If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(State of Virginia)   PETA - Proudly Euthanizing Thousands of Animals   (vi.virginia.gov) divider line 297
    More: Sad, street address, euthanasias  
•       •       •

10482 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-21 03:45:29 AM
Mostly cats, to look on the bright side.
 
2013-03-21 08:02:04 AM
What?  Did you expect them to do something humane like care for them?  That would get in the way of making money for PETA!
 
2013-03-21 08:19:37 AM
Yeah, they're hypocrites...what else is new?
 
2013-03-21 08:41:25 AM
At least no poultry was harmed
 
2013-03-21 08:42:53 AM
I don't get it. What am I looking at?
 
2013-03-21 08:43:06 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-21 08:43:49 AM

karnal: At least no poultry was harmed


I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.
 
2013-03-21 08:43:59 AM
Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.
 
2013-03-21 08:44:32 AM
1675 deaths on your hands, petards.
 
2013-03-21 08:44:32 AM
Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?
=Smidge=
 
2013-03-21 08:44:56 AM

KawaiiNot: karnal: At least no poultry was harmed

I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.


There are non-edible animals?
 
2013-03-21 08:46:33 AM
Well, I assume at least nobody ate them after they were pumped full of death chemicals?  Everybody listen to Bob Barker and get your pets fixed.  Kill shelters suck, but I understand the necessity.
 
2013-03-21 08:46:35 AM
 
2013-03-21 08:46:52 AM
1045 cats euthanized, well that's a good start at least, but they're really going to have to step it up if they're going to solve the problem.
 
2013-03-21 08:47:05 AM
Do as they say, not as they do.
OMG YOU'RE WEARING FUR, I'M THROWING BLOOD ON YOU!!!!*

*as soon as I kill about 50 dogs today
 
2013-03-21 08:47:11 AM
I'm okay with this. If people would properly spay and neuter their pets, the stray animal population would be a non-issue and people wouldn't end up with litters they didn't want.

Euthanizing the animals may be sad, but the reason for their deaths is because people don't care enough to have a simple procedure carried out on their pets.

It's far better these animals are put down quietly and humanely than to have them die of starvation, used as practice targets, run over by cars, poisoned, or mauled by other animals.
 
2013-03-21 08:47:27 AM
This is not news. Ask anyone who lives in the Hampton Roads VA area what they think about all the times PeTA has been caught putting dead pets in dumpsters.

 And I predict that, like usual this will just go down the memory hole, and PeTA will just keep on marching smartly forward. Once you reach a certain rarefied level of political correctness, you really ARE above and beyond any and all criticism or questioning.
 
2013-03-21 08:47:33 AM
Fur is murder.
 
2013-03-21 08:47:42 AM

Smidge204: Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?


This made me do a WTF take too... I can understand cats, everyone hates cats, but random racoons/deer/squirrels.... that's just wrong...

 
2013-03-21 08:48:08 AM

Smidge204: Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?
=Smidge=


I'd think that if wildlife let you get them, they're halfway to gone, man.

/That being said, I'd love for them to address these statistics.
//Member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Afghan-Hounds.
 
2013-03-21 08:48:16 AM
I forgot the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFtOMx8nDU  Skip to the 26 minute mark about what was revealed on the Penn and Teller BullShiat PETA episode..
 
2013-03-21 08:48:19 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


Pretty sure with a budget of 36 million, they could afford decent living accommodations for a few thousand cats and dogs
 
2013-03-21 08:49:59 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


Hey everyone! Point and laugh at the idiot who's white knighting PETA!!!
 
2013-03-21 08:51:24 AM
PETA sucks but this argument is stupid.
 
2013-03-21 08:52:02 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...

 
2013-03-21 08:52:40 AM
This is like one of those Fox News headlines about how Obama's policies will harm working class people.
 
2013-03-21 08:52:47 AM

flup: I don't get it. What am I looking at?


Adoption versus euthanasia statistics for animals that the Virginian chapter of PETA takes in.
 
2013-03-21 08:52:58 AM
Instead of euthanizing them, we should just eat them.

Win/win.
 
2013-03-21 08:53:24 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


www.holocaustresearchproject.org
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?
 
2013-03-21 08:56:30 AM

phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?


You are more than welcome to go free the animals and take on their care if you disagree with their decision.  They will even carry them to your car.  See the difference?
 
2013-03-21 08:56:50 AM
National humane organizations have a problem: Either they are the ones like PETA that operate and support animal shelters, which inevitably results in euthanasia for homeless animals that can not be placed with new owners and complaints that they are wasting money with any political work they do, or like the Humane Society of the United States they are organized for advocacy work and run no shelters - which results in complaints they are illegitimate or hypocritical as a humane organization because they run no animal shelters.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
2013-03-21 08:57:23 AM
Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.
 
2013-03-21 08:57:53 AM

pkrzycki: AverageAmericanGuy: If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...


I'm okay with this. Enslavement of animals as "pets" is pretty sick on the face of it.
 
2013-03-21 08:57:57 AM

heywood-jablome: [i.imgur.com image 300x300]


They took in 1877 animals and euthanized 1675.  That is 89.24% KILLED by PETA.
The coont that runs PETA is a giant farking hypocrite.
 
2013-03-21 08:59:26 AM
I'm going to find a place where they're euthanizing animals close to my house, rummage around in their dumpsters, and make clothes with  the fur from animals they've euthanized.
 That way no animals are killed specifically for their fur.  The animals that are killed don't go to waste.  And since my clothes are made locally, rather than arriving in shipping containers from Asia, I'll be reducing carbon emissions as well as striking a blow to sweat shops and chid labor.  I'll be the greenest muther effer on the block.
 
2013-03-21 08:59:41 AM
the'ere a buncha militant jackasses
we already knew this
they kill thousands of the animals they anthropomorphize into people
many of us already knew that, also
does that make them murderers to their own kind of idiot bipeds?
 
2013-03-21 09:00:39 AM

karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.


The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.
 
2013-03-21 09:00:53 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: pkrzycki: AverageAmericanGuy: If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...

I'm okay with this. Enslavement of animals as "pets" is pretty sick on the face of it.


But if you take away my cats, who will mine my salt and pick my cotton?
 
2013-03-21 09:01:30 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


From the link, PETA Virginia's stats: 1,877 animals taken in, 1,675 euthanized, about 90%

Looking at the same source, for all humane societies (including PETA): 10,143 animals taken in, 2,519 euthanized, about 25%

That means that for non-PETA humane societies in Virginia, you're looking at 8,266 animals taken in and 844 animals euthanized, about 10%.

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?
 
2013-03-21 09:02:52 AM

meanmutton: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

From the link, PETA Virginia's stats: 1,877 animals taken in, 1,675 euthanized, about 90%

Looking at the same source, for all humane societies (including PETA): 10,143 animals taken in, 2,519 euthanized, about 25%

That means that for non-PETA humane societies in Virginia, you're looking at 8,266 animals taken in and 844 animals euthanized, about 10%.

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?


Because they would rather paint some twat green and parade her around downtown Seattle.
 
2013-03-21 09:02:58 AM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: I'm going to find a place where they're euthanizing animals close to my house, rummage around in their dumpsters, and make clothes with  the fur from animals they've euthanized.
 That way no animals are killed specifically for their fur.  The animals that are killed don't go to waste.  And since my clothes are made locally, rather than arriving in shipping containers from Asia, I'll be reducing carbon emissions as well as striking a blow to sweat shops and chid labor.  I'll be the greenest muther effer on the block.


Generally the incinerate the corpses so they don't spread disease.

Plus the chemicals you would need to use to stabilize the skins would make you decide that this was a bad idea very quickly.
 
2013-03-21 09:02:58 AM
I've heard that Ingrid Newkirk personally attends every euthanation and masturbates to the sounds of crying kittens.
 
2013-03-21 09:03:33 AM

SwiftFox: National humane organizations have a problem: Either they are the ones like PETA that operate and support animal shelters, which inevitably results in euthanasia for homeless animals that can not be placed with new owners and complaints that they are wasting money with any political work they do, or like the Humane Society of the United States they are organized for advocacy work and run no shelters - which results in complaints they are illegitimate or hypocritical as a humane organization because they run no animal shelters.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.


PETA doesn't behave like regular animal shelters.  They don't make any effort to place animals; they just euthanize them.  If you want to look at how shelters  should operate, the local chapters of the Humane Society tend to be very good examples.
 
2013-03-21 09:03:45 AM
I've heard of No-kill shelters, but these guys seem to run Kill-Kill shelters.

/Fark Peta with a rusty nail
 
2013-03-21 09:04:27 AM

DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.


No, they don't.  They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.
 
2013-03-21 09:04:37 AM
Now, if they took all those dead cats and made a couple of coats out of them, would that be wrong??
 
2013-03-21 09:06:08 AM

cynicalbastard: KawaiiNot: karnal: At least no poultry was harmed

I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.

There are non-edible animals?


www.eonline.com
 
2013-03-21 09:06:22 AM

notto: phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?

You are more than welcome to go free the animals and take on their care if you disagree with their decision.  They will even carry them to your car.  See the difference?


I never once saw a film with NAZI's commenting on it being their, and everyone's, duty to safeguard Jews and to not use Jew derived products (even while doing so).

Yes I do
 
2013-03-21 09:06:23 AM
This is old news. PETA is a bunch of raging hypocrites that has stated it's bad to use animal derived medicine while they have insulin dependent VIPs. They've also stated that it'd be better for all pets to be dead than in the hands of caring owners.
 
2013-03-21 09:06:51 AM

meanmutton: DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.

No, they don't.  They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.


Agreed on that. 89.24% euthanized is WAY too high. I have actually brought up this to some PETA idiot before (I live near the shiathole that is that PETA HQ). They said the numbers were "exaggerated" and "not representative of the actual number adopted out."
Bullshiat.
 
2013-03-21 09:08:18 AM
In my town an old crazy woman died and they had to remove 29 cats from the basement.

Not the kinda cats that are cool either.
 
2013-03-21 09:09:15 AM

Ringshadow: This is old news. PETA is a bunch of raging hypocrites that has stated it's bad to use animal derived medicine while they have insulin dependent VIPs. They've also stated that it'd be better for all pets to be dead than in the hands of caring owners.


This thread has already shown that there are people unaware that the way they run their shelter is vastly different from the way reputable animal shelters are run.
 
2013-03-21 09:10:44 AM
I live in VA. My previous job involved a lot of driving, and everytime I took the highway through Norfolk, I'd roll down the window and flip off their headquarters building as I drove past. I'm not sure how much good this did, but it did make me feel better. I like to imagine that at least one crazed animal lover/killer saw me flipping them off, got to thinking about why someone would hate PETA so damn much, and decide to reevaluate their life.
 
2013-03-21 09:12:45 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


congrats you support terrorism and murdering animals because its wrong to treat them to a life of luxury where their biggest worry is whether to sit on the couch or carpet.

but its for their own good.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-21 09:13:12 AM

phrawgh: Fur is murder.


I never tried the fur, always just went straight for the tasty, tasty, cooked meat.
 
2013-03-21 09:13:39 AM

DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.


What protest would you be talking about, exactly?
 
2013-03-21 09:16:46 AM
meanmutton:

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-21 09:16:47 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: pkrzycki: AverageAmericanGuy: If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...

I'm okay with this. Enslavement of animals as "pets" is pretty sick on the face of it.


LOL, wut?!
 
2013-03-21 09:17:06 AM

DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.


A Google search turns up only a single hit for PETA protesting an animal shelter, and it happened to be one that sold animals to the University of Utah for research and dissection. And that's from peta-sucks.com, so I doubt they were pulling punches.
 
2013-03-21 09:19:49 AM
I suggest PETA should protest itself with dozens of naked women hurling buckets of paint over each other in symbolic protest at this mass murder. Everyone else can call them what they are - attention whoring hypocrites. There are dozens of far more deserving and reputable animal welfare organisations who should receive donations before these clowns.
 
2013-03-21 09:21:48 AM

Smidge204: Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?
=Smidge=


I always thought this was the State Dept. of Natural Resources responsibility.  Since when do they allow PETA to do this?
 
2013-03-21 09:21:48 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm okay with this. If people would properly spay and neuter their pets, the stray animal population would be a non-issue and people wouldn't end up with litters they didn't want.

Euthanizing the animals may be sad, but the reason for their deaths is because people don't care enough to have a simple procedure carried out on their pets.

It's far better these animals are put down quietly and humanely than to have them die of starvation, used as practice targets, run over by cars, poisoned, or mauled by other animals.


bob barker is that you?

but i do agree
 
2013-03-21 09:22:28 AM

notto: meanmutton:

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.


That's quite an interesting hypothesis.  What evidence do you have to back that up?  Are their intake rules such that they ONLY take in severely sick or injured animals?  If so, please feel free to provide some evidence to back up that assertion.
 
2013-03-21 09:23:01 AM

pkrzycki: Smidge204: Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?


This made me do a WTF take too... I can understand cats, everyone hates cats, but random racoons/deer/squirrels.... that's just wrong...


Maybe the animals are injured beyond recovery?  I can't imagine they would euthanize healthy wildlife.
 
2013-03-21 09:23:19 AM

Ennuipoet: What?  Did you expect them to do something humane like care for them?  That would get in the way of making money for PETA!


And when you surrender an animal, they blame you.  Even if you found it stray and knew you couldn't handle another animal.
 
2013-03-21 09:23:37 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm okay with this. Enslavement of animals as "pets" is pretty sick on the face of it.


Pretty sure I'm my dogs' slave, not the other way around.

/never seen them pick up my poop
//however much the neighbours complain about me doing it on the pavement
 
2013-03-21 09:24:11 AM

booger42: I've heard of No-kill shelters, but these guys seem to run Kill-Kill shelters.

/Fark Peta with a rusty nail


Well... duh.  PeTA ain't exactly in the pet rescue business.  There are plenty of organizations that deal with that specifically.
 
2013-03-21 09:24:15 AM

karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.


Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.
 
2013-03-21 09:24:19 AM

TheGreatGazoo: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: I'm going to find a place where they're euthanizing animals close to my house, rummage around in their dumpsters, and make clothes with  the fur from animals they've euthanized.
 That way no animals are killed specifically for their fur.  The animals that are killed don't go to waste.  And since my clothes are made locally, rather than arriving in shipping containers from Asia, I'll be reducing carbon emissions as well as striking a blow to sweat shops and chid labor.  I'll be the greenest muther effer on the block.

Generally the incinerate the corpses so they don't spread disease.

Plus the chemicals you would need to use to stabilize the skins would make you decide that this was a bad idea very quickly.


They always poo poo the visionaries.  I expected this.
 
2013-03-21 09:25:03 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


so much this.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-21 09:26:26 AM

pkrzycki: Smidge204: Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?


This made me do a WTF take too... I can understand cats, everyone hates cats, but random racoons/deer/squirrels.... that's just wrong...


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
"Up urs 2-legs"
 
2013-03-21 09:26:53 AM

meanmutton: notto: meanmutton:

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.

That's quite an interesting hypothesis.  What evidence do you have to back that up?  Are their intake rules such that they ONLY take in severely sick or injured animals?  If so, please feel free to provide some evidence to back up that assertion.


Know how I know you don't know what "more lenient" means?
 
2013-03-21 09:28:22 AM

Smidge204: WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?


Yeah, in many cases some of the euthanization guidelines that PETA recommends are not able to be done by people that actually find the animals or for wildlife rehab centers, etc that may have animals that have to be euthanized.

While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible.  Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.
 
2013-03-21 09:29:07 AM
What the fark is *Miscellaneous?
 
2013-03-21 09:31:16 AM

me texan: Smidge204: WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?

Yeah, in many cases some of the euthanization guidelines that PETA recommends are not able to be done by people that actually find the animals or for wildlife rehab centers, etc that may have animals that have to be euthanized.

While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible.  Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.


Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.
 
2013-03-21 09:33:15 AM

notto: They will even carry them to your car.  See the difference?


It's not a boxcar?
 
2013-03-21 09:33:17 AM

nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.


I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.
 
2013-03-21 09:34:04 AM

Carn: Well, I assume at least nobody ate them after they were pumped full of death chemicals?  Everybody listen to Bob Barker and get your pets fixed.  Kill shelters suck, but I understand the necessity.


Anyone with sense knows that kill shelters are sometimes necessary.  The problem is that being dropped off at PETA is a death sentence

They aren't a kill shelter, they're a kill factory  and this isn't news.  They've been operating this way for years.

I'll slightly disagree with the hypocrite part.  They're more pure con artists, making money off the ignorant masses that think they're doing something to help poor fluffy when they donate.

TheGreatGazoo: Generally the incinerate the corpses so they don't spread disease

.

Generally, but he's in luck if he's talking about a PETA facility.  They will indeed just toss them in the dumpster.

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2007/01/24/testimony-underwa y- in-peta-trial/
 
2013-03-21 09:34:46 AM
chubby muppet

What the fark is *Miscellaneous?

Chupacabra, Yetti, midgets..
 
2013-03-21 09:37:57 AM

SwiftFox: National humane organizations have a problem: Either they are the ones like PETA that operate and support animal shelters, which inevitably results in euthanasia for homeless animals that can not be placed with new owners and complaints that they are wasting money with any political work they do, or like the Humane Society of the United States they are organized for advocacy work and run no shelters - which results in complaints they are illegitimate or hypocritical as a humane organization because they run no animal shelters.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.


No they aren't.  PETA doesn't kill animals that can't be placed, they just kill them all and have done so for decades.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Better-dead-than-fed- PE TA-says-2626614.php

PETA's final solution is indeed the animal version of Hitler's.
 
2013-03-21 09:38:21 AM
Is this the thread where we magically turn peoples sickening disregard for their own animals into hate against the agency cleaning up after them?
 
2013-03-21 09:38:38 AM
Area Man Passionate Enemy Of What He Imagines PeTA To Be
 
2013-03-21 09:39:08 AM
So has anyone else seen the Cool Whip commercial for Mistreated Cakes? Was watching TV last night and had to rewind it I was laughing so hard.
 
2013-03-21 09:39:41 AM

chubby muppet: What the fark is *Miscellaneous?

Escaped?

Served at Korean Ambassador's dinner?
 
2013-03-21 09:39:42 AM

JustGetItRight: Generally, but he's in luck if he's talking about a PETA facility.  They will indeed just toss them in the dumpster.

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2007/01/24/testimony-underwa y- in-peta-trial/


[Citation needed], since your article disagrees with you:
Brown added that it is PETA's normal operating procedure to place dead animals into heavy duty black trash bags. However, those bags were to be properly disposed in a landfill or incinerated at PETA headquarters.
 
2013-03-21 09:41:12 AM

karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.


Their basic philosophy is that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans.

When you claim you believe that, and spend your budget protesting other causes while killing animals that you could instead care for?

IMO Peta is a bad thing for animals all in all. Legitimate problems like poor care in some zoos (and I believe for any intelligent animals like dolphins) are ignored by the general public because of fringe behavior from these nut balls.
 
2013-03-21 09:41:58 AM
Here we have the Portage County (Ohio) APL.  They run a no-kill shelter; yes there are such things.

They provide many services to the residents of Portage County--one of which is an "admissions service for those who must give up their pet or turn in an animal".
Their focus is "care and welfare of the abused, abandoned, sick and injured dogs and cats that come through our doors".  As opposed to exploiting animal suffering to generate outrage and contributions.

There are many such organizations--they don't get much press because their purpose is not to glorify their own importance.  If you care about animals or pets in particular and want to really help them, find such an organization in your area and get involved.

If there isn't one locally, contact a distant one and ask them how they did it.  And start one.
 
2013-03-21 09:42:47 AM
meanmutton:

This thread has already shown that there are people unaware that the way they run their shelter is vastly different from the way reputable animal shelters are run.

There was a news story going around YEARS ago, I mean I think I wasn't even in middle school, that talked about the fact that PETA would go to vets, persuade them to give up healthy animals waiting for adoption, then kill them in a van inside of an hour after that and throw the bodies into dumpsters.

And they were proud of this.
 
2013-03-21 09:43:32 AM

meanmutton: That's quite an interesting hypothesis.  What evidence do you have to back that up?  Are their intake rules such that they ONLY take in severely sick or injured animals?  If so, please feel free to provide some evidence to back up that assertion.


PETA offers free euthanasia service for people who can't afford to take their sick animals to the vet and even for other animal shelters.  What monsters.
 
2013-03-21 09:44:25 AM

JustGetItRight: SwiftFox: National humane organizations have a problem: Either they are the ones like PETA that operate and support animal shelters, which inevitably results in euthanasia for homeless animals that can not be placed with new owners and complaints that they are wasting money with any political work they do, or like the Humane Society of the United States they are organized for advocacy work and run no shelters - which results in complaints they are illegitimate or hypocritical as a humane organization because they run no animal shelters.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

No they aren't.  PETA doesn't kill animals that can't be placed, they just kill them all and have done so for decades.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Better-dead-than-fed- PE TA-says-2626614.php

PETA's final solution is indeed the animal version of Hitler's.


... That's the same exact story you linked to before. It doesn't count as a pattern of behavior when you find a dozen newspapers all reporting on the same event.
 
2013-03-21 09:45:29 AM

Ringshadow: meanmutton:

This thread has already shown that there are people unaware that the way they run their shelter is vastly different from the way reputable animal shelters are run.

There was a news story going around YEARS ago, I mean I think I wasn't even in middle school, that talked about the fact that PETA would go to vets, persuade them to give up healthy animals waiting for adoption, then kill them in a van inside of an hour after that and throw the bodies into dumpsters.

And they were proud of this.


That's also the same story as the two JustGetItRight linked. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it actually happen more often.
 
2013-03-21 09:46:50 AM
 
2013-03-21 09:47:15 AM
Looks like PETA in Virginia has a very shiatty track record of rehoming cats and dogs. That's what happens when your organization is so batshiat crazy that no one wants anything to do with you.
 
2013-03-21 09:48:01 AM

pkrzycki: AverageAmericanGuy:

If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...


Oh yeah, like we're ever going to stop breeding cats & dogs on purpose. The argument for "fixing" pets is to prevent accidental litters that people can't or won't take care of.

OTOH dwindling the human population down to zero or very close to it sounds like a good idea. And I've never had any kids so nobody can accuse me of hypocrisy.
 
2013-03-21 09:48:08 AM
718 of 733 dogs were "surrendered", I'd say abandoned, by their owners (Yo mama next?!)... 12 were adopted...
Two things can be done (besides the whining in this thread):
1. Let's do something about the cause, not the result.
2. Or pay more taxes to have the animals taken care of, so people can buy more puppies and abandon those later.
Neither is popular in this country. Business is everything.
 
2013-03-21 09:48:32 AM
PETA- we are for the ethical treatment of animals...unless it costs us money, then fark it, we'll just kill 'em!


PETA- Fur is Murder. Meat is murder. Murder (euthanizing animals)... is ethical.
 
2013-03-21 09:49:14 AM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: chubby muppet

What the fark is *Miscellaneous?

Chupacabra, Yetti, midgets..


Hung over old Farkers...
 
2013-03-21 09:49:59 AM
West Virginia has got to eat something...
 
2013-03-21 09:50:36 AM
Should have said "executing". "Euthanising" has a slightly positive connotation
 
2013-03-21 09:52:06 AM
Government - claims to help you, takes your money and uses it to make more Government. Problems remain.

Non-profits - claim to help you, take your money and use it to make more Non-Profits. Problems remain.

PARASITES
 
2013-03-21 09:52:15 AM

meanmutton: DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.

No, they don't.  They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.


I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.
 
2013-03-21 09:53:52 AM
What is *Miscellaneous exactly if it's not adopted, reclaimed, euthanized or transferred?
 
2013-03-21 09:54:01 AM
I wonder how many of the people who surrendered their pets to PETA did so because they believed that PETA would not kill them.
 
2013-03-21 09:56:53 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


That's why i support capital punishment
 
2013-03-21 09:58:22 AM

RatzFatz: 718 of 733 dogs were "surrendered", I'd say abandoned, by their owners (Yo mama next?!)... 12 were adopted...
Two things can be done (besides the whining in this thread):
1. Let's do something about the cause, not the result.
2. Or pay more taxes to have the animals taken care of, so people can buy more puppies and abandon those later.
Neither is popular in this country. Business is everything.


I'd go for stricter controls on who can have pets.
My crazy aunt, for example, cycles dogs every year or so. She never spays or neuters them. Once they get to not be puppies anymore she dumps them at the pound because they're too much to handle.
How is an adult dog harder to handle than a puppy, you ask? Well it's easy if you don't try to teach the puppy any rules... So now here you go pound, a 1 year old misbehaving hellion. Have fun adopting this dog out.
The woman should be forbidden from keeping animals, but there's no law here to make that happen.
 
2013-03-21 09:59:35 AM
"Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?
 
2013-03-21 10:00:23 AM
PETA shares a flaw common with a number of social justice movements: They're so utterly and completely convinced that theirs is the One True Way that they don't ever consider the need to pick their battles. As such, they come across as a lunatic fringe element who's ideals (even the good ones) are summarily dismissed.
 
2013-03-21 10:00:39 AM
Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.

 
PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.

 
Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor. 

 
Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.

 
PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.
 
2013-03-21 10:04:59 AM

Walker: Do as they say, not as they do.
OMG YOU'RE WEARING FUR, I'M THROWING BLOOD ON YOU!!!!*

*as soon as I kill about 50 dogs today


Where do you think they get such a steady supply of blood?
 
2013-03-21 10:05:07 AM
Some homeless animals have to be euthanized for various reasons, and that's understandable.

Not everyone who surrenders their pet is an abusive g*t, and they may surrender the pet to PETA because the name implies the organization has ethics as far as animal welfare is concerned.  Likewise if someone finds an animal.

If PETA want to advertise their policy as loudly as they trumpet the rest of their cause; i.e. we don't try to place animals, we simply kill them to prove our point, that's perfectly acceptable.  But they don't; they claim the figures are wrong and carrying on raising money.  There are plenty of other charities which do actually care for animals - yes they will kill some of them, but not nearly as often as the preachy, right-on PETA w*nkers.
 
2013-03-21 10:05:16 AM

ReapTheChaos: 1045 cats euthanized, well that's a good start at least, but they're really going to have to step it up if they're going to solve the problem.


And then where would your internet be?
 
2013-03-21 10:08:52 AM

phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?


Arf! *bite* macht frei.
 
2013-03-21 10:10:12 AM

dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?


Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc
 
2013-03-21 10:10:28 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


have three cats... contemplating a 4th.  All 3 rescues.
 
2013-03-21 10:12:40 AM

jfivealive: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/


PETA Kills Animals is a campaign by the Center for Consumer Freedom, "an American non-profit firm that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries".
 
2013-03-21 10:14:01 AM

cousin-merle: jfivealive: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

PETA Kills Animals is a campaign by the Center for Consumer Freedom, "an American non-profit firm that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries".


So that makes them wrong?
 
2013-03-21 10:14:13 AM
We had to kill the animals to save the animals.
 
2013-03-21 10:16:47 AM

nocturnal001: karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.

Their basic philosophy is that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans.

When you claim you believe that, and spend your budget protesting other causes while killing animals that you could instead care for?

IMO Peta is a bad thing for animals all in all. Legitimate problems like poor care in some zoos (and I believe for any intelligent animals like dolphins) are ignored by the general public because of fringe behavior from these nut balls.


Those "protests" you keep railing on about don't cost PeTA money... they MAKE PeTA money.  Do you think that PeTA would be a household name both here and abroad if not for these admittedly zany protests?
 
2013-03-21 10:18:02 AM

Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.


PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.


Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.


Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.


PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.


If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.
Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.
 
2013-03-21 10:19:28 AM

meanmutton: Ringshadow: This is old news. PETA is a bunch of raging hypocrites that has stated it's bad to use animal derived medicine while they have insulin dependent VIPs. They've also stated that it'd be better for all pets to be dead than in the hands of caring owners.

This thread has already shown that there are people unaware that the way they run their shelter is vastly different from the way reputable animal shelters are run.


This.

These people defending PETA, they're the Fark people you interact with every time you post on fark.

Even if some are trolls, you know people all over actually support PETA.  It's not like they're a legitimate business.  They have people all over completely snowed and that's where the money comes from.

Why the organization can no longer support itself, then it's old news.  Till then, they deserve any and every negative news story that comes their way.
 
2013-03-21 10:19:31 AM
We must kill them all to save them from how cruel life is.  Don't you get it?

Actually, I don't really disagree with euthanizing animals before they over-breed and create a situation where even more animals will suffer and die.  I just think most people that are part of PETA are self-righteous douche bags that get into other people's business (specifically food choices) way too much.  Is it even possible for someone to become a vegetarian without becoming a peachy little biatch about it anymore?
 
2013-03-21 10:21:09 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?

Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc


Sure, but its not miscellaneous animals.  It's miscellaneous dispositions.  Were they eaten?
 
2013-03-21 10:21:12 AM

nickerj1: Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.


PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.


Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.


Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.


PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.

If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.


shiat, it was supposed to be 8949-1875: 7074 total taken in
644/7074 = 9.14%
 
2013-03-21 10:23:11 AM
In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.
 
2013-03-21 10:24:52 AM
Admittedly, any shelter that doesn't turn away animals is going to have to euthanize a lot.   Many are just not adoptable either because they have health or temperament issues that render them unplaceable (abused animals are frequently poorly socialized to begin with) or just not cute enough to fill the demand.

The problem is that PeTAs numbers however are staggering.   The truth of the matter is that they actively propose against keeping pets, so it seems they have somewhat of a conflict of interest trying to place animals.   8/1000+ cats is horrendous.   In fact, there's no practical way for the public to adopt a PETA "rescued" animal.  The shelter is not open to the public.   There is, in fact, no attempt to place these animals.

In fact, PeTA is a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites.   They publish their own "standards" that shelters should follow, but their own shelter misses the proposed standards by a mile.

In fact, the shelter in the article was operating illegaly and the Virginia humane people (DACS) found that they were not treating the animals humanely.
 
2013-03-21 10:27:14 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.


It's much higher, but it's hardly indefensible. PETA shelters accept any animal in any condition. Very, very few shelters do that. They also take in a huge number of surrenders which can be euthanized the same day.

As a result, they have an unusually high euthanasia rate.

Industry groups associated with restaurants, supermarkets, etc. that get annoyed at PETA for protesting their practices or exposing abuse in their farms then latch onto this statistic and trumpet it every couple of months without any context to make it seem like PETA is just killing animals left and right for no reason.

Then stupid people on Fark run with it without thinking about it for even a second.

Then we wind up having this retarded thread for the billionth time and a bunch of dumb people who just like to whine every time "PETA" comes up start screaming their fool heads off because "ZOMG hippies!".

/ then Drew writes a book as if he's somehow above the sewer he's complaining about instead of one of its biggest contributors
 
2013-03-21 10:29:16 AM
stop with your whining about how peta helps, is a benevolent organization blah blah
it's a cult for weak minded and overly sympathetic
animal companion..really

supporting domestic terrorists
firebombing buildings,
releasing non native species to the wild in the name of freedom
helping and hiding members of elf and alf
setting up protests

inspiring idiots with crap information
apparently, like you
 
2013-03-21 10:30:45 AM

karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.


They believe owning a pet is akin to slavery, as far as being degrading to animals.  These people are that whacked out.  They have associations with ALF, IE paid them large sums of money.  ALF is a militant PETA.  Not in the figurative way, but the literal way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front

Don't mistake that for Alf, the funny alien from the sitcom.  Though there is an odd thing there, Alf was always trying to eat the cat.
 
2013-03-21 10:32:43 AM

spiderpaz: Is it even possible for someone to become a vegetarian without becoming a peachy little biatch about it anymore?


No. PETA is selling an identity, not an ideology.
 
2013-03-21 10:33:09 AM

karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.


<welcometofark.jpg>
 
2013-03-21 10:33:30 AM

WhippingBoy: So that makes them wrong?


Does that look like an honest website to you?  Do they mention that PETA offers free euthanasia service for people who can't afford to take their pets to the vet?  They also offer this service to animal shelters.  There is a link on that site though that will give you a better idea of the real story from VA inspection.  Basically, they take in the bad animals and refer the good ones to actual animal shelters.  PETA doesn't run an adoption service open to the public.  Here's an excerpt from the VA inspection report:

"Ms. Nachminovitch indicated that the majority of the animals that were taken into custody by PETA were considered by them to be unadoptable.  Adoptable animals were routinely referred to other area animal shelters; conversely PETA often took custody of animals denied admittance by other area shelters.  Ms. Nachminovitch confirmed that the shelter was not accessible to the public, and that most adoptions of animals were to PETA employees and affiliates."

They aren't trying to find homes for animals.  It is a straw man argument because they intentionally take in the sick animals to give a humane death, for free.  Now, as for the classification as an animal shelter per VA law, maybe they deserve to lose that and whatever legal/tax benefits it offers.
 
2013-03-21 10:33:36 AM
Two weird things I noticed:

1) No animals died in facility (except the ones euthanized).  None.  If PETA takes in animals in any condition. and makes any sort of effort to save at least some of them instead of euthanizing them right away, wouldn't they have lost a few?  It seems to me that the only way to make sure you have no non-euthanasia deaths is to euthanize every animal ASAP.

2) Only one animal, a dog, was on hand on December 31.  This sort of supports the "euthanize every animal as soon as you get them" scenario.
 
2013-03-21 10:33:42 AM
Came for pictures of naked PETA models.

Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:04 AM
skozlaw:
It's much higher, but it's hardly indefensible. PETA shelters accept any animal in any condition. Very, very few shelters do that. They also take in a huge number of surrenders which can be euthanized the same day.

They have to euthanize them immediately, they in fact have next to NO capacity to house animals.   They have no procedure for the public to see the animals and adopt.    Essentially they are doing nothing but offering a garbage can for people to drop off animals they want disposed of.   They make a giant crying thing about some alleged man who tried to drop his dog at a no kill shelter and they couldn't accept it so the man killed the dog himself.   Nope, PeTA is the only one who is allowed to kill animals.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:50 AM

scallywaghotness: In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.


i1308.photobucket.com
Disapproves of your trolling
 
2013-03-21 10:35:43 AM

natas6.0: stop with your whining about how peta helps, is a benevolent organization blah blah
it's a cult for weak minded and overly sympathetic
animal companion..really

supporting domestic terrorists
firebombing buildings,
releasing non native species to the wild in the name of freedom
helping and hiding members of elf and alf
setting up protests

inspiring idiots with crap information
apparently, like you


Worst poem ever.
 
2013-03-21 10:36:03 AM

Cold_Sassy: Smidge204: Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?
=Smidge=

I always thought this was the State Dept. of Natural Resources responsibility.  Since when do they allow PETA to do this?


No, it is not their responsibility only. Rehabilitators of wildlife can take wildlife that is called in or they find (chemical burns, broken legs, caught in fence and partly disembowled, etc) to a veterinary clinic that they have a relationship with and get the licensed veterinarian to administer the euthanasia. I worked at a clinic north of Houston that had a rehabber for deer that used us every now and then, although the biggest animal she ever brought in was a 4-point buck in the bed of a pickup.

Probably the same deal going on here.
 
2013-03-21 10:39:40 AM

phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?


It's their Meowschwitz
 
2013-03-21 10:40:56 AM

nickerj1: nickerj1: Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.

PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.

Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.

Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.

PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.

If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.

shiat, it was supposed to be 8949-1875: 7074 total taken in
644/7074 = 9.14%


Your numbers are still wrong.  In 2011 (the 2012 numbers on VDACS are wonky and 2011 is more typical), statewide, 53,634/111,131 = 48.3% of cats were euthanized and 31,071/125,787 = 24.7% of dogs were euthanized.  Of course, when you consider that PETA specifically takes in sick animals, for free, so people can afford a humane death for their pet instead of going to the vet, the PETA numbers don't look so bad.  They don't even run a public adoption service.  This whole thing is a smear campaign based on a false premise run by an industry lobbying group.
 
2013-03-21 10:48:54 AM
That's a lot of wasted meat.
 
2013-03-21 10:53:13 AM
I swear, "Bullshiat" has spread more stupid ideas than they ever fought.
 
2013-03-21 10:54:01 AM
Hardly a smear.   PeTA lies.    In fact, PeTA diverts the animals from a plethora of Tidewater shelters that *DO NOT CHARGE FOR RECEIVING NOR TURN AWAY ANIMALS*.   PeTA is not offering a unique or even necessary service to the region.   PeTA is advancing their agenda that people should not have animals under any circumstances and has set up a black hole to suck in and KILL animals (there is no attempt to place them otherwise) because they don't want the animals to be adopted.
 
2013-03-21 10:55:53 AM
I'm fairly certain that euthanizing useless animals is the only responsible and productive thing PETA does.
 
2013-03-21 10:59:26 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: pkrzycki: AverageAmericanGuy: If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...

I'm okay with this. Enslavement of animals as "pets" is pretty sick on the face of it.



i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-21 10:59:32 AM
me texan: While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible.  Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.



Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.



That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger.  You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else.  And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical.  Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral.  We get defensive and angry.  And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

That alone is sufficient to explain a lot of the anger against PETA.  But there are other reasons.  I won't even try to list them all, but I will give my own personal favorite: animal testing.

As you know, PETA is infamously opposed to ALL animal testing, no matter what medical breakthrough might arise from it.  And, I'll admit that this position is consistent with the premise that an animal's life is every bit as valuable as a human's.  But it leads to vast amounts of suffering and death for humans.  It's one thing to say, "You shouldn't wear fur" or "You shouldn't eat meat" for the sake of animal welfare.  It's quite another to say, "You should suffer for years and then die miserably" for animal rights, and that is precisely the implication of being adamantly opposed to any form of animal testing whatsoever.

I hate to resort to hyperbole like "attempted murder" or "war," but PETA has a clearly-defined agenda which -- they freely and cheerful admit --- would result in the painful death of millions of humans.  As a diabetic, I am one of those millions who would be dead if PETA had their way.  Even if I wasn't, I know too many other people who depend on medication that PETA would take from their hands.  It is, from this point of view, a struggle for survival.  PETA quite literally wants me dead.  I, in turn, want PETA dead metaphorically.

Let me be clear: I wish no physical harm or violence against its members, but I very much would like to see PETA as an organization utterly destroyed, or at least rendered completely neutralized.
 
2013-03-21 10:59:37 AM

dustygrimp: AverageAmericanGuy: dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?

Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc

Sure, but its not miscellaneous animals.  It's miscellaneous dispositions.  Were they eaten?


Released maybe?
 
2013-03-21 11:01:22 AM

cousin-merle: They offer free euthanasia services to counties that kill unwanted animals via gassing or shooting.


You know who ELSE approved of getting rid of the undesirables by gassing?

/Yes. I know this thread has already been Godwinned, SHUTUP
 
2013-03-21 11:02:13 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm okay with this. If people would properly spay and neuter their pets, the stray animal population would be a non-issue and people wouldn't end up with litters they didn't want.

Euthanizing the animals may be sad, but the reason for their deaths is because people don't care enough to have a simple procedure carried out on their pets.

It's far better these animals are put down quietly and humanely than to have them die of starvation, used as practice targets, run over by cars, poisoned, or mauled by other animals.


So You want what little is left of our ecosystem wiped out too? This will end well.
 
2013-03-21 11:03:45 AM

ciberido: but I very much would like to see PETA as an organization utterly destroyed, or at least rendered completely neutralizedered.


FTFM
 
2013-03-21 11:04:37 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?

Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc


I've always wanted a pet clam...
 
2013-03-21 11:07:00 AM
Yes, picking up the slack of a bunch of losers who don't spay and neuter their animals makes PETA bad.

Petition your representative to shut down puppy mills and make the sale of cats and dogs illegal if you really care that much.
 
2013-03-21 11:14:16 AM
Yeah, and I'm the one yelled at by a chick here at work for trying to find a home for my cat, which we're giving away due to my kid's allergies.

We got him from the pound in the first place, and don't want to give him back because we like him and don't want to send him back to get placed with a possibly-weird owner, or get euthanized if he's there too long.

But I'm the bad guy because "I'm shirking my responsibility as a pet owner".  I reminded her I could just shogun him in the head to fix our problem, and he wouldn't feel any pain.

/She doesn't bring up my ability to be nice to animals anymore.
 
2013-03-21 11:14:51 AM

ciberido: Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger.  You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else.  And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical.  Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral.  We get defensive and angry.  And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.


Except that PETA's not actually being hypocritical here. And to further crush the analogy, the people criticizing PETA don't actually disagree with what they're doing. It'd be like finding out that the anti-gay politician secretly uses drugs, and then having a bunch of drug-users criticizing them. Or, even more aptly, like people who love eating meat and who fudge their tax deductions criticizing a vegan who cheats on their taxes.
Hence why it's concern trolling: you disagree with the policy behind the organization, not this specific action... so being all "boo hoo, this specific action is awful!" is disingenuous.
 
2013-03-21 11:17:02 AM

FeatheredSun: Is this the thread where we magically turn peoples sickening disregard for their own animals into hate against the agency cleaning up after them?


No, this is the thread where people defend a villainous organization by misrepresenting and distorting the record of what that organization has done and has stated they intend to do.

But, you see, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric which makes people bemused and angry.  The very name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sends the message that anyone who disagrees with their policies in the slightest is unethical.  So you've insulted the rest of the world before even opening your mouth.  And now here we have one of their defenders using the phrase "peoples sickening disregard for their own animals" to mean anyone who even owns a pet is "sickening" and devoid of compassion.

This why we hate you.  And yes, in some cases things have progressed to utter hate.  Because you and your ilk are sanctimonious, judgmental hypocrites.  Even if your basic philosophy is one that others sympathize with, even admire, your combativeness turns potential allies into enemies.   There is sadly, little room for compromise once people start describing the people they disagree with as "disgusting."

I fear we really are getting closer to the point where the animosity transforms into outright violence.  I am reminded of anti-abortion activists who blow up medical clinics and shoot doctors in their own homes.  Once you convince yourself that a fetus or a cat deserves the same rights as a human being, you've started down a path that is likely to lead you to shooting someone or blowing something up.  Then even people who AGREE with you want to see you locked up.  But long before you get to THAT point, you will reach a stage where people really do hate you.  Not just oppose you, but downright hate you and all that you stand for.

So now would be a good time to take a step back and ask yourself how we got here, and is there not some less-offensive way to get your message across?
 
2013-03-21 11:18:35 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


Yeah. Humane like their kill-on-admittance policy for certain breeds of dogs. And their illegal euthanasia and dumping of animal bodies.
 
2013-03-21 11:18:38 AM

notto: phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?

You are more than welcome to go free the animals and take on their care if you disagree with their decision.  They will even carry them to your car.  See the difference?


Way to double down on being an idiot. PTEA's stance is that you shouldn't have animals, so they're not going to give them back to you.
 
2013-03-21 11:19:20 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: meanmutton: DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.

No, they don't.  They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.

I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.



Did .... did you not RTFA at all?
 
2013-03-21 11:22:52 AM

scallywaghotness: In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.


The "Boo-hoo-hoo!  Poor little us!  We're slandered and it's so unfair!" tactic isn't appreciated. Or effective.

You want to defend PETA, fine, defend PETA.  But whining that we're big ol' meanings is contemptible.
 
2013-03-21 11:24:32 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Meowschwitz


Win!

_______________________________

For the deniers:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2008/10/134-7-things-you-didnt-know-a bo ut-peta/

http://thehayride.com/2012/02/peta-sues-to-end-animals-slavery/

Oh, those are PETA hating websites?

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/06/11/meat-equals-sl av ery.aspx

Some google links to the below go to animal cruelty or other pages(a redirect from embarrassment I think), but not all of them.

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2012/02/09/the-case-forev er -known-as-tilikum-v-seaworld.aspx

And some fun quotes:

"The definition of slavery does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on the race, gender, or ethnicity of the slave," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman.
__
How do you plan to observe the third-annual World Day Against Speciesism on June 5? The day is designed to remind people that speciesism, like racism and sexism, has no place in a civilized society. Prejudice toward animals is no more acceptable than prejudice toward humans.
__
Prejudice?  If I assume a dog is less intelligent than a human, I'm a bad guy now?  Or that cats are prone to scratch?  Someone call the police and have me arrested, apparently I'm guilty of all kinds of discrimination.  I refuse to sleep with the things, don't even let them eat at the same table, and won't hire them for jobs.  No wonder my dog refuses to answer the phone and take messages when I'm out.

Sure, they stand for some good things(crazy amounts of animal cruelty in the world), but take it way beyond the limit of rationality, as was exampled on the Penn & Tellers Bullshiat(and rightly mentioned up thread).

These people are mentally deficient, but due to some kind people being fooled, are supported indefinitely.
 
2013-03-21 11:25:58 AM

Theaetetus: natas6.0: stop with your whining about how peta helps, is a benevolent organization blah blah
it's a cult for weak minded and overly sympathetic
animal companion..really

supporting domestic terrorists
firebombing buildings,
releasing non native species to the wild in the name of freedom
helping and hiding members of elf and alf
setting up protests

inspiring idiots with crap information
apparently, like you

Worst poem ever.


Consider yourself lucky you've never met a Vogon.
 
2013-03-21 11:26:37 AM

ciberido: Did .... did you not RTFA at all?


It isn't necessarily a made-up statistic, but it is a misleading one.  PETA takes in sick animals for free so people can afford to euthanize humanely (vets are expensive), and they offer the same service to animal shelters.  They don't even run an adoption service.  They refer the healthy animals to the animal shelters and take the unhealthy animals that the shelters will not take.  All of this is in the VA inspection report, which I will conveniently link from the website of an industry lobbying group running the smear campaign.
 
2013-03-21 11:38:16 AM

ciberido: I fear we really are getting closer to the point where the animosity transforms into outright violence.  I am reminded of anti-abortion activists who blow up medical clinics and shoot doctors in their own homes.


Already happened.  PETA paid ALF member to firebomb a university lab.

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266

http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Exhibit_11.pdf

http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Exhibit_6.pdf

.gov Btw, not some meat eater blog.
 
2013-03-21 11:38:30 AM

Theaetetus: ciberido: Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger.  You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else.  And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical.  Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral.  We get defensive and angry.  And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

Except that PETA's not actually being hypocritical here. And to further crush the analogy, the people criticizing PETA don't actually disagree with what they're doing. It'd be like finding out that the anti-gay politician secretly uses drugs, and then having a bunch of drug-users criticizing them. Or, even more aptly, like people who love eating meat and who fudge their tax deductions criticizing a vegan who cheats on their taxes.
Hence why it's concern trolling: you disagree with the policy behind the organization, not this specific action... so being all "boo hoo, this specific action is awful!" is disingenuous.



Seriously,  Theaetetus?  Not hypocritical?  You really want to go there?  You DO know both Newkirk and Sweetland have type-I diabetes, right?

I'm just going to assume that you're having a bad day and didn't bother to Google before posting, because, in all sincerity, I have too much respect for you to think you're fully aware of what you're doing here.
 
2013-03-21 11:43:16 AM

ciberido: I very much would like to see PETA as an organization utterly destroyed, or at least rendered completely neutralized.


On the surface, the desire to treat animals ethically is admirable.  Perhaps they should revisit their charter and completly rethink tactics.

/Asidie from the getting naked stuff - that's cool.
 
2013-03-21 11:51:08 AM
I came for Penn and Teller, and leaving satisfied.
 
2013-03-21 11:55:25 AM

Bith Set Me Up: I came for Penn and Teller


What stripper in Vegas hasn't?
 
2013-03-21 11:56:41 AM

ciberido: Theaetetus: ciberido: Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.

That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger.  You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else.  And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical.  Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral.  We get defensive and angry.  And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

Except that PETA's not actually being hypocritical here. And to further crush the analogy, the people criticizing PETA don't actually disagree with what they're doing. It'd be like finding out that the anti-gay politician secretly uses drugs, and then having a bunch of drug-users criticizing them. Or, even more aptly, like people who love eating meat and who fudge their tax deductions criticizing a vegan who cheats on their taxes.
Hence why it's concern trolling: you disagree with the policy behind the organization, not this specific action... so being all "boo hoo, this specific action is awful!" is disingenuous.


Seriously,  Theaetetus?  Not hypocritical?  You really want to go there?  You DO know both Newkirk and Sweetland have type-I diabetes, right?

I'm just going to assume that you're having a bad day and did ...


I'm talking about the alleged hypocrisy of "PETA euthanizes animals! They're hypocrites!"
Frankly, I agree with you about the importance of medical testing, and I'm also anti-PETA for their sexist campaigns. I think there are many good reasons to disagree with PETA, but the euthanizing one isn't it, and it's particularly disingenuous when that criticism comes from people who have no problem with euthanasia. It's like someone eating a burger while criticizing a vegetarian for not being vegan, with a "but what about the poor widdle eggs?!"
 
2013-03-21 11:57:41 AM

karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.

Their basic philosophy is that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans.

When you claim you believe that, and spend your budget protesting other causes while killing animals that you could instead care for?

IMO Peta is a bad thing for animals all in all. Legitimate problems like poor care in some zoos (and I believe for any intelligent animals like dolphins) are ignored by the general public because of fringe behavior from these nut balls.

Those "protests" you keep railing on about don't cost PeTA money... they MAKE PeTA money.  Do you think that PeTA would be a household name both here and abroad if not for these admittedly zany protests?


So again, how is it ok for them to have the opinion that animal life is sacred, and then to kill animals themselves just because they are too expensive to care for?

This would be like the Catholic church euthanizing orphan babies due to lack of funding while at the same time spending money trying to get folks to avoid premarital sex.  Yeah, sure, if they were able to convince people to avoid premarital sex there would probably be fewer uncared for babies, but isn't that missing the point?  PETAs supposed ultimate goal is to protect animals.  By their standards of ethics, how is it ok to kill fluffy today in order to maybe save 2 rovers tomorrow?


From the PETA website.  "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."   This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example.  Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy. Now, you can say that they believe in the greater good (some animals are killed for lack of funding so we can save more in the long run).  That would be an entirely defensible viewpoint, but it really contradicts their idea that animals have the same rights as humans.

So, it's ok to kill dogs and cats in order to free up money to run the rest of the PETA organization (greater good!), but it's NOT ok to kill some mice in order to save a large number of human lives.  Right, that makes a lot of sense.  Animals can be killed for the greater good of other animals, but animals can not be killed for the greater good of humans.


To the PETA defenders generally.  This thread is a perfect demonstration that PETA is a failure as an organization.  PETA is incredibly disliked, and because of that people that would support many of these efforts (more nuetering, better controls on zoos, limiting animal reserarch, caring for farm animals better) instead write off these concerns as being BS perpetuated by "those crazy folks at PETA".
 
2013-03-21 11:58:48 AM

Theaetetus: me texan: Smidge204: WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?

Yeah, in many cases some of the euthanization guidelines that PETA recommends are not able to be done by people that actually find the animals or for wildlife rehab centers, etc that may have animals that have to be euthanized.

While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible.  Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.

Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.


     Have you ever been wrong in your life? When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility. You know, like David Suzuki. And you.
 
2013-03-21 12:08:52 PM

nocturnal001: From the PETA website.  "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."   This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example.  Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.


That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".
2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".
3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.
 
2013-03-21 12:08:54 PM

ciberido: DROxINxTHExWIND: meanmutton: DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.

No, they don't.  They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.

I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.


Did .... did you not RTFA at all?


He rarely gets the point.  Sort of like Bluto.
 
2013-03-21 12:10:54 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: Have you ever been wrong in your life?


Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.
 
2013-03-21 12:20:48 PM

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: From the PETA website.  "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."   This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example.  Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".
2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".
3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.


Well, it would be a strawman if they didn't believe that. You are either being disingenuous or naive if you think they don't believe that.  If animals can't be owned, killed, abused, etc. by humans then doesn't that exactly mean they have the same rights?  It does, yes.   PETA's wording could be swapping into the Decleration of Independence and the original meaning would be unchanged.


http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspx
Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."
 
2013-03-21 12:23:41 PM
theaetetus
that's just how I've posted here for years, but I do get it.

PETA has done a bad job for a long long time.
 You overlook that they support bad people  who are burning things and blowing things up
they have been killing critters for years
It's a cult, not helpful portion of society

Are you just trolling or are you a sycophant?
In the wake of facts that dispel the belief in this system that you are backing on fark
why is your opinion the same?
 
2013-03-21 12:23:46 PM

nocturnal001: So, it's ok to kill dogs and cats in order to free up money to run the rest of the PETA organization (greater good!), but it's NOT ok to kill some mice in order to save a large number of human lives.  Right, that makes a lot of sense.  Animals can be killed for the greater good of other animals, but animals can not be killed for the greater good of humans.


To the PETA defenders generally. This thread is a perfect demonstration that PETA is a failure as an organization. PETA is incredibly disliked, and because of that people that would support many of these efforts (more nuetering, better controls on zoos, limiting animal reserarch, caring for farm animals better) instead write off these concerns as being BS perpetuated by "those crazy folks at PETA".

Actually, this thread is a perfect demonstration that PETA is disliked mostly due to ignorance.  You are completely wrong about what you are accusing them of when you say they are killing animals to free up money.  They offer the service to pet owners for free.  It COSTS them money to kill these animals.  The intent is to provide humane euthanasia to people who can't afford to take their dying pet to the vet (or for animal shelters that gas/shoot animals).  They don't run an adoption service.  As far as animal testing, they are trying to bring our practices more in like with Canada and the EU.  You miss the whole point.  We should be moving away from animal testing wherever possible.  They support non-animal testing and other research, not just letting people die in the street.  You are taking their position to a non-existent extreme.

On the other hand, PETA does a lot of dumb things that hurt their image, like comparing slaughterhouses to the Holocaust.  Stick to the boobies and the issues, guys.
 
2013-03-21 12:24:08 PM

nocturnal001: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: From the PETA website.  "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."   This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example.  Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".
2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".
3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.

Well, it would be a strawman if they didn't believe that. You are either being disingenuous or naive if you think they don't believe that.  If animals can't be owned, killed, abused, etc. by humans then doesn't that exactly mean they have the same rights?  It does, yes.   PETA's wording could be swapping into the Decleration of Independence and the original meaning would be unchanged.


http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspx
Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."


Doubling down on your strawman still doesn't mean it's what PETA believes.
Look, if you can't argue using their actual words, and instead have to create some "animals have the same rights as humans" derp, then you have to expect some pushback.
 
2013-03-21 12:27:37 PM

natas6.0: theaetetus
that's just how I've posted here for years, but I do get it.

PETA has done a bad job for a long long time.
 You overlook that they support bad people  who are burning things and blowing things up
they have been killing critters for years
It's a cult, not helpful portion of society

Are you just trolling or are you a sycophant?
In the wake of facts that dispel the belief in this system that you are backing on fark
why is your opinion the same?


1.bp.blogspot.com
Are you a troll?
It's really hard.
This poem... sucks.
 
2013-03-21 12:27:51 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

They seem like a credible organization whose opinions should be taken seriously...
 
2013-03-21 12:35:19 PM

cousin-merle: They refer the healthy animals to the animal shelters and take the unhealthy animals that the shelters will not take. All of this is in the VA inspection report, which I will conveniently link from the website of an industry lobbying group running the smear campaign.


Except they don't.  They take every single animal they can, pressure you to give them animals you don't want to give, and kill almost every single one of them, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

You're reading the defense's accounts and ignoring any motivation they have to lie.
 
2013-03-21 12:37:58 PM

rnatalie: They have to euthanize them immediately, they in fact have next to NO capacity to house animals.


[citation needed]

I'm not saying you're wrong because I, personally, have no idea what their capacity is or isn't, but considering that the only reason this stupid "issue" ever seems to get out is because their commercial enemies publicize it to make them look bad for purely selfish reasons, I'm not just going to accept any and every claim made.

I'm largely indifferent to PETA, unlike the tons of whiners on Fark who seem compelled to take exception to every single thing they do just because, but I've seen this claim leveled over and over throughout the years and it has never passed the smell test when you actually start digging into the details. The sources are usually bullshiat, the context is always completely missing and there's never any comparative data offered.

PETA may not keep capacity for long term housing but that's not uncommon and painless euthanasia is still a damn sight better (and more ethical) than just letting some scumbag pet owner abandon an animal in his old house until it starves to death when the bank takes it and he has to go live in some slum apartment that doesn't allow pets.

And, again, PETA accepts anything. You don't keep housing if a lot of your animals are coming in are on their last legs with various diseases or too far wasted away to survive. You put them out of their misery quickly.
 
2013-03-21 12:39:35 PM
Theaetetus
Yea, yer just trollin'
but you have good taste in movies
 
2013-03-21 12:40:20 PM

Theaetetus: I think there are many good reasons to disagree with PETA, but the euthanizing one isn't it, and it's particularly disingenuous when that criticism comes from people who have no problem with euthanasia. It's like someone eating a burger while criticizing a vegetarian for not being vegan, with a "but what about the poor widdle eggs?!"


I get so sick of this shiat as a vegetarian.  They are just looking for fault in other people to justify their own ideology.

"Ha ha!  You are not perfect as a vegetarian because a combine harvester can kill field mice!  Therefore, it is totally okay for me to eat the same vegetables as you on top of the pile of meat from an animal that was treated inhumanely before being intentionally killed!"

Such lazy reasoning to make no effort to better the world around us.  Unfortunately, it is pretty popular for opposing any eco cause, like renewable energy (a bird died once hitting a windmill so let's just keep burning coal!).
 
2013-03-21 12:45:11 PM
Why don't all you idiots believe what I believe because I'm right and you're wrong?!!?!?!
 
2013-03-21 12:45:42 PM
Remember kids, if you don'e eat them, it's okay to just kill animals.
 
2013-03-21 12:46:28 PM
"Meat is murder," they cry as they euthanize approximately five animals a day.
 
2013-03-21 12:47:40 PM

Mr Guy: Except they don't.  They take every single animal they can, pressure you to give them animals you don't want to give, and kill almost every single one of them, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

You're reading the defense's accounts and ignoring any motivation they have to lie.


I'm reading the state of Virginia's inspection report posted on petakillsanimals.com, and the inspector agrees with the defense, but feel free to attack the source and make up whatever you want.  If they were doing what you said, wouldn't they be killing more than ~2,000 of the 90,000+ pets euthanized in Virginia each year?
 
2013-03-21 12:57:05 PM

Carn: Kill shelters suck, but I understand the necessity.


If you kill nearly all the kitties you take in, it's not a shelter.

It's Meowschwitz
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-21 01:00:29 PM

xanadian: AverageAmericanGuy: dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?

Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc

I've always wanted a pet clam...


I have one (holy crap i hope the GF don't see this thread....)
 
2013-03-21 01:03:59 PM
Yeah man, PeTA has been canvassing down here for years.  They send over the topless girls to go door to door and round up all these cats for them to gently kill.  I didn't want to give them any, but they were so persistent I gave them a cat and one turtle.  That is probably where the "misc" category comes from in their kill factories.  I though they were gone but just like the Nazi's at NPR, they come back now that they know I am a "supporter."  "Mr. Ceutical, we're counting on you for 3 cats and a hamster this year!" I had to throw a tablecloth over my aquarium so they wouldn't see my awesome collection on sea kittens.  I'm sure those small breasted ladies would have loved to get their resin stained fingers on those beauties.
 
2013-03-21 01:04:44 PM

cousin-merle: Mr Guy: Except they don't.  They take every single animal they can, pressure you to give them animals you don't want to give, and kill almost every single one of them, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

You're reading the defense's accounts and ignoring any motivation they have to lie.

I'm reading the state of Virginia's inspection report posted on petakillsanimals.com, and the inspector agrees with the defense, but feel free to attack the source and make up whatever you want.  If they were doing what you said, wouldn't they be killing more than ~2,000 of the 90,000+ pets euthanized in Virginia each year?


Reread your single inspection report.  It says absolutely nothing about whether or not it's true that all the animals they kill were unadoptable.  It says that's what the receptionist claims, and the inspector agrees with her that they clearly kill every animal they get, because there's no facilities to store them.  The finding of the inspector is that they don't count as an animal shelter because they are, in fact, an animal execution location.He then goes on to use numbers to demonstrate that, proving that over the last six years, they USED to try to transfer a small number of animals, but in the last couple years, they are down to 16 of 2,301 animals.  He's saying they declare 99% of animals they see to be unadoptable, with no proof what so ever, and promptly execute them.

Now it's your turn to provide any evidence that they actually have any higher percentage of injured, infirm, or socially maladjusted animals than anyone else.  You need to provide some evidence that they manage to select only unadoptable animals and not keep any records of all the animals they claim to transfer, but the inspector found they didn't.  You need to prove that 16 animals is even remotely reasonable as the correct number of animals that were salvageable, when every comparison against shelters that have more funding and more community presence shows there should be more adoptable animals that animals that need to be put down, and yet the consistently manage to kill 99% of the animals they see.  They claim to have records of all these transfers showing they don't kill everything, but their records turned out to be 16 dogs or cats compared to 2,301 they killed.
 
2013-03-21 01:12:12 PM

cynicalbastard: There are non-edible animals?


www.rocksbackpages.com
 
2013-03-21 01:29:46 PM

ciberido: me texan: While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible.  Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.


Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.


That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger.  You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else.  And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical.  Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral.  We get defensive and angry.  And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

That alone is sufficient to explain a lot of the anger against PETA.  But there are other reasons.  I won't even try to list them all, but I will give my own personal favorite: animal testing.

As you know, PETA is infamously opposed to ALL animal testing, no matter what medical breakthrough might arise from it.  And, I'll admit that this position is consistent with the premise that an animal's life is every bit as valuable as a human's.  But it leads to vast amounts of suffering and death for humans.  It's one thing to say, "You shouldn't wear fur" or "You shouldn't eat meat" for th ...


    You have also just condemned the banning of DDT simply because it thinned the shells of one species of bird. How many millions have died from malaria unnecesarily because of that disgusting woman that guilted the American public into banning it? I hear she has been called the mother of the green movement and was killed under mysterious circumstances. Insert picture of Tardar Sauce saying "good"

 /I feel dirty knowing we agree on something
//nice to see you can express yourself without being a douche on occasion
 
2013-03-21 01:32:56 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: You have also just condemned the banning of DDT simply because it thinned the shells of one species of bird when used in a manner inconsistent with it's labeling and recommended uses.


People always forget DDT was only a problem because we abused the crap out of it and didn't care about how much runoff we were accumulating.
 
2013-03-21 01:34:52 PM

Mr Guy: Reread your single inspection report.  It says absolutely nothing about whether or not it's true that all the animals they kill were unadoptable.  It says that's what the receptionist claims, and the inspector agrees with her that they clearly kill every animal they get, because there's no facilities to store them.  The finding of the inspector is that they don't count as an animal shelter because they are, in fact, an animal execution location.He then goes on to use numbers to demonstrate that, proving that over the last six years, they USED to try to transfer a small number of animals, but in the last couple years, they are down to 16 of 2,301 animals.  He's saying they declare 99% of animals they see to be unadoptable, with no proof what so ever, and promptly execute them.

Now it's your turn to provide any evidence that they actually have any higher percentage of injured, infirm, or socially maladjusted animals than anyone else

.  You need to prove that 16 animals is even remotely reasonable as the correct number of animals that were salvageable, when every comparison against shelters that have more funding and more community presence shows there should be more adoptable animals that animals that need to be put down, and yet the consistently manage to kill 99% of the animals they see.  They claim to have records of all these transfers showing they don't kill everything, but their records turned out to be 16 dogs or cats compared to 2,301 they killed.

Yes, the inspector is saying they aren't an adoption facility, just like they claim.  They offer free euthanasia service, not adoption service, and the vast majority of the animals they take in are surrendered by owner.  Of course the animals are killed; that is exactly the point.  They will take in any suffering animal and put it down for free.  My first dog had to be euthanized for a cochlear infection (my parents paid for the vet to do it).  He looked totally normal and healthy though.

If you go look at all other facilities, only about 1/3 are surrendered by owner.  I know the Humane Society by me won't take any animal, but I do not have a list of all the animals given to both PETA/other facilities in the state of Virginia and their CARFAX reports to determine which were the healthy ones.
 
2013-03-21 01:40:25 PM

cousin-merle: nickerj1: nickerj1: Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.

PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.

Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.

Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.

PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.

If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.

shiat, it was supposed to be 8949-1875: 7074 total taken in
644/7074 = 9.14%

Your numbers are still wrong.  In 2011 (the 2012 numbers on VDACS are wonky and 2011 is more typical), statewide, 53,634/111,131 = 48.3% of cats were euthanized and 31,071/125,787 = 24.7% of dogs were euthanized.  Of course, when you consider that PETA specifically takes in sick animals, for free, so people can afford a humane death for their pet instead of going to the vet, the PETA numbers don't look so bad.  They don't even run a public adoption service.  This whole thing is a smear campaign based on a false premise run by an industry lobbying group.


My numbers weren't wrong.  I was comparing them to other humane groups.  You're comparing their numbers against a stat that rolls in city and county run animal controls depts.  So what's PETA's purpose?  Their %euthanization and %adoption rates are worse than the county and city animal controls.  Compared to other humane groups (which in 2011, all other humane groups only euthanized at 19% compared to PETA's 96%) they're vastly inferior.  Compared to rescue groups their rates are vastly inferior.  Compared to everyone their adoption and euthanization rates are vastly inferior.

If their rates are so poor, why do they do it?  They're certainly not helping the animals out.  You assert it's because they take in animals who are sick, thus they have to euthanize more of them.  I would wager that the county and city run animal control depts are perfectly capable of euthanizing the sick animals.  Also, I can't imagine that 80% of the animals they take in are near-death (to account for the 80% euthanization difference).  So your "they take in more sick animals" argument isn't really persuasive.  Your comment regarding the smear campaign is also unpersuasive, as the source being cited is Virginia DACS.
 
2013-03-21 01:42:13 PM

BullBearMS: Carn: Kill shelters suck, but I understand the necessity.

If you kill nearly all the kitties you take in, it's not a shelter.

It's Meowschwitz


i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-21 01:43:51 PM

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: From the PETA website.  "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."   This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example.  Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".
2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".
3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.

Well, it would be a strawman if they didn't believe that. You are either being disingenuous or naive if you think they don't believe that.  If animals can't be owned, killed, abused, etc. by humans then doesn't that exactly mean they have the same rights?  It does, yes.   PETA's wording could be swapping into the Decleration of Independence and the original meaning would be unchanged.


http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspx
Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."

Doubling down on your strawman still doesn't mean it's what PETA believes.
Look, if you can't argue using their actual words, and instead have to create some "animals have the same rights as humans" derp, then you have to expect some pushback.


So their actual words that I posted don't mean exactly what I have said? Do we need to have a semantics debate?

Its pretty clear unless you are just arguing to rile people up.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.


You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.
 
2013-03-21 01:46:52 PM

notto: meanmutton:

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.


From the statistics: On hand number of animals on-hand December 31st: ONE. That's right, come December first they had 'gotten rid of' every single animal in the shelter but one. And at the start of the previous year, how many animals did they have on hand? TWO.
In a shelter that put down an average of four and a half animals a day, they have ONE animal, a single dog, available for adoption.
Go to any other shelter, even a small one in a small town, and they'll have at least a dozen available. PETA? ONE.

Their 'shelter' is nothing more than a slaughterhouse.
 
2013-03-21 01:49:16 PM

cousin-merle: If you go look at all other facilities, only about 1/3 are surrendered by owner. I know the Humane Society by me won't take any animal, but I do not have a list of all the animals given to both PETA/other facilities in the state of Virginia and their CARFAX reports to determine which were the healthy ones.


Ok, so that may be enough to help their numbers if they were only 30 to 50% higher in their rates.  Their rates are so much higher they don't even make sense to compare.  They kill about 130 animals for every animal they lives, compared to the state average that's close to 1 to 1, according to that inspection report.  Even granting them that they deliberate take hard cases, they are claiming to justifiably kill 10% of all animals killed by shelters in Virginia.  That one shelter kills 1 in 10 animals euthanized in Virginia, which may be okay if Virginia was the size of Rhode Island, but there's more than 10 other shelters that are offering the exact same services as PETA claims to provide with radically different results just in Norfolk, where this kill center is located.

I know you really want to believe it's just a fall out of the numbers because they take on hard cases, but it's a lie.  Their numbers reflect their view that no one should raise animals in their home, if it can at all be avoided.
 
2013-03-21 01:51:22 PM

Securitywyrm: Their 'shelter' is nothing more than a slaughterhouse.


That's because it isn't a shelter and doesn't say it is, except when fund raising.  It's a kill center, and they claim no one brings healthy animals to them because everyone knows they will kill them.  Only they spin this like a good thing.
 
2013-03-21 01:54:17 PM

Mr Guy: Securitywyrm: Their 'shelter' is nothing more than a slaughterhouse.

That's because it isn't a shelter and doesn't say it is, except when fund raising.  It's a kill center, and they claim no one brings healthy animals to them because everyone knows they will kill them.  Only they spin this like a good thing.


Well to be fair some have a good chance of getting "*Miscellaneous'd", that sounds like fun!
 
2013-03-21 01:57:12 PM

cousin-merle: ciberido: Did .... did you not RTFA at all?

It isn't necessarily a made-up statistic, but it is a misleading one.  PETA takes in sick animals for free so people can afford to euthanize humanely (vets are expensive), and they offer the same service to animal shelters.  They don't even run an adoption service.  They refer the healthy animals to the animal shelters and take the unhealthy animals that the shelters will not take.  All of this is in the VA inspection report, which I will conveniently link from the website of an industry lobbying group running the smear campaign.


So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.
That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.
 
2013-03-21 02:07:48 PM
Here it is all laid out Why Peta Kills
 
2013-03-21 02:23:34 PM

nocturnal001: So their actual words that I posted don't mean exactly what I have said? Do we need to have a semantics debate?


No, they don't. And I'm happy to have that debate. I'll even start:
PETA says "Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans."
Does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It simply says that animals have value separate from their utility to us.

PETA continues: We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.
Does  that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. Sure, they believe humans and animals both have that right, but that doesn't mean that humans don't have  more rights.

Continuing:Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."
And does  that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It repeats that animals have value beyond their usefulness to humans, and that, as with all creatures, they like living and don't like pain.

Are we to take these two clear statements - "animals have value even the absence of humans" and "animals have a right not to be tortured" - that PETA believes that animals should have the right to jury trials? Or that animals should be free from unreasonable searches? Or that animals should be allowed to vote?

Of course not. Clearly, their philosophy does not extend to the hyperbolic extremes you've cast it as.

Your turn.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.

On the contrary, they clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of a right to "live free from pain and suffering".You can tell that that's what they say because I used quote marks, rather than your paraphrasing attempt to enlarge their statement to a right not to be hurt or killed. They are not hypocrites, because painless euthanasia does not infringe that right.
Similarly, I believe that humans also have that right, but I also believe in euthanasia or assisted suicide for the terminally ill. In fact, it's not a "but", but a "therefore" - I don't believe people should be forced to live out their days in pain and suffering. It would, instead, be hypocritical to believe that no one should ever be allowed release from pain.

You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.

What's your opinion on torture? And what's your opinion on assisted suicide?
 
2013-03-21 02:26:26 PM

Phins: Here it is all laid out Why Peta Kills


Can't believe I clicked that.  How do you get to be a chubby vegan anyway?
 
2013-03-21 02:29:56 PM
Theaetetus: Ohlookabutterfly: Have you ever been wrong in your life?
 
Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.


   Now see here. I don't condone killing animals. Not for population control because some people are just terrible at living up to the responsibilities they take on. I have 2 cats right now and would have many more if I ever walked into a shelter. Not once did I state that I agreed euthanasia was acceptable but you just painted me with that brush as you did most others here simply because they individually did not say that they disagreed with it either. That is you knowingly putting false words in others mouths and is why you are viewed as such a dick. Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary. You and your little group of sycophants love to troll the threads and flex your vocabulary muscles by mocking others and snning every word to keep them on the defensive. Why don't you and ciberido go to the political threads and stroke each others egos' while those interested in amiable discourse continue it without your repulsive bile stinking up the joint?
 
2013-03-21 02:43:42 PM

nickerj1: My numbers weren't wrong. I was comparing them to other humane groups. You're comparing their numbers against a stat that rolls in city and county run animal controls depts. So what's PETA's purpose? Their %euthanization and %adoption rates are worse than the county and city animal controls. Compared to other humane groups (which in 2011, all other humane groups only euthanized at 19% compared to PETA's 96%) they're vastly inferior. Compared to rescue groups their rates are vastly inferior. Compared to everyone their adoption and euthanization rates are vastly inferior.

If their rates are so poor, why do they do it? They're certainly not helping the animals out. You assert it's because they take in animals who are sick, thus they have to euthanize more of them. I would wager that the county and city run animal control depts are perfectly capable of euthanizing the sick animals. Also, I can't imagine that 80% of the animals they take in are near-death (to account for the 80% euthanization difference). So your "they take in more sick animals" argument isn't really persuasive. Your comment regarding the smear campaign is also unpersuasive, as the source being cited is Virginia DACS.


They don't offer adoption to the public.  They offer free euthanization service.  What do you not understand about this?  The smear campaign is based on this false premise that they aren't finding enough homes for pets.  That is not a service that they offer.  They refer those pets to the other shelters.
 
2013-03-21 02:44:31 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: Theaetetus: Ohlookabutterfly: Have you ever been wrong in your life?
 
Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.

   Now see here. I don't condone killing animals. Not for population control because some people are just terrible at living up to the responsibilities they take on. I have 2 cats right now and would have many more if I ever walked into a shelter. Not once did I state that I agreed euthanasia was acceptable but you just painted me with that brush as you did most others here simply because they individually did not say that they disagreed with it either. That is you knowingly putting false words in others mouths and is why you are viewed as such a dick.


Are you a vegan? I'm sure you must be, since you said you don't condone killing animals, and I'd hate to suggest that you were a hypocrite with no credibility.  At least, not without confirming it.

Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary.

Just because I don't ascribe to your black vs. white, our-team-or-their-team philosophy doesn't mean I'm just being contrary. See, I have the ability to criticize an organization for things they actually say and do, without the need to go into hyperbole and suggest that they're inhuman monsters and that everything they do is the exact opposite of all that's holy and good. I can disagree with PETA's sexist and misogynistic campaigns, while simultaneously acknowledging that they're not actually a death-cult. And I can also disagree with people calling them a monstrous death-cult, while agreeing that PETA shouldn't receive donations and is wrong about medical research.  It's called nuance.
It's also called credibility: you have a lot more if you're not complaining that anyone who disagrees with you in even the slightest way must be the spawn of satan.
 
2013-03-21 02:45:56 PM

Mr Guy: Ok, so that may be enough to help their numbers if they were only 30 to 50% higher in their rates. Their rates are so much higher they don't even make sense to compare. They kill about 130 animals for every animal they lives, compared to the state average that's close to 1 to 1, according to that inspection report. Even granting them that they deliberate take hard cases, they are claiming to justifiably kill 10% of all animals killed by shelters in Virginia. That one shelter kills 1 in 10 animals euthanized in Virginia, which may be okay if Virginia was the size of Rhode Island, but there's more than 10 other shelters that are offering the exact same services as PETA claims to provide with radically different results just in Norfolk, where this kill center is located.

I know you really want to believe it's just a fall out of the numbers because they take on hard cases, but it's a lie. Their numbers reflect their view that no one should raise animals in their home, if it can at all be avoided.


They don't offer adoption because the animal shelters do that.  Your entire premise makes no sense.  They offer free euthanization for people who can't afford a vet to provide humane means.
 
2013-03-21 02:48:30 PM
I really don't understand how this is news. I hate PETA like everyone else, but this program has been around for a long time and it does a necessary service. People can bring sick/dying pets to have them humanely euthanized. That, and you can't just stop euthanizing cats and dogs when the breeding severely outpaces adoption retention rates. They've never even tried to pretend they were doing anything so this is just craziness.
 
2013-03-21 02:48:31 PM

cousin-merle: Mr Guy: Ok, so that may be enough to help their numbers if they were only 30 to 50% higher in their rates. Their rates are so much higher they don't even make sense to compare. They kill about 130 animals for every animal they lives, compared to the state average that's close to 1 to 1, according to that inspection report. Even granting them that they deliberate take hard cases, they are claiming to justifiably kill 10% of all animals killed by shelters in Virginia. That one shelter kills 1 in 10 animals euthanized in Virginia, which may be okay if Virginia was the size of Rhode Island, but there's more than 10 other shelters that are offering the exact same services as PETA claims to provide with radically different results just in Norfolk, where this kill center is located.

I know you really want to believe it's just a fall out of the numbers because they take on hard cases, but it's a lie. Their numbers reflect their view that no one should raise animals in their home, if it can at all be avoided.

They don't offer adoption because the animal shelters do that.  Your entire premise makes no sense.  They offer free euthanization for people who can't afford a vet to provide humane means.


It's kinda like claiming that an abortion clinic's adoption numbers are terrible, so therefore they believe that all children should be killed.
 
2013-03-21 02:48:38 PM

Securitywyrm: So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.
That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.


They don't offer adoption.  Is this really that hard to understand?  The service that they offer is free euthanization because vets cost money.  The majority of the animals are killed the same day.
 
2013-03-21 02:49:30 PM

karmaceutical: Can't believe I clicked that.  How do you get to be a chubby vegan anyway?


Beer.
 
2013-03-21 02:51:33 PM
My cat passed away a few months ago and I've been considering getting another one.  Maybe I should rescue one from PETA.

/20+ year vegetarian
 
2013-03-21 02:59:34 PM
From: http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/03/30/why-we-euthanize .aspx

"I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion-aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance-as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring 'technicians,' or animal abusers."

Check out the full article and pictures.
 
2013-03-21 03:01:38 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: That is you knowingly putting false words in others mouths and is why you are viewed as such a dick. Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary.


Thea has quite the reputation for being every bit a vitriolic as PETA and ALF/ELF combined, in a vast array of topics.
 
2013-03-21 03:05:09 PM

cousin-merle: Securitywyrm: So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.
That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.

They don't offer adoption.  Is this really that hard to understand?  The service that they offer is free euthanization because vets cost money.  The majority of the animals are killed the same day.


And yet they call it a shelter.
 
2013-03-21 03:05:53 PM
notto:

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.

Trivially wrong. Austin is open admission, takes in tens of thousands of animals per year, and saves over 90%. Reno too. There are dozens of open-admission shelters that have over 90% live outcome. PETA runs a slaughterhouse. Only an animal hater, or someone ignorant and wishing to remain so in the face of all evidence to the contrary, would stick up for these butchers.
 
2013-03-21 03:11:52 PM

Securitywyrm: cousin-merle: Securitywyrm: So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.
That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.

They don't offer adoption.  Is this really that hard to understand?  The service that they offer is free euthanization because vets cost money.  The majority of the animals are killed the same day.

And yet they call it a shelter.


The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not
operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the
primary purpose is not to find permanent adoptive homes for animals.

24.media.tumblr.com
It's not a shelter.
 
2013-03-21 03:24:29 PM

verbivore: Trivially wrong. Austin is open admission, takes in tens of thousands of animals per year, and saves over 90%. Reno too. There are dozens of open-admission shelters that have over 90% live outcome. PETA runs a slaughterhouse. Only an animal hater, or someone ignorant and wishing to remain so in the face of all evidence to the contrary, would stick up for these butchers.


Newsflash: PETA doesn't offer adoption services to the public.  They offer free euthanization so you don't have to save up and pay the vet to put Fluffy out of her misery.  The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services "considered changing PETA's status from a shelter to a euthanasia clinic, says Elaine Lidholm, the agency's communications director."
 
2013-03-21 03:32:30 PM
cousin-merle  They don't offer adoption to the public.  They offer free euthanization service.  What do you not understand about this?  The smear campaign is based on this false premise that they aren't finding enough homes for pets.  That is not a service that they offer.  They refer those pets to the other shelters.

yeah, it's true, PETA runs a slaughterhouse, or as you prefer to call it "free euthanasia." The issue is that they call it a shelter and tell people they'll take good care of the animal and find it a good home. They also accept the animal's vet records and favorite toy. Why would you bring those if you were just dropping the animal off to be killed? Why wouldn't they say "oh, we don't need those, this animal will be dead in five minutes"? PETA lies to the people who give them animals.

They DO NOT refer pets to other shelters
. That's the whole point. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
2013-03-21 03:34:09 PM

skozlaw: rnatalie: They have to euthanize them immediately, they in fact have next to NO capacity to house animals.

[citation needed]

I'm not saying you're wrong because I, personally, have no idea what their capacity is or isn't, but considering that the only reason this stupid "issue" ever seems to get out is because their commercial enemies publicize it to make them look bad for purely selfish reasons, I'm not just going to accept any and every claim made.


You could do your own research.  The VA DACS did some action against them a few years ago when it was arguing they weren't complying with the shelter laws.   They were found to only have a few random cages in their headquarters offices, nothing approaching a proper shelter.

<I>
PETA may not keep capacity for long term housing but that's not uncommon and painless euthanasia is still a damn sight better (and more ethical) than just letting some scumbag pet owner abandon an animal in his old house until it starves to death when the bank takes it and he has to go live in some slum apartment that doesn't allow pets.

And, again, PETA accepts anything. You don't keep housing if a lot of your animals are coming in are on their last legs with various diseases or too far wasted away to survive. You put them out of their misery quickly.
</I>
PETA Is not in any way unique.   There are over a dozen shelters in the tidewater area around the area PeTA operates their headquarter.    More than a few of them are run by the various municipality and takes animals under the same conditions as PETA:   animals are accepted for free under any condition.   Of course, these shelters will actually evaluate the animal, hold strays hoping to reunite with owners, attempt to place those who are suitable for such, rather than just marching them off to the little kitty showers for extermination.
 
2013-03-21 03:34:14 PM

ciberido: The very name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sends the message that anyone who disagrees with their policies in the slightest is unethical.


Exactly- you can tell a lot about a group by what its name is. For instance "Pro-Life" implies everyone else is Pro-death (or 'anti-life', which ever way you want to put it). And there's nothing like implying that the other side is evil right in your very name to start a debate off right.

Groups that want to do it right start of with simple, descriptive names (for instance, "Pro-choice" implies the other side is anti-choice. Which they are) that do not vilify the opponent.

As you say, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" implies that anyone who disagrees is unethical. Even more, it implies that about anyone who isn't a member of PETA.
 
2013-03-21 03:35:06 PM

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: So their actual words that I posted don't mean exactly what I have said? Do we need to have a semantics debate?

No, they don't. And I'm happy to have that debate. I'll even start:
PETA says "Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans."
Does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It simply says that animals have value separate from their utility to us.

PETA continues: We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.
Does  that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. Sure, they believe humans and animals both have that right, but that doesn't mean that humans don't have  more rights.

Continuing:Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."
And does  that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It repeats that animals have value beyond their usefulness to humans, and that, as with all creatures, they like living and don't like pain.

Are we to take these two clear statements - "animals have value even the absence of humans" and "animals have a right not to be tortured" - that PETA believes that animals should have the right to jury trials? Or that animals should be free from unreasonable searches? Or that animals should be allowed to vote?

Of course not. Clearly, their philosophy does not extend to the hyperbolic extremes you've cast it as.

Your turn.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money f ...


I'm surprised you are going with that.  Bringing in legal rights to a discussion of ethics?  "lolz, you think animals should be able to vote! lolzorz"  Come on.

It's quite clear there in black and white.  PETA values animals as highly as humans, they admit as much and their policies against medical research and animal products supports this.  Attempting to cast their actions as comparable to assisted suicide is also quite silly I'd say.  They aren't just putting down terminal animals, but also a large number of pets that just can't be adopted.  I'll not be drawn in a ludicrous debate about whether or not PETAs use of certain terms slightly changes the meaning of their philosophy.  I clearly have my answer from earlier, as you are being disingenous rather than naive.

Back to the crux of this whole thread.  Is the fact that PETA puts down many animals that don't need to be killed because they don't want to spend the money to care for them in some way hypocritical?  Like I said earlier.

So, it's ok to kill dogs and cats in order to free up money to run the rest of the PETA organization (greater good!), but it's NOT ok to kill some mice in order to save a large number of human lives. Right, that makes a lot of sense. Animals can be killed for the greater good of other animals, but animals can not be killed for the greater good of humans.

This is not a logically consistent viewpoint, unless they either value human life less than animals, they believe that medical research does not result in health improvements for humans, or that they are actually full of shiat and they care more about the idea of protecting animals than the animals themselves. Given their actions in this case, and in the past I do lean towards the last option.  Very similiar to the anti-abortion folks I'd say.  The claim is that they want to protect animals/fetuses-babies, but when faced with a choice between their poltical grandstanding and actual saving those creatures (by spending more/all of their money on dog care or working to prevent unwanted pregnancy through education/contraceptives) they stick with their grandstanding.
 
2013-03-21 03:39:52 PM
notto: Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.

All city/county/government shelters accept any animal that comes in the door. They're required by law to do that. PETA isn't performing some special service that's not available elsewhere.


scallywaghotness: In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.

Less than 10% of animals that come into a shelter truly need to be euthanized. There are 300+ no kill communities in the U.S., every single one of them has save rates of 90+%. Some of them have save rates of 97% or 98%. That's how few shelter shelter animals need to be euthanized. And those are open-intake shelters, meaning they take every animal and don't turn any away.


rnatalie: Admittedly, any shelter that doesn't turn away animals is going to have to euthanize a lot.   Many are just not adoptable either because they have health or temperament issues that render them unplaceable (abused animals are frequently poorly socialized to begin with) or just not cute enough to fill the demand.

Nope. See above. There are more than 300 open-admission no kill communities in the U.S. Save rates of more than 90%.


skozlaw  It's much higher, but it's hardly indefensible. PETA shelters accept any animal in any condition. Very, very few shelters do that. They also take in a huge number of surrenders which can be euthanized the same day.

Once again, any city/county/government shelter takes animals in any condition. The lazy ones kill the animals. The good ones work to get them adopted.
 
2013-03-21 03:41:01 PM

Phins: The issue is that they call it a shelter and tell people they'll take good care of the animal and find it a good home. They also accept the animal's vet records and favorite toy. Why would you bring those if you were just dropping the animal off to be killed? Why wouldn't they say "oh, we don't need those, this animal will be dead in five minutes"? PETA lies to the people who give them animals.

They DO NOT refer pets to other shelters. That's the whole point. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


That's not what the VA inspectors found.

"The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"

You are making things up.
 
2013-03-21 03:41:34 PM
Theaetetus: Ohlookabutterfly: Theaetetus: Ohlookabutterfly: Have you ever been wrong in your life?
  
Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.

   Now see here. I don't condone killing animals. Not for population control because some people are just terrible at living up to the responsibilities they take on. I have 2 cats right now and would have many more if I ever walked into a shelter. Not once did I state that I agreed euthanasia was acceptable but you just painted me with that brush as you did most others here simply because they individually did not say that they disagreed with it either. That is you knowingly putting false words in others mouths and is why you are viewed as such a dick.

Are you a vegan? I'm sure you must be, since you said you don't condone killing animals, and I'd hate to suggest that you were a hypocrite with no credibility.  At least, not without confirming it.

Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary.

Just because I don't ascribe to your black vs. white, our-team-or-their-team philosophy doesn't mean I'm just being contrary. See, I have the ability to criticize an organization for things they actually say and do, without the need to go into hyperbole and suggest that they're inhuman monsters and that everything they do is the exact opposite of all that's holy and good. I can disagree with PETA's sexist and misogynistic campaigns, while simultaneously acknowledging that they're not actually a death-cult. And I can also disagree with people calling them a monstrous death-cult, while agreeing that PETA shouldn't rece ...



    My black vs. white philosophy? See, as I said, you have nowhere near the context to make that assumption. Once again you are stating things about me without any idea whether I am truly so narrow-minded, or lacking in the ability to see the many facets of this issue and judge them individually. You have again put words in my mouth and now seem to know intimately my cognitive abilities. You have proven yourself a contrarian by being contrary with every post you make. You are defending evil people simply because you must get pleasure from feeling more articulate than others, which you really aren't.  You are condescending and sanctimonious. Potential indications of narcissism.
 
2013-03-21 03:52:46 PM

Ohlookabutterfly:  My black vs. white philosophy? See, as I said, you have nowhere near the context to make that assumption. Once again you are stating things about me without any idea whether I am truly so narrow-minded, or lacking in the ability to see the many facets of this issue and judge them individually. You have again put words in my mouth and now seem to know intimately my cognitive abilities

.

Yep, your black vs. white philosophy:
Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary...
You are defending evil people...

If I dislike PETA, then I must agree with you completely and just enjoy being contrary. Or, alternatively, I must be defending "evil people", since I disagree with you (which apparently makes me a narcissist?).
Sorry, bub, I'm not going to let you get away with putting words in my mouth and trying to frame my position as one of the only two extremes you can envision.

Also:
You have proven yourself a contrarian by being contrary with every post you make.

What does this even mean? Do  youhave any idea what you're trying to say? "You disagree with me, so therefore you're disagreeable!" Well, no shiat, Sherlock. The only shocking thing is that you think that statement somehow means anything further than its tautological truth.
 
2013-03-21 03:55:18 PM

cousin-merle: Phins: The issue is that they call it a shelter and tell people they'll take good care of the animal and find it a good home. They also accept the animal's vet records and favorite toy. Why would you bring those if you were just dropping the animal off to be killed? Why wouldn't they say "oh, we don't need those, this animal will be dead in five minutes"? PETA lies to the people who give them animals.

They DO NOT refer pets to other shelters. That's the whole point. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

That's not what the VA inspectors found.

"The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"

You are making things up.


Hmm, it's almost like PETA publicly espouses one ideology but in actuality their goals and beliefs are something different altogether. How odd, never heard that accusation before.  Stop, reverse that.  Yes, I have heard that before, many times.  Perhaps they are so intent on ending pet ownership that they would rather kill animals than see them adopted. With their record, I would not be surprised.
 
2013-03-21 03:58:45 PM
Peta ... DO NOT GIVE THEM ONE MORE DOLLAR!!

/that is all
 
2013-03-21 04:27:38 PM
cousin-merle That's not what the VA inspectors found.
"The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"
You are making things up.


The point is that PETA tells people they will take good care of the animals and find them homes.

ANIMAL PEOPLE in mid-2004 received detailed complaints from several North Carolina no-kill shelter volunteers and one ex-PETA employee who charged that PETA was taking animals from them who had been sterilized and vaccinated in preparation for adoption, promising to place them in homes, and then refused to account for them. The volunteers believed the animals were being killed. The ex-PETA employee affirmed their suspicions, but the complainants had no physical evidence to support their case.
"The arrests have left local animal rescuers with more questions than answers," summarized Luci Weldon of The Warren Record.
Macon animal rescuer Ruth Brown told Weldon that "In December 2003, while she was working with Rainbow Rescue, a no-kill organization in Roanoke Rapids, she conducted e-mail correspondence with an individual who described herself as being active in animal rescue and who used the Community Animal Project, run by PETA, to provide foster care for the rescued animals.
"I thought it was the answer from heaven," Brown recounted.
Wrote Weldon, "Brown said that she was told that local animals transferred to PETA would be prepared for potential adoption. As animals were given to PETA, Brown said she had contact with a representative of CAP in Norfolk, where PETA is headquartered, as well as contact with Adria Hinkle."
Said Brown, "We asked them about the animals and they said they only had to put one to sleep because of congenital heart failure," Brown said. "We questioned them on several occasions. They reassured us that the animals were adopted."
Continued Weldon, "Brown said that Warren County animal rescuers held fundraising events to pay for spaying and neutering and other needs related to the care of the animals transferred to PETA."

And where exactly on PETA's web site do they tell the public they're running a slaughterhouse? Since it's such a great service and all, I would think they'd publicize it.

 
2013-03-21 04:28:49 PM
Wow.

For comparison, I looked up the Nebraska Humane Society. They're not "no kill". They euthanize animals who have severe health issues or behavioral problems (they call it "no suffering" - can't say whether I know that's true or not). They'll take any animal you bring them, wild, feral, or tame. They list their stats online: out of 17,000+ animals received last year, about 4,800 were euthanized. That's about 28%.

According to that report, PETA took in a total of 1877 animals and euthanized 1675, which works out to 89%.

Treating animals ethically: you're doing it wrong.
 
2013-03-21 04:36:23 PM

Phins: And where exactly on PETA's web site do they tell the public they're running a slaughterhouse? Since it's such a great service and all, I would think they'd publicize it.


You mean like this?

http://features.peta.org/petasaves/
 
2013-03-21 04:37:18 PM
FYI, the web site Why PETA Kills is a project of The No Kill Advocacy Center. The only purpose of The No Kill Advocacy Center is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters. It's not run by anyone with ulterior motives or lobbying contracts.
 
2013-03-21 04:38:37 PM

Phins: cousin-merle That's not what the VA inspectors found.
"The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"
You are making things up.

The point is that PETA tells people they will take good care of the animals and find them homes.

ANIMAL PEOPLE in mid-2004 received detailed complaints from several North Carolina no-kill shelter volunteers and one ex-PETA employee who charged that PETA was taking animals from them who had been sterilized and vaccinated in preparation for adoption, promising to place them in homes, and then refused to account for them. The volunteers believed the animals were being killed. The ex-PETA employee affirmed their suspicions, but the complainants had no physical evidence to support their case.
"The arrests have left local animal rescuers with more questions than answers," summarized Luci Weldon of The Warren Record.
Macon animal rescuer Ruth Brown told Weldon that "In December 2003, while she was working with Rainbow Rescue, a no-kill organization in Roanoke Rapids, she conducted e-mail correspondence with an individual who described herself as being active in animal rescue and who used the Community Animal Project, run by PETA, to provide foster care for the rescued animals.
"I thought it was the answer from heaven," Brown recounted.
Wrote Weldon, "Brown said that she was told that local animals transferred to PETA would be prepared for potential adoption. As animals were given to PETA, Brown said she had contact with a representative of CAP in Norfolk, where PETA is headquartered, as well as contact with Adria Hinkle."
Said Brown, "We asked them about the anim ...


None of this crap makes any sense at all.  So your position is that PeTA goes out of their way to fool people and other rescue operations for the sole purpose of killing them? What is the angle for PeTA?  If they are really hellbent on killing as many pets as possible, how come this problem is contained to one lousy cat killing factory in Virginia?  Or maybe there is an even bigger, more clandestine, gabillion dollar conspiracy to euthanize cats?

I'm telling ya, pets make some people crazy.  Texas makes it legal to execute humans for trespassing and no one cares... but PeTA drives people into frothing lunacy.
 
2013-03-21 04:41:40 PM

Phins: FYI, the web site Why PETA Kills is a project of The No Kill Advocacy Center. The only purpose of The No Kill Advocacy Center is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters. It's not run by anyone with ulterior motives or lobbying contracts.


Then why do they need to make up all this crap about PeTA if their cause is so noble.  farking animal hoarders... it should be a crime.
 
2013-03-21 04:42:26 PM
karmaceutical:
What is the angle for PeTA?  If they are really hellbent on killing as many pets as possible, how come this problem is contained to one lousy cat killing factory in Virginia?  Or maybe there is an even bigger, more clandestine, gabillion dollar conspiracy to euthanize cats?

The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"
 
2013-03-21 04:44:23 PM

verbivore: The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"


How does PETA make money by spaying, neutering or euthanizing animals for free?
 
2013-03-21 04:46:17 PM

karmaceutical: Phins: FYI, the web site Why PETA Kills is a project of The No Kill Advocacy Center. The only purpose of The No Kill Advocacy Center is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters. It's not run by anyone with ulterior motives or lobbying contracts.

Then why do they need to make up all this crap about PeTA if their cause is so noble.  farking animal hoarders... it should be a crime.


They don't make anything up about PETA. If an organization's purpose is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters, and PETA is killing adoptable animals in shelters, and you're pretending not to see how "working to end killing" is in line with their mission of "working to end killing" I call BS. That's the PETA marketing line and you're spouting it unquestioningly.
 
2013-03-21 04:46:45 PM

verbivore: karmaceutical:
What is the angle for PeTA?  If they are really hellbent on killing as many pets as possible, how come this problem is contained to one lousy cat killing factory in Virginia?  Or maybe there is an even bigger, more clandestine, gabillion dollar conspiracy to euthanize cats?

The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"


Yeah but how does the cat killing factory raise money?
 
2013-03-21 04:49:25 PM

KiplingKat278: Then they should NOT be calling it an"Animal Shelter." They should be calling it a Euthanasia Program because it sounds like that is all it is. According to the VA inspectors, adoption seems to be only open to people who work at PETA HQ. The rest are killed. From the multiple reports above, it sounds like they have been misleading people, taking pets out of viable adoption programs to kill them. They sure as HELL should not be taking in wild animals if there is no one there trained in their care.


They explain exactly what it is on the page.  What do you think the last two words of the "animal shelter of last resort" means?  Don't be pedantic.  They don't offer adoption to the public nor do they pretend to.  They offer free euthanization in lieu of paying a vet.
 
2013-03-21 04:50:06 PM

cousin-merle: verbivore: The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"

How does PETA make money by spaying, neutering or euthanizing animals for free?


They have a $30 million budget. They don't spend $30 million on spaying, neutering, or euthenizing animals for free. That's how they make money.  For A>B, A-B = profit.
http://www.peta.org/about/learn-about-peta/financial-report.aspx
 
2013-03-21 04:50:29 PM
Phins: And where exactly on PETA's web site do they tell the public they're running a slaughterhouse? Since it's such a great service and all, I would think they'd publicize it.
cousin-merle
You mean like this?
http://features.peta.org/petasaves/


I quickly lost count of the lies on that page. Apologists for PETA's killing have argued that all of the animals they kill are "unadoptable." But this claim is a lie for numerous reasons. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable and PETA insiders have admitted as much, one former intern reporting that he quit in disgust after witnessing perfectly healthy puppies and kittens in the kill room. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making the determination as to whether or not an animal is "unadoptable." It is a lie because according to a state inspector, the PETA facility where the animals are impounded was designed to house animals for no more than 24 hours. It is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much during a 2008 television interview: when asked whether or not PETA kills healthy animals, she responded, "Absolutely." It is a lie because PETA staff have described the animals they have killed as "healthy," "adorable" and "perfect." It is a lie because PETA itself admits it does not believe in "right to life for animals." And it is a lie because when asked what sort of effort PETA routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care, PETA responded that it had "no comment."

Or how about this:
PETA sent a congratulatory gift basket to a shelter when it announced it was going to start killing after four years of being no kill.

Or this:
Pictures of healthy adoptable animals killed by PETA, animals described by PETA as "adorable" and "perfect." WARNING: graphic pics of dead animals.
 
2013-03-21 04:57:56 PM

Phins: I quickly lost count of the lies on that page. Apologists for PETA's killing have argued that all of the animals they kill are "unadoptable." But this claim is a lie for numerous reasons. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable and PETA insiders have admitted as much, one former intern reporting that he quit in disgust after witnessing perfectly healthy puppies and kittens in the kill room. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making the determination as to whether or not an animal is "unadoptable." It is a lie because according to a state inspector, the PETA facility where the animals are impounded was designed to house animals for no more than 24 hours. It is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much during a 2008 television interview: when asked whether or not PETA kills healthy animals, she responded, "Absolutely." It is a lie because PETA staff have described the animals they have killed as "healthy," "adorable" and "perfect." It is a lie because PETA itself admits it does not believe in "right to life for animals." And it is a lie because when asked what sort of effort PETA routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care, PETA responded that it had "no comment."


PETA doesn't offer adoption.  They offer euthanasia or spay/neuter.  I just showed you their website.  Why would they be making determinations on whether or not to put pets up for adoption when that is not their service?  Why would they house animals for more than 24 hours when they do not offer adoption?

Or how about this:
PETA sent a congratulatory gift basket to a shelter when it announced it was going to start killing after four years of being no kill.


PETA opposes no kill.  This isn't news.

Or this:
Pictures of healthy adoptable animals killed by PETA, animals described by PETA as "adorable" and "perfect." WARNING: graphic pics of dead animals.


I love the scare quotes around single words, and when you go to their documents page for proof, it is still just scare quotes around single words, not any kind of quote in context.  I had to put down my first dog for cochlear infections (well, my parents had to; this was a long time ago).  He looked perfectly adorable but was in pain every day.
 
2013-03-21 04:58:36 PM
cousin-merle: They explain exactly what it is on the page.  What do you think the last two words of the "animal shelter of last resort" means?  Don't be pedantic.  They don't offer adoption to the public nor do they pretend to.  They offer free euthanization in lieu of paying a vet.

For the last time, ANY CITY/COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER WILL EUTHANIZE AN ANIMAL FOR FREE. This is not some noble service by PETA that is unavailable anywhere else. The law requires these shelters to take in all animals and they have no problem euthanizing sick or aggressive animals.

Rather than your knee-jerk defense of killing, why don't you read some of the countless stories, including ones from former PETA employees and interns of PETA KILLING HEALTHY ANIMALS.
 
2013-03-21 05:04:01 PM
PETA:
Meat is slavery.
Euthanasia is not murder.

Anyone that doesn't see the discrepancy there is a, well, sociopath. It's akin to freeing black people, and then killing the one's that are poor, sick, or were just simply too numerous to easily care for.

According to their own logic, it would be ok if we thought PETA and their followers/supporters should be euthanized and actually carried it out. They are sick, that much is clear.

The only morally justifiable euthanasia is assisted suicide.  Anything else is murder.  We don't kill people who lose a leg, have a heart disease, or healthy homeless people(or sick homeless people for that matter).

We try to assist them, to comfort them, heal them, rehabilitate them.

Since we cannot communicate with animals well enough to establish a desire to end it all, we shouldn't be doing so except in extreme cases where death is right around the corner.  IF we're going to have high andconsistent moral standards as such.

I'm a meat lover.  Cannot deny killing for food, but even animals do it.  It's a matter of survival and health, not morals.  No such thing as evil, imo.  But there is natural and healthy.  Dogs and cats both come from predatory stock who literally stalk prey and tear it apart.  Why should we limit ourselves? Because we're better than that?  We're not animals?  Bullshiat.

If you don't want to, fine.  Eat only veggies.  Don't try to guilt trip others into doing the same.  Makes you no better than Westboro Baptists.(who are a convenient bad example of morally zealotic behavior).
 
2013-03-21 05:04:28 PM
KiplingKat278: Well, first by lying about  it.
"PETA went on to insist that in 2001, the year Friedrich lionized arsonists, PETA "gave $200,000 to humane societies and SPCAs for their local work ... All of our finances are detailed in our annual report which people can check out at PETA.org." Well, we looked at PETA's webiste, and there's no way to verify this claim. On documents that PETA files with the IRS, the group listed less than $8,000 in gifts to humane societies and SPCAs during 2001. In that same year, they gave $5,000 to Animal Liberation Front's militant Josh Harper and $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front. PETA either misled Fox News viewers or the IRS. "


FYI, a shelter's costs average out to $250-$300 per animal. So even if PETA did give $8,000 to humane societies and SPCAs, it was only enough to save 26--39 animals.
 
2013-03-21 05:06:40 PM

Phins: For the last time, ANY CITY/COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER WILL EUTHANIZE AN ANIMAL FOR FREE. This is not some noble service by PETA that is unavailable anywhere else. The law requires these shelters to take in all animals and they have no problem euthanizing sick or aggressive animals.


No they don't.  The one by me charges $51 for pet surrender and $96 for stray cat turn-in.  You don't know what you're talking about.  PETA also takes animals in for their preferred method of euthanasia, instead of gassing/shooting that may occur at other shelters.

Rather than your knee-jerk defense of killing, why don't you read some of the countless stories, including ones from former PETA employees and interns of PETA KILLING HEALTHY ANIMALS.

You mean the one or two stories where people broke the law and PETA policies?  I am not defending those people.
 
2013-03-21 05:09:01 PM
cousin-merle:
PETA doesn't offer adoption.  They offer euthanasia or spay/neuter.  I just showed you their website.  Why would they be making determinations on whether or not to put pets up for adoption when that is not their service?  Why would they house animals for more than 24 hours when they do not offer adoption?

By the way, one crappy little nonprofit in Austin (emancipet.org) started by one overworked veterinarian (Dr. Ellen Jefferson) with one crappy little office has sterilized double the number of animals that PETA has, with their "fleet" of spayneutermatic flying tanks and $30 million annual budget.  Fark PETA. They exist to make money for PETA, nothing more. They're not even good at performing the coverup story that they feed the gullible people that send them money every time they post a picture of a bunny in a mascara factory.
 
2013-03-21 05:21:32 PM

notto: phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?

You are more than welcome to go free the animals and take on their care if you disagree with their decision.  They will even carry them to your car.  See the difference?


PETA's goal is to separate people from animals. Why would they allow the animals they get to be enslaved by someone else? Better dead than a tool or toy of man.
 
2013-03-21 05:25:04 PM

verbivore: By the way, one crappy little nonprofit in Austin (emancipet.org) started by one overworked veterinarian (Dr. Ellen Jefferson) with one crappy little office has sterilized double the number of animals that PETA has, with their "fleet" of spayneutermatic flying tanks and $30 million annual budget. Fark PETA. They exist to make money for PETA, nothing more. They're not even good at performing the coverup story that they feed the gullible people that send them money every time they post a picture of a bunny in a mascara factory.


Only $1 million goes to spay/neuter.  Emancipet also apparently charges for most spay/neuter.  They only do 4000 free ones a year, which is less than half of what PETA does.  You're really off on a tangent here.
 
2013-03-21 05:42:02 PM
verbivore  By the way, one crappy little nonprofit in Austin (emancipet.org) started by one overworked veterinarian (Dr. Ellen Jefferson) with one crappy little office has sterilized double the number of animals that PETA has, with their "fleet" of spayneutermatic flying tanks and $30 million annual budget.  Fark PETA. They exist to make money for PETA, nothing more. They're not even good at performing the coverup story that they feed the gullible people that send them money every time they post a picture of a bunny in a mascara factory.

I don't have the exact number, but I believe Emancipet has now spay/neutered 500,000+ animals.

And that same overworked veterinarian then went to Austin Pets Alive and built it into an organization that saved more than 7,000 animals last year with a budget of less than $2 million.  Dr. Ellen Jefferson has saved more animals that PETA ever will.

Fark PETA.
 
2013-03-21 05:42:08 PM
Also, PETA supports and funds ALF and ELF. Two proven eco-terrorist groups responsible for many actions that resulted in ecological damage, destruction of property, and murders. They've released animals from fur farms, research labs, and other places many times, which always resulted in the local ecology being disrupted or destroyed by the released animals and endangerment to the people and their pets living on the areas. Quite stupid for people who claim to want to save the environment and all its precious creatures, isn't it?

If PETA was actually serious about its goal, it wouldn't be parading naked women around in body paint and locked in cages, sucking the dicks of every Hollywood celebrity it can, attacking Nintendo over Super Mario 3-D Land and Pokemon, and making stupid Flash games that teach children to call fish "sea kittens".
 
2013-03-21 05:54:48 PM

cousin-merle: Phins: For the last time, ANY CITY/COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER WILL EUTHANIZE AN ANIMAL FOR FREE. This is not some noble service by PETA that is unavailable anywhere else. The law requires these shelters to take in all animals and they have no problem euthanizing sick or aggressive animals.

No they don't.  The one by me charges $51 for pet surrender and $96 for stray cat turn-in.  You don't know what you're talking about.  PETA also takes animals in for their preferred method of euthanasia, instead of gassing/shooting that may occur at other shelters.

Rather than your knee-jerk defense of killing, why don't you read some of the countless stories, including ones from former PETA employees and interns of PETA KILLING HEALTHY ANIMALS.

You mean the one or two stories where people broke the law and PETA policies?  I am not defending those people.


Sorry about your town, but the Counties of Suffolk, the city of Norfolk, and the city of Virginia Beach (and probably more) all operate shelters that will take animals for free.   What is different about these is that they will care for these animals, and if adoptable, try to find homes for them.   This is the jurisdiction that PETA offers their "final solution" services in.    There is no point to the PeTA shelter other than to convince unsuspecting people to surrender their animals to them to be killed.
 
2013-03-21 06:17:34 PM
cousin-merle: No they don't.  The one by me charges $51 for pet surrender and $96 for stray cat turn-in.

Wow. sorry, didn't know that. You've totally changed my mind. I now think it's just fine that PETA lies to people, calls their slaughterhouse a shelter and tells people they'll take good care of the animals and find them good homes but then kills them within minutes. But it's free killing!! Woo hoo!!! It's so cool that they admit to the state that they just kill them all but tell the public the opposite. I totally agree with Ingrid Newkirk when she calls euthanasia a" gift" and says "it's the best gift they ever had." She's so right, we should kill all the animals the minute they get to the shelter. Let's continue to congratulate shelters that kill animals rather than adopt them out. That's so liberating for the animals. What a great and awesome organization.

I bet that if I could ask my four rescue animals and 12 fosters if they would rather have been killed at the shelter, they would say "yes! we'd so much rather be dead than living these happy lives." I bet all the animals that have received medical care and behavior training at the rescue group where I volunteer would rather be dead as well. I think I'll go over there right now and start the killing. Obviously it would be so much better for them and I'll do it for FREE so that makes it a good thing. I bet everyone else at the rescue group will thank me and throw me a big party for doing such good work killing all the animals.

Thanks, cousin Merle. Your logic and insight are amazing and I'm totally in favor of killing now, thanks to you. Good job!
 
2013-03-21 06:51:25 PM

rnatalie: Sorry about your town, but the Counties of Suffolk, the city of Norfolk, and the city of Virginia Beach (and probably more) all operate shelters that will take animals for free. What is different about these is that they will care for these animals, and if adoptable, try to find homes for them. This is the jurisdiction that PETA offers their "final solution" services in. There is no point to the PeTA shelter other than to convince unsuspecting people to surrender their animals to them to be killed.


What unsuspecting people?  They don't claim to take animals to rescue and don't run an adoption service.  They explicitly advertise a free euthanization service as a last resort.

Also, citation needed on the shelters.  Norfolk charges $15 for surrendered petsVirginia Beach takes surrendered animals but does not offer euthanization service.

Phins: I now think it's just fine that PETA lies to people, calls their slaughterhouse a shelter and tells people they'll take good care of the animals and find them good homes but then kills them within minutes. But it's free killing!! Woo hoo!!! It's so cool that they admit to the state that they just kill them all but tell the public the opposite.


They don't do that, but whatever you want to believe, dude.
 
2013-03-21 06:56:47 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Also, PETA supports and funds ALF and ELF.


PETA gave ALF $1500 in 2001.  Pretty serious stuff, there.
 
2013-03-21 07:09:30 PM

KiplingKat278: cousin-merle: Keizer_Ghidorah: Also, PETA supports and funds ALF and ELF.

PETA gave ALF $1500 in 2001.  Pretty serious stuff, there.

And they gave $70,000.00 to arson Rodney Coranado.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/01/2339-peta-and-terrorism-the-r ea l-deal/

Yes, it's serious. Newkirk has not only given them money, she has openly advocated for these groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Ani ma ls#Direct_action_and_the_ALF

It's even on their website:

http://www.peta.org/about/faq/Whats-PETAs-position-on-the-Animal-Lib er ation-Front-ALF.aspx


My god... she is like Hitler and Saddam Hussein combined!
 
2013-03-21 07:15:54 PM
Silly thing about facts... they are easily proven true or false.  All you've got is conjecture.  Which is nothing.  Well that and a bad attitude and a chronic case of intellectual laziness.  How is that working out for ya?
 
2013-03-21 07:22:17 PM

KiplingKat278: And they gave $70,000.00 to arson Rodney Coranado..


No, they didn't just give him money.  They gave money to his legal defense fund and a loan to his father.  That was probably not the smartest thing to do, and I hope everyone who was involved got punished.  What have they done in the last decade to support ALF/ELF?

Yes, it's serious. Newkirk has not only given them money, she has openly advocated for these groups:

It's even on their website:


So PETA's position on ALF is that they support non-violent civil disobedience, but oppose arson and hurting people?  How terrible.

KiplingKat278: It's extremely clear from the multiple reports that they do lie to people, individuals and rescue groups, telling them that they will find these animals homes, and instead kill them. There are too many reports to blame on indivudal employees. It was clearly a policy.


How many are there?  I saw one with any credibility, and the article talks about how it was against the law and PETA policy.  The VA inspector's findings support PETA's claims, and PETA's website specifically talks about euthanasia as a last resort.  Stop making things up.
 
2013-03-21 07:22:22 PM
cousin-merle: What unsuspecting people? They don't claim to take animals to rescue and don't run an adoption service. They explicitly advertise a free euthanization service as a last resort.

KiplingKat278: It's extremely clear from the multiple reports that they do lie to people, individuals and rescue groups, telling them that they will find these animals homes, and instead kill them. There are too many reports to blame on indivudal employees. It was clearly a policy.

yelling because cousin-merle apparently has either a hearing or a comprehension problem

It's extremely clear from the multiple reports that they do lie to people, individuals and rescue groups, telling them that they will find these animals homes, and instead kill them. There are too many reports to blame on indivudal employees. It was clearly a policy.
 
2013-03-21 07:29:32 PM

Phins: It's extremely clear from the multiple reports that they do lie to people, individuals and rescue groups, telling them that they will find these animals homes, and instead kill them. There are too many reports to blame on indivudal employees. It was clearly a policy.


You keep saying that over and over, but you don't provide any links.  The one you did link to, the employees were acting against the law and PETA policy, and they were charged with felonies, as they should have been.  Or are you referring to the "multiple" "cases" where "healthy" and "adorable" "pets" were "killed" that doesn't have any citations?
 
2013-03-21 07:30:39 PM

KiplingKat278: Cousin-merle's defintion of "credibility" is the same as the Tea Party: "Sources that agree with my preconcieved ideas."


I am citing government agencies that have investigated.  You are citing an industry lobbying group for fast food, meat and tobacco.  Pretty sure you have that analogy backwards.
 
2013-03-21 07:32:35 PM
I'm glad the PETA apologists finally showed up to explain why it's different when they murder animals.
 
2013-03-21 07:33:51 PM

KiplingKat278: karmaceutical: Silly thing about facts... they are easily proven true or false.  All you've got is conjecture.  Which is nothing.  Well that and a bad attitude and a chronic case of intellectual laziness.  How is that working out for ya?

Holy....wow. PETA supporters are delusional. Do you still watch Fox news and vote republican too?

Right now PETA is operating on a 5 million dollar deficit (hence the reason they keep riding coattails of massive media events like The Hobbit premeire).

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4 31 4

One can only hope as the facts about the real PETA get out, those donations will dwindle until it dies.


Man you can't get anything right.  No wonder you have to rely on all that chicanery to try and get your point across.
 
2013-03-21 07:46:29 PM
cousin-merle: You keep saying that over and over, but you don't provide any links.  The one you did link to, the employees were acting against the law and PETA policy, and they were charged with felonies, as they should have been.  Or are you referring to the "multiple" "cases" where "healthy" and "adorable" "pets" were "killed" that doesn't have any citations?

People have provided plenty of links, you just put your fingers in your ears and say "la la la I can't hear you."

Here's a link to an entire book, Friendly Fire. Read it, unless you're too afraid of finding out that you support a  bunch of murdering hypocrites.
 
2013-03-21 07:50:38 PM

cousin-merle: KiplingKat278: Cousin-merle's defintion of "credibility" is the same as the Tea Party: "Sources that agree with my preconcieved ideas."

I am citing government agencies that have investigated.  You are citing an industry lobbying group for fast food, meat and tobacco.  Pretty sure you have that analogy backwards.


Christ, I just noticed this bozo created this account just to troll this article.  I can't believe people get paid for this kind of weak sauce.
 
2013-03-21 07:53:18 PM
cousin-merle:

 PETA also takes animals in for their preferred method of euthanasia, instead of gassing/shooting that may occur at other shelters.

I'm sure you are mistaken.Gassing and shooting are illegal in Virginia, West Virginia, DC, and Maryland. They are saving these animals from a nonexistent threat.

If you got that from PETA, it's just another lie.
 
2013-03-21 07:57:48 PM
Phins:

Here's a link to an entire book, Friendly Fire. Read it, unless you're too afraid of finding out that you support a  bunch of murdering hypocrites.

Ahh... the money shot.
 
2013-03-21 07:58:48 PM

verbivore: I'm sure you are mistaken.Gassing and shooting are illegal in Virginia, West Virginia, DC, and Maryland. They are saving these animals from a nonexistent threat.

If you got that from PETA, it's just another lie.


Stop making things up.  PETA's facility serves VA and NC.  Euthanasia by firearm is legal in VA and euthanasia by both firearm and carbon monoxide is legal in NC.
 
2013-03-21 08:00:15 PM

Phins: People have provided plenty of links, you just put your fingers in your ears and say "la la la I can't hear you."

Here's a link to an entire book, Friendly Fire. Read it, unless you're too afraid of finding out that you support a bunch of murdering hypocrites.


I doubt you looked into this book, like, at all, but it's the same stuff you have already reposted 10 times.  I totally get that there were some people that broke the law and PETA policy and were charged with felonies.  Or is there a specific page I should be looking at?
 
2013-03-21 08:08:12 PM

KiplingKat278: Sorry, the content from wiki was cut, but you can read it. It's not citing CCF, it's citing the FBI.


No you aren't, you dolt.
 
2013-03-21 08:11:08 PM

KiplingKat278: People are better off taking their animal to city and county animal shelters who will take anyone, who actually want to help animals rather than kill them, who will put animals up for adoption, who will have adoption fairs, who will work with local rescue groups to place animals in foster homes and adopt them out. For whom euthanasia truly is the last resort, rather than the first one.


PETA's website provides information on euthanasia as a last resort.  Congratulations, you agree with them.
 
2013-03-21 08:15:43 PM

cousin-merle: verbivore: I'm sure you are mistaken.Gassing and shooting are illegal in Virginia, West Virginia, DC, and Maryland. They are saving these animals from a nonexistent threat.

If you got that from PETA, it's just another lie.

Stop making things up.  PETA's facility serves VA and NC.  Euthanasia by firearm is legal in VA and euthanasia by both firearm and carbon monoxide is legal in NC.


First off, PETA's facility serves PETA. And euthanasia by firearm is legal in VA *only* if the animal is RABID and no other method of capture is working. Gas chamber is sadly still legal in NC, which PETA is located 20 miles away from and is served by its own county animal control.
 
2013-03-21 08:26:31 PM

cynicalbastard: KawaiiNot: karnal: At least no poultry was harmed

I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.

There are non-edible animals?


No, but there are the less tasty ones.
 
2013-03-21 08:29:02 PM

KiplingKat278: karmaceutical: KiplingKat278: Sorry, the content from wiki was cut, but you can read it. It's not citing CCF, it's citing the FBI.

No you aren't, you dolt.

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta_tax.htm

Happy now?


What does that have to do with the FBI?
 
2013-03-21 08:29:56 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: cynicalbastard: KawaiiNot: karnal: At least no poultry was harmed

I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.

There are non-edible animals?

No, but there are the less tasty ones.


Poison-arrow frogs are definitely non-edible.
 
2013-03-21 09:02:32 PM

KiplingKat278: karmaceutical: KiplingKat278: karmaceutical: KiplingKat278: Sorry, the content from wiki was cut, but you can read it. It's not citing CCF, it's citing the FBI.

No you aren't, you dolt.

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta_tax.htm

Happy now?

What does that have to do with the FBI?

You can nitpick at sources all you want, but PETA gave $45k to defend a domestic terrorist and $25K to his family.

They have publically condoned domestic terrorism on their own website. So yeah, they support terrorism.


I guess we can add "cite" to the list of terms you don't have an operational understanding of  Keep up the good work.
 
2013-03-21 09:13:12 PM
no kill shelters are the best by far.  but they aren't always possible.  it seems that many of the peta-haters don't bother to donate to animal shelters.  i do, but i'm poor.
 
2013-03-21 09:23:10 PM

Bucky Katt: no kill shelters are the best by far.  but they aren't always possible.  it seems that many of the peta-haters don't bother to donate to animal shelters.  i do, but i'm poor.


Big difference between "no-kill not always possible" and "PETA killing almost every animal they receive no matter what condition it's in".
 
2013-03-21 10:12:38 PM

KiplingKat278: Keizer_Ghidorah: Bucky Katt: no kill shelters are the best by far.  but they aren't always possible.  it seems that many of the peta-haters don't bother to donate to animal shelters.  i do, but i'm poor.

Big difference between "no-kill not always possible" and "PETA killing almost every animal they receive no matter what condition it's in".

A soon as they walks in the door without trying opening adoptions to the public.

My thing is they swear they are doing the most humane thing possible while giving away tens of thousands of dollars to domestic terrorists. If they took that money and dedicated it to building a real shelter, creating a viable adoption program, they would actually be helping animals rather than this twisted idea that they are helping them by killing the large majority of animals that walk in their door.

Or send that money to real no kill shelters, who could help even more animals with it.


That would mean those animals would become enslaved by humans again, something PETA won't stand for. Better to die than be subjugated, says PETA.
 
2013-03-21 10:17:26 PM

KiplingKat278: karmaceutical: KiplingKat278: karmaceutical: KiplingKat278: Sorry, the content from wiki was cut, but you can read it. It's not citing CCF, it's citing the FBI.

No you aren't, you dolt.

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta_tax.htm

Happy now?

What does that have to do with the FBI?

You can nitpick at sources all you want, but PETA gave $45k to defend a domestic terrorist and $25K to his family.

They have publically condoned domestic terrorism on their own website. So yeah, they support terrorism.


I cited a .gov website above, for what it's worth(many pdf links to evidence to consider them as associating with ELF/ALF terrorists and to be watched, or something to that effect).  Not surprisingly, no one has replied to it.
 
2013-03-21 11:11:18 PM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.



If your team does it then any action is justifiable.

If it's the other guy's team, well then that same action is abhorrent and evil!
 
2013-03-21 11:12:14 PM
Are we to take these two clear statements - "animals have value even the absence of humans" and "animals have a right not to be tortured" - that PETA believes that animals should have the right to jury trials? Or that animals should be free from unreasonable searches? Or that animals should be allowed to vote?

Of course not. Clearly, their philosophy does not extend to the hyperbolic extremes you've cast it as.

Your turn.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.

On the contrary, they clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of a right to "live free from pain and suffering".You can tell that that's what they say because I used quote marks, rather than your paraphrasing attempt to enlarge their statement to a right not to be hurt or killed. They are not hypocrites, because painless euthanasia does not infringe that right.
Similarly, I believe that humans also have that right, but I also believe in euthanasia or assisted suicide for the terminally ill. In fact, it's not a "but", but a "therefore" - I don't believe people should be forced to live out their days in pain and suffering. It would, instead, be hypocritical to believe that no one should ever be allowed release from pain.

You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.

What's your opinion on torture? And what's your opinion on assisted suicide?


4/10.  You blew it when you tried to compare it to things as dissimilar as torture and assisted suicide after such a ridiculously pedantic and legalistic rant.  You could salvage a few points by coming out in full support of the euthanasia of neglected but perfectly healthy human children.
 
2013-03-21 11:26:08 PM

CourtroomWolf: 4/10.


Did you screw up a quote? Not sure which side you're on.
/too lazy to scroll and see what was/wasn't yours
 
2013-03-21 11:56:12 PM

fredklein: ciberido: The very name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sends the message that anyone who disagrees with their policies in the slightest is unethical.

Exactly- you can tell a lot about a group by what its name is. For instance "Pro-Life" implies everyone else is Pro-death (or 'anti-life', which ever way you want to put it). And there's nothing like implying that the other side is evil right in your very name to start a debate off right.

Groups that want to do it right start of with simple, descriptive names (for instance, "Pro-choice" implies the other side is anti-choice. Which they are) that do not vilify the opponent.

As you say, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" implies that anyone who disagrees is unethical. Even more, it implies that about anyone who isn't a member of PETA.



You can generalize to other groups such as "Objectivism" or "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
 
2013-03-22 12:12:35 AM
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/peta_tax.htm


I never knew how terrible geography teachers could be until I checked that site out.  Brave, brave work.

Seriously, the document does indeed say that PETA donated money to that guy's legal defense fund.  Why we are supposed to be surprised that PETA might have links to a militant animal rights activist is odd, but hey, there you go.  I'm not sure how that proves that their operating a euthanasia clinic that has to register as a shelter in Virginia is morally wrong, but I can see how PETA's tactics color anything they try to do for some.

Now no one else has to count as a visitor on the above site, although if you want a line-by-line paranoid deconstruction of some geography teacher's lesson, go for it.
 
2013-03-22 12:17:08 AM
Phins: Pictures of healthy adoptable animals killed by PETA, animals described by PETA as "adorable" and "perfect." WARNING: graphic pics of dead animals.

cousin-merle: I love the scare quotes around single words, and when you go to their documents page for proof, it is still just scare quotes around single words, not any kind of quote in context.  I had to put down my first dog for cochlear infections (well, my parents had to; this was a long time ago).  He looked perfectly adorable but was in pain every day.



They're not scare quotes when they're actual direct quotes, genius.
 
2013-03-22 12:34:42 AM

karmaceutical: Silly thing about facts... they are easily proven true or false.  All you've got is conjecture.  Which is nothing.  Well that and a bad attitude and a chronic case of intellectual laziness.  How is that working out for ya?


It's a shame I have no idea to whom you're speaking.
 
2013-03-22 12:43:33 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Mambo Bananapatch: cynicalbastard: KawaiiNot: karnal: At least no poultry was harmed

I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.

There are non-edible animals?

No, but there are the less tasty ones.

Poison-arrow frogs are definitely non-edible.



I'd stay away from fugu and blue-ringed octopuses, too, if I were you.
 
2013-03-22 01:26:14 AM
Ohlookabutterfly:
 /I feel dirty knowing we agree on something
//nice to see you can express yourself without being a douche on occasion



Oddly enough I kinda feel the same way.  But, seriously, cheers.
 
2013-03-22 09:17:37 AM

ciberido: karmaceutical: Silly thing about facts... they are easily proven true or false.  All you've got is conjecture.  Which is nothing.  Well that and a bad attitude and a chronic case of intellectual laziness.  How is that working out for ya?

It's a shame I have no idea to whom you're speaking.


Well... I wasn't talking to you.  So I guess you'll have to live with that shame for the rest of your days.
 
2013-03-22 09:33:47 AM

CourtroomWolf: Are we to take these two clear statements - "animals have value even the absence of humans" and "animals have a right not to be tortured" - that PETA believes that animals should have the right to jury trials? Or that animals should be free from unreasonable searches? Or that animals should be allowed to vote?

Of course not. Clearly, their philosophy does not extend to the hyperbolic extremes you've cast it as.

Your turn.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.

On the contrary, they clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of a right to "live free from pain and suffering".You can tell that that's what they say because I used quote marks, rather than your paraphrasing attempt to enlarge their statement to a right not to be hurt or killed. They are not hypocrites, because painless euthanasia does not infringe that right.
Similarly, I believe that humans also have that right, but I also believe in euthanasia or assisted suicide for the terminally ill. In fact, it's not a "but", but a "therefore" - I don't believe people should be forced to live out their days in pain and suffering. It would, instead, be hypocritical to believe that no one should ever be allowed release from pain.

You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.

What's your opinion on torture? And what's your opinion on assisted suicide?


4/10.  You blew it when you tried to compare it to things as dissimilar as torture and assisted suicide after such a ridiculously pedantic and legalistic rant.  You could salvage a few points by coming out in full support of the euthanasia of neglected but perfectly healthy human children.


This is true, he is pretty good at playing the verbal gymnastics game (I like to think that I am also) but he made the mistake of claiming that he is not a supporter of PETA or their ideology.  Nobody without skin in the game would defend PETA unless they were just trying to F with people.  It can be fun to take a retarded position in an argument and attempt to defend that position, but this can be dangerous as random idiots reading the thread might be swayed or have their own version of crazy validated.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7656714/83169966#c83169966" target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7656714/83169966#c8 3169966">Keizer_Ghidorah: Mambo Bananapatch: cynicalbastard: KawaiiNot: karnal: At least no poultry was harmed

I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.

There are non-edible animals?

No, but there are the less tasty ones.

Poison-arrow frogs are definitely non-edible.



FWIW, once they are in captivity they rapdidly lose their poison. The belief is that they build up the poison due to their diet of ants. Likely they would still be nasty to eat.

karmaceutical: I'm telling ya, pets make some people crazy. Texas makes it legal to execute humans for trespassing and no one cares... but PeTA drives people into frothing lunacy.

There are plenty of asshats in the world that deserve scorn.

As I've said before, the funny thing is that a great many people (myself included) would agree with the majority of PETA's positions. The problem is that PETA is not honest about their motivations, and their other positions are batshiat crazy.
 
2013-03-22 10:22:39 AM

karmaceutical: ciberido: karmaceutical: Silly thing about facts... they are easily proven true or false.  All you've got is conjecture.  Which is nothing.  Well that and a bad attitude and a chronic case of intellectual laziness.  How is that working out for ya?

It's a shame I have no idea to whom you're speaking.

Well... I wasn't talking to you.  So I guess you'll have to live with that shame for the rest of your days.



Oh, actually I feel oddly proud to be the recipient of the most gratuitous insult in the thread.  So, thank you.
 
2013-03-22 02:43:16 PM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


Yes they should you farking prick. Every link here is proof.
 
2013-03-22 02:48:44 PM
2012 is not an aberration either. PeTA has a history of abysmal placement rates and indiscriminate euthanasia.

PeTA's kill rate was 96% in 2011 and 79% in 2010. They apparently tried to lower their kill rate numbers in 2005 by dumping dead cats and dogs in a supermarket's dumpster. The testimony at trial gave some of the awful details of the dumping. The PeTA employees were not  convicted of animal cruelty; they were convicted of littering. Very odd since they dumped their "trash" in a dumpster.

www.petakillsanimals.com
One of the puppies dumped in supermarket dumpster by PeTA's Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook.
 
2013-03-22 05:01:29 PM

spiderpaz: We must kill them all to save them from how cruel life is.  Don't you get it?

Actually, I don't really disagree with euthanizing animals before they over-breed and create a situation where even more animals will suffer and die.  I just think most people that are part of PETA are self-righteous douche bags that get into other people's business (specifically food choices) way too much.  Is it even possible for someone to become a vegetarian without becoming a peachy little biatch about it anymore?


Reminds me of a joke.

How do you know whether or not someone's a vegetarian?  Just wait and they'll tell you.
 
Displayed 297 of 297 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report