euthanising? Is just anyone allowed to do it? I thought the local authority performs that service not members of the public taking their own initiative.
The porch of a house is someone's property. What other things could you just take because anyone could have left it there?
Orlanth wrote: Good analysis includes evidence presented by recognising the boundaries of a void of information; and even so the possibility of infiltration is only raised as said, a possibility, no direct claim is made.
Is it possible that you're actually a reptilian alien come to Earth to infiltrate as many internet forums as possible? Sure is.
Hey, I'm not making a direct claim, I'm only pointing out the possibility.
Orlanth wrote: Good analysis includes evidence presented by recognising the boundaries of a void of information; and even so the possibility of infiltration is only raised as said, a possibility, no direct claim is made.
Is it possible that you're actually a reptilian alien come to Earth to infiltrate as many internet forums as possible? Sure is.
Hey, I'm not making a direct claim, I'm only pointing out the possibility.
We also may or may not be controlled by a kitten super genius.
orrrr
A mastermind dog is controlling us D:
I mean it is a possibility we got keep our preferences open.
Orlanth wrote: Good analysis includes evidence presented by recognising the boundaries of a void of information; and even so the possibility of infiltration is only raised as said, a possibility, no direct claim is made.
Is it possible that you're actually a reptilian alien come to Earth to infiltrate as many internet forums as possible? Sure is.
Hey, I'm not making a direct claim, I'm only pointing out the possibility.
Standard workday question for a professional political analyst:
What is <insert name> group thinking and why?
You cant just Google up the answer, and they wont tell you. It's not that easy, but you can search for clues. I could explain further but i think its wasted on you three..
Orlanth wrote: Analyst is not equal to conspiracy theorist.
Standard workday question for a professional political analyst:
What is <insert name> group thinking and why?
You cant just Google up the answer, and they wont tell you. It's not that easy, but you can search for clues. I could explain further but i think its wasted on you three..
There's also this thing called Occam's Razor, but seeing as you post conspiracy theories in pretty much every thread you're in and insist that they're not, I'd say that's wasted on you too...
Again there appears to be a void between PETA's declared policies and those carried out by extremist members. This begs the question who is running the organisation, and how many subfactions there are, as the groups policies are directly contradictory and only makes sense if we conclude that some PETA organisers have directly contradictory goals.
Their goals are only contradictory if you're incapable of reading between the lines. PETA is an animal liberation movement. To them, even having a pet is animal abuse (and this is their official stated position). Their practice is that a pet is better dead than alive, which is bonkers, but that's always been their position.
Seriously Orlanth. This is a top down centrally controlled organization. You really think they've been infiltrated by crazies? PETA has always been crazy.. They didn't need to be infiltrated. If anything the centralization of the organization and the closing of its local chapters across the US kicked all the moderate members of the organization out years ago.
LordofHats wrote: PETA is an animal liberation movement. To them, even having a pet is animal abuse (and this is their official stated position) -needs citation.
we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.
Having pets is bad. They then proceed to use the page to describe all the ways pet ownership is abusive. Seriously. Read between the lines here (I'm not even asking for any assumptions, this is basic train of thought leading to the unspoken reality that is PETA's stance on pets). The rest of that page is just hilarious, given that they spend their time killing large numbers of perfectly adoptable animals and then dumping the corpses in dumpsters.
we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.
Having pets is bad. They then proceed to use the page to describe all the ways pet ownership is abusive. Seriously. Read between the lines here
1.) You have a moving line of logic: first they say they wish the institution of private pet ownership didn't exist. They don't claim this is "abuse".
2.) Then they list ways some pets are actually abused while being kept as pets, and call it abuse (which in their examples, clearly are). They don't claim owning a pet is abuse, or even being a lousy pet owner is abuse (although clearly not ideal) - they first use the word "abuse" when they get into things like duct-taping a dogs mouth closed, or dogfighting, and so on. Clearly not just mere ownership as abuse, which is your erroneous characterization of what their position is.
leading to the unspoken reality that is PETA's stance on pets).
3.) I thought it was their "official position"? Now it's an "unspoken reality"? This is a bit of goalpost moving.
Again, you are making up something in your head and pretending it's reality, using the all-encompassing phrase "read between the lines" as a kind of lazy intellectual spackle.
LordofHats wrote: Man our cat loved snow (odd, cause she's blacker than black and watching her try to sneak up up anything in all that was kind of hilarious). We had to go out there and collect her to get her back inside
My dog is old he is quite stubborn and sometimes refuses to go inside. I mean.... look at him:
Spoiler:
He never wants to go inside, I have to sometimes drag him inside. He's a Yellow Labrador its kind of his home to live in the snow. It is unnecessarily cruel to see him in the summer, he's really sad, but during the winter, he always wants to be outside. Much to my parents disapproval.
Ouze wrote: 1.) You have a moving line of logic: first they say they wish the institution of private pet ownership didn't exist. They don't claim this is "abuse".
That's just being obtuse.
PETA from its onset has favored a gradual phase out of pet ownership. It was one of PETA's founding positions when it first came up in the 80's. They claim they want all animals to be adopted from shelters, but they protest no kill shelters, and run all kill shelters themselves.
2.) Then they list ways some pets are actually abused while being kept as pets, and call it abuse (which in their examples, clearly are).
No. They start with a list that looks like it's talking about actual abuse, but in reality is basically just an attack on pet ownership. Really Ouze. READ;
This is a best-case scenario. Millions of dogs spend their lives outdoors on heavy chains in all weather extremes or are kept locked up in tiny chain-link pens from which they can only watch the world go by.
I've been all over the US, and the world. This number is pulled from the ass. it's not even remotely realistic, and ignores that this is already illegal and grounds for an animal to be seized by public servants. This is also about the only reasonable thing they list, and it's horribly inflated.
Millions more are confined to filthy wire cages in puppy mills, forced to churn out litter after litter until they wear out, at which time they are killed or dumped at the local animal shelter.
This one is just ironic coming from PETA, and also not true. Also another number pulled from the ass. The term 'puppy mill' was literally invented by PETA in the 90's to slander dog breeding by conflating a small number of horribly abusive places with the much larger number of not so abusive breeding facilities.
You only go with it because the image is ugly. Ignore that it's not real.
Even in “good” homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have the tips of their toes amputated through declawing.
And this is where the insanity comes in. Also notice the air quotes by "good." Because people don't clean the litter box every time a cat makes a boom boom. Who doesn't clean the litter box regularly? People okay with cat gak around the house, which is already illegal and grounds for seizure and not that common a problem.
I get the people who say that declawing is invasive and unnecessary, but seriously. Abusive? That's kind of pushing the boundry of sense. I even checked their Declawing cats page, and it's fething comical. Yes PETA. I'm sure if some psycho comes along wanting to abuse an escaped cat, those little claws are totally going to save them. Trauma? Declawed cats go their whole lives not even realizing their claws are gone. I've seen declawed cats use scratching posts daily, as if they still had them, and bare their paws as if they still had them, and knead as if they still have them. They literally can't even tell the claws are gone.
Not to mention their claim of medical problems is completely bat gak. Bladder problems? From declawing? I even checked around on Google for this, and everyone either pulls this factoid from PETA or offers no reference what so ever. I find numerous cites, conflating declawing with cats peeing all over the house, but offering not one iota of reason for why this even happens, and as a life long cat owner I've never seen or heard of this happening, so calling shenanigans on that gak.
Dogs often have to drink water that has been sitting around for days,
Because... Wait what? Water doesn't go bad sitting around for a few days its fething water. Most people probably get it from the tap which is drenched in 'kill bad stuff' chemicals.
are hurried along on their walks, if they even get walked,
Who the feth doesn't walk their dog? Someone okay with dog gak in their house, illegal, and also not even a remotely common problem. I could buy hurrying a dog along, but I don't see how that's abusive so much as not the most loving way to treat the dog.
and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.
Does anyone like neighbors with dogs that bark all through the night? And heaven forbid they ruin the resale value of that 10 year old couch (the last one again, is kind of a silly thing people do when you think about it, but not abusive).
They don't claim owning a pet is abuse, which is your claim of what their position is.
They literally conflate basic aspects of pet ownership like walks and litter boxes, with leaving a dog out in the snow and rain and breeding them to death, and use the word good in air quotes in reference to homes. This isn't even hard reading. It's practically trolling how they dangle what they really think in front of you.
lazy intellectual spackle.
Lazy intellect is refusing to observe an organizations actions, read their position, and see the obvious conclusion. Seriously. This is not hard. They are literally using the most basic means of manipulating people; stating things that are obviously objectionable, then moving on to lies that are twisted to make something look objectionable, and then finally to just plain nonsense, but don't worry! They understand basic psychology and that most people will only remember the first and last things they read, so they finish off with a completely hypocritical paragraph about how terribly treated so many pets are. I imagine whoever wrote it was also pushing the 'inject the lethal death poison' button at the local PETA shelter.
PETA doesn't care about pets. They don't think Pets should exist at all, and actively promote a philosophy that wants Pets eliminated.
3.) I thought it was their "official position"? Now it's an "unspoken reality"? This is a bit of goalpost moving.
I will admit to poor word choice though. Sorry. See when PETA actually acts a certain way, I consider their actions their official stance. The lies they sell people tend to get tuned out by the rational part of the brain that detects bull gak.
Asherian Command wrote: He never wants to go inside, I have to sometimes drag him inside. He's a Yellow Labrador its kind of his home to live in the snow. It is unnecessarily cruel to see him in the summer, he's really sad, but during the winter, he always wants to be outside. Much to my parents disapproval.
LordofHats wrote: I will admit to poor word choice though. Sorry. See when PETA actually acts a certain way, I consider their actions their official stance.
There goes more of that spackle, I see. "I admit I was wrong, but I'm gonna just patch over that part and look, I was right, after all!".
Claiming they have an official stance, and then proving it by extrapolating out what you think they actually mean instead of what they literally publish as their actual official stance is not "poor word choice", it's making up a narrative you want to be true. The best case scenario would be contrasting their official stance by claiming they don't abide by that in practice, but that's not what you're doing.
Its like you've never heard of people doing one thing while proclaiming to do another. If someone's website says something other than what they actually do, I don't really care... It's official in only the most technical sense of the word, and in any practical sense is otherwise completely meaningless.
But now we're arguing semantics, which I guess is funner when you like to be Juicy juicy obtuseness.
LordofHats wrote: I will admit to poor word choice though. Sorry. See when PETA actually acts a certain way, I consider their actions their official stance.
There goes more of that spackle, I see. "I admit I was wrong, but I'm gonna just patch over that part and look, I was right, after all!".
Claiming they have an official stance, and then proving it by extrapolating out what you think they actually mean instead of what they literally publish as their actual official stance is not "poor word choice", it's making up a narrative you want to be true. The best case scenario would be contrasting their official stance by claiming they don't abide by that in practice, but that's not what you're doing.
If they are driving a PETA van, under the law I would make a winning case that they were acting under the color of the group.
LordofHats wrote: [
Its like you've never heard of people doing one thing while proclaiming to do another. If someone's website says something other than what they actually do, I don't really care... It's official in only the most technical sense of the word, and in any practical sense is otherwise completely meaningless.
But now we're arguing semantics, which I guess is funner when you like to be Juicy juicy obtuseness.
No, this works in that it dilutes anyone's "official stance" to be a slogan devoid of any real meaning, and the only real way to objectively consider the merits of anyone or anything is based upon their actions. In this case, we see PETA people showing up in PETA van, doing PETA business, which happens to be horrible business.
LordofHats wrote:SO what your saying is that beef is like drugs. Quitting cold turkey feths you up
It isn't just meat, but really just about anything you go a long time without changes your taste. Knew a guy who cut out all chocolate from his diet and after about a year or so couldn't stand the taste of chocalate. I would think cutting out sugar would have a similar effect.
I cut sugar from my tea when I was about 11 years old and soon came to dislike sweet tea.
Orlanth wrote: Analyst is not equal to conspiracy theorist.
Standard workday question for a professional political analyst:
What is <insert name> group thinking and why?
You cant just Google up the answer, and they wont tell you. It's not that easy, but you can search for clues. I could explain further but i think its wasted on you three..
There's also this thing called Occam's Razor, but seeing as you post conspiracy theories in pretty much every thread you're in and insist that they're not, I'd say that's wasted on you too...
Please put that down, only grown ups should play with knives.
If you wish to apply Occam's Razor to analysis of an organisation where one part does the complete opposite to what the orgnisation officially stands for, then the simplest explanation is that the orgnisation is divided and some members have a completely different agenda to the others.
Exploring the motives behind this is a logical next step.
Again there appears to be a void between PETA's declared policies and those carried out by extremist members. This begs the question who is running the organisation, and how many subfactions there are, as the groups policies are directly contradictory and only makes sense if we conclude that some PETA organisers have directly contradictory goals.
Their goals are only contradictory if you're incapable of reading between the lines. PETA is an animal liberation movement. To them, even having a pet is animal abuse (and this is their official stated position).
I already posted links showing a contrary position from the PETA website (US branch). To them, keeping "animal companions" is ok, commercial farming of animals for the pet industry is not.
Seriously Orlanth. This is a top down centrally controlled organization.
This is the rub, it obviously isnt, as you have totally contradictory doctrines doing on. You are right in that to some keep9ng pets is wrong, and a pet is better dead than alive, you are wrong in that this is not PETA's official position, quite the opposite in fact. Please look at their website, and read what they say about themselves, the you will see the contradiction for yourself.
You really think they've been infiltrated by crazies? PETA has always been crazy..
A lot of PETA's work is quite reasonable, remember this is an international organisation. PETA UK and PETA India for examplwe dont do the gak you are reading in the American press.
Secondly the US branch of PETA doesnt support the extremist activities we are reading in the press, and contradicts them.
The only logical conclusion is that there is a rift between what PETA officiallty stands for and what some members are doing.
The next question is why.
They didn't need to be infiltrated. If anything the centralization of the organization and the closing of its local chapters across the US kicked all the moderate members of the organization out years ago.
Please make up your mind If you are saying (and I dont know if this is true) that PETA is kicking out the moderate members, then by logical extension crazies have infiltrated the organisation. PETA didn't start as a crazy organisation.
Frazzled wrote: If they are driving a PETA van, under the law I would make a winning case that they were acting under the color of the group.
"Color of" only applies to government employees, I believe, yes? I think you're talking about liability. And while I think they're liable civilly, I still want to back it up a bit and know why the criminal charges weren't pursued (I'm saying that in general, you've already explained why you specifically think they were dropped).
I'm not one of those criminal conspiracy, Alex Jones truther types who can't believe what I see. The problem is what I see is so bogglingly unlikely that the facts as described, I can't reconcile it. I believe PETA would steal a dog and know they would kill one as they kill an average of however many a day, it's the above part that I'm stuck on.
Also, knocking on someone's door to announce that you're the one who stole and killed their dog seems like a good way to make that front yard the scene of two crimes.
Frazzled wrote: If they are driving a PETA van, under the law I would make a winning case that they were acting under the color of the group.
"Color of" only applies to government employees, I believe, yes? I think you're talking about liability. And while I think they're liable civilly, I still want to back it up a bit and know why the criminal charges weren't pursued (I'm saying that in general, you've already explained why you specifically think they were dropped).
That is a term of art often applied as you note. However the agrument applies to businesses etc.
As I said before PETA is a bottom feeder. If you need proff cheak out how much money they pull in to animal put down. Now look at any SPCA for the same thing.
Fixed that for ya ;-). They're ahead of any other animal by a country mile.
The mosquitoes do not kill. The microbes carried by mosquitoes kill.
Well, as far as I know.
And the leading animal is causing human death is and has been for a long time… human themselves .
Mmm, I could argue, and for the hell of it, I will that the infections caused by mosquito bites kill (especially malaria) and that therefore the mosquitoes are the liable party.
Plus mosquitoes are fething annoying buggers who deserve to be abducted and killed by PETA.
I'll give you that humans are their own worst enemies though. Although a lot of people would object to being called an animal. (Not me though. I iz a clever monkee.)
Bran Dawri wrote: Mmm, I could argue, and for the hell of it, I will that the infections caused by mosquito bites kill (especially malaria) and that therefore the mosquitoes are the liable party.
Plus mosquitoes are fething annoying buggers who deserve to be abducted and killed by PETA.
I'll give you that humans are their own worst enemies though. Although a lot of people would object to being called an animal. (Not me though. I iz a clever monkee.)
Bran Dawri wrote: Mmm, I could argue, and for the hell of it, I will that the infections caused by mosquito bites kill (especially malaria) and that therefore the mosquitoes are the liable party.
Well, the plasmodium are the one causing malaria, the mosquito is just the unwilling messenger that brought the plasmodium to the victim.
Damn those plasmodium!
Please look at their website, and read what they say about themselves, the you will see the contradiction for yourself.
Now go look at what PETA actually does. Good luck reconciling their actions with their website (or even with a train of logic, cause PETA tends to dance back and force across a series of lines that when put together make a really confusing picture). Does the CIA 'officially' spy on Congress? Of course no, but we all know that's bs otherwise we wouldn't get an annual (at least once a decade) news story about the CIA spying on Congress.
If someone says something, then does something completely different, what they say is meaningless. Actions reveal far more about what is 'official' than words.
Orlanth wrote: PETA didn't start as a crazy organisation.
The leadership of PETA has always been crazy. Go read some quotes from Ingrid Newkirk (EDIT: Or just read about her, she's bonkers in a lot of ways). It's like crazy in a can. But PETA was much more decentralized and grassroots back when it first started. Because of all the trouble with the ALF though (many local PETA chapters were finding double use as ALF Chapters), PETA made the decision to tighten up its organization and centralize and nearly all the local chapters were shut down. This cut off the indirect financial connections between ALF and PETA, but it also left those crazy leaders as the ones in charge of a no longer grass roots movement.
With no local chapters, the more moderate people within PETA who tended to be at those local chapters lost any ability to really communicate with the leadership, and the centralization of power meant that leadership could act more freely on a broader level.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The mosquitoes do not kill. The microbes carried by mosquitoes kill.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, the plasmodium are the one causing malaria, the mosquito is just the unwilling messenger that brought the plasmodium to the victim.
Damn those plasmodium!
By this logic, guns don't kill people, the bullets carried by guns do
And since bullets are the ones causing the death, that makes guns the "unwilling messenger"
Noir wrote: As I said before PETA is a bottom feeder. If you need proff cheak out how much money they pull in to animal put down. Now look at any SPCA for the same thing.
The SPCA is great. Non-kill, NFP. And they love volunteers too.
Noir wrote: As I said before PETA is a bottom feeder. If you need proff cheak out how much money they pull in to animal put down. Now look at any SPCA for the same thing.
The SPCA is great. Non-kill, NFP. And they love volunteers too.
They're the ones behind those. Sorry. Have to hate them. Those animals, and that music... It might not be animal cruelty, but it sure as hell is cruelty to humans XD
Ensis Ferrae wrote: By this logic, guns don't kill people, the bullets carried by guns do
And since bullets are the ones causing the death, that makes guns the "unwilling messenger"
By that logic, APC do not kill people, the soldier embarked in the APC kill people. Well, and the APC too, when it has weaponry, and/or when it just runs over people and stuff. That makes the APC a willing messenger of men and women that kills!
Not anymore (at least I haven't seen it in awhile) but yeah. They were broadcast during commercials for a number of years... I used to like that song XD Now it's forever linked with sad looking animals and feelings of wondering "WHY?!"
Be thankful. It could remind you of chimpanzee with electrodes planted on an exposed brain, mouses voluntarily made to have huge tumor slowly killing them, horrors picture from battery abuse, all those making terrible sadface, and tons of other horrible images of horrors (and sometime gore too) that you would never be able to forget. Not before you watch the latest movie on Netflix, that is .
I was told if you like your vet, you can keep them.
Our vet does free charity work for Central Dachshund rescue (including free surgeries including back surgeries), and has a passel of his self admittedly fat wiener dogs. Go Doctor Beloy!!!
When I thought TBone was passing the first time(God gave us an extra year) he came in and cried with me. They still have a picture and plaque of TBone with "our dear friend" on the office. He gives Rusty the Mountain dog a big hug when we bring him in and calls him the family's honored protector. He's family to us.
I was told if you like your vet, you can keep them.
Our vet does free charity work for Central Dachshund rescue (including free surgeries including back surgeries), and has a passel of his self admittedly fat wiener dogs. Go Doctor Beloy!!!
When I thought TBone was passing the first time(God gave us an extra year) he came in and cried with me. They still have a picture and plaque of TBone with "our dear friend" on the office. He gives Rusty the Mountain dog a big hug when we bring him in and calls him the family's honored protector. He's family to us.
Sometimes you get the concept of community spot on over there.
Whats the Irish version of PETA? Is it like them? Do WE have peta? Please say no.....and also:
+++thought for the day+++
++America has fethed up laws regarding everything ever.+++
Da krimson barun wrote: Whats the Irish version of PETA? Is it like them? Do WE have peta? Please say no.....and also:
+++thought for the day+++
++America has fethed up laws regarding everything ever.+++
Nah, we have ok laws for the most part. Its just selective enforcement and bad judges who feth it up.
PETA wrote:We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breedinWe at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.
But then the animals you're addressing would never have existed, and their interests would not be relevant; at least assuming we dismiss reincarnation.
PETA wrote:We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breedinWe at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.
But then the animals you're addressing would never have existed, and their interests would not be relevant; at least assuming we dismiss reincarnation.
PETA wrote:We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breedinWe at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.
But then the animals you're addressing would never have existed, and their interests would not be relevant; at least assuming we dismiss reincarnation.
Look at their actions and you will realize that the first line is meaningless, its only a smoke screen for them to hide behind. And its working quite well on you.
PETA doesn't have the interests of the entirety of the animal right's movement at heart. PETA has its own vision of what the animal right's movement should be at heart, and what that vision happens to be is demonstrably extreme.
Look at their actions and you will realize that the first line is meaningless, its only a smoke screen for them to hide behind. And its working quite well on you.
I was unaware that PETA's smokescreen was intended to draw mockery.
Look at their actions and you will realize that the first line is meaningless, its only a smoke screen for them to hide behind. And its working quite well on you.
I was unaware that PETA's smokescreen was intended to draw mockery.
You didn't know that?
Psssht this is from the same people that made this an advertisement of theirs (warning image is related to the holocaust)
Spoiler:
If you want something more naughty just look up their banned super bowl ad on youtube. Veggie Love
It's all about stirring up that drama man!
Psssht this is from the same people that made this an advertisement of theirs (warning image is related to the holocaust)
Spoiler:
You know who else posts images related to the holocaust? Nazis.
Try working that Godwin out in your head
I had to do it man! Godwin's law on a poster in real life. It's the perfect joke. I proclaim everyone on the planet is a Nazi and thus we are all also future Hitlers!
Fortunately, exoskeletons don't scale up very well. Giant ants would be crushed by the weight of their own bodies and their carapaces would be pretty fragile too. Instead of being hard at that size, the exoskeleton would actually be soft and pliable. They would also be unable to take in oxygen. over a certain body size you MUST have lungs. Passive absorption isn't enough.
Grey Templar wrote: Fortunately, exoskeletons don't scale up very well. Giant ants would be crushed by the weight of their own bodies and their carapaces would be pretty fragile too. Instead of being hard at that size, the exoskeleton would actually be soft and pliable. They would also be unable to take in oxygen. over a certain body size you MUST have lungs. Passive absorption isn't enough.
Madness, I counter with SCIENCE and evolution! You thought the ants would remain the same? No, these will have even more advanced features t make up for this fault. Their bodies will be made out of metal exoskeletons! MWAHAHAHA!
.
add a fur coat, some circus tickets and sea world item, youd feel the hate from there brains!
.
