I doubt they do it maliciously, but I've heard stuff. Anybody know for sure?

(Also, my friend ALWAYS brings this up and I want some hard facts to disprove him.)

yes, considering the millions of animal casualties that take place during the harvesting of soy and wheat crops each year.

I don't know about PETA itself (though, have you been watching the news?), but I know Ingrid Newkirk has been quoted on several occassions saying that "collateral damage" is necessary as long as the cause is promoted. :brood:

I remember reading something on here the other day about PETA's euthanization of sick and suffering animals, if that helps.

You mean the crops grown to feed livestock? Oh yeah...

yes, considering the millions of animal casualties that take place during the harvesting of soy and wheat crops each year.

yes, considering the millions of animal casualties that take place during the harvesting of soy and wheat crops each year.

I don't see how PETA has anything to do with that, unless they own companies I don't know about. :confused:

no, just by buying the products of tofu and wheat producers who kill thousands upon thousands of free roaming animals each year.

Oh, I get it. You're a troll! Forgive me for being slow on the uptake today, the heat has been getting to me.

PS: You still haven't told me how PETA has anything to do with farming. But I guess I shouldn't expect your argument to make sense. :)

pff, not an argument or a troll, just a response to the badly phrased question do PETA kill animals
surely some person who has been (at least in their own opinion) a part of PETA in some way has at some time killed something in some way that is a part of the animal kingdom. so i was just responding with "well, many animals die in the harvestation of vegetarian crops each year, those seem to count" as a sort of example.

i didn't say that any of you were hypocrites and i didn't even use the word 'hypocrite,' and can only assume that that word is thrown around often (understandable), so there was no need to go into that line of reasoning.

i do believe that people who bash the moral integrity of meat eaters but (knowledgeably) allow the deaths of millions of animals in harvestation are expressing a sort of hypocrisy but i made no move to get into that here, because no one had said anything that really corresponded with that little irriation.

so yes, PETA do kill animals. that's it. no preaching.

Here (http://www.badrap.org/rescue/PETAA.cfm) is Ingrid Newkirk on pit bulls and similar breeds. Worse yet, she thinks this shouldn't matter to "people who genuinely care about dogs."

-Qit

pff, not an argument or a troll, just a response to the badly phrased question
surely some person who has been (at least in their own opinion) a part of PETA in some way has at some time killed something in some way that is a part of the animal kingdom. so i was just responding with "well, many animals die in the harvestation of vegetarian crops each year, those seem to count" as a sort of example.

i didn't say that any of you were hypocrites and i didn't even use the word 'hypocrite,' and can only assume that that word is thrown around often (understandable), so there was no need to go into that line of reasoning.

i do believe that people who bash the moral integrity of meat eaters but (knowledgeably) allow the deaths of millions of animals in harvestation are expressing a sort of hypocrisy but i made no move to get into that here, because no one had said anything that really corresponded with that little irriation.

so yes, PETA do kill animals. that's it. no preaching.

Aahh, I see. Sorry for the accusation, then. It sounded like you were winding us up. We're probably hyper-defensive because we get that a lot. Apologies.

PETA does euthinize animals when they cannot find homes for them. This is a necessary evil and very unfortunate, but I don't see it as anything to hold against them.

PETA does euthinize animals when they cannot find homes for them. This is a necessary evil and very unfortunate, but I don't see it as anything to hold against them.

I don't think it's a necessary evil any more than I think euthanizing orhpaned children when they cannot find home for them is a necassary evil.

But I suppose there will always be people who will defend PETA to the death.

I don't think it's a necessary evil any more than I think euthanizing orhpaned children when they cannot find home for them is a necassary evil.

But I suppose there will always be people who will defend PETA to the death.

First of all, I'm not defending PETA to the death. In fact, I stated that I don't always support them. Did you selectively read my post or just not understand it?

Second, your comparison to euthanizing orphaned children is flawed. Orphaned children don't generally suffer and die homeless on the streets. They have a roof over their heads and food supplied to them by the government. Is it a good life? I'll leave that for another thread. But it's far more than homeless animals get, most of which die of disease and starvation.

Euthanization sucks, I agree. But dying of starvation is a far worse fate. If orphaned children were left to live on the streets and die of starvation, I'd say we need to euthanize them too.

First of all, I'm not defending PETA to the death. In fact, I stated that I don't always support them. Did you selectively read my post or just not understand it?


I was stating that in general, I was not referring to you. You don't have to be so pompous and defensive.

I'm not going to debate this because this isn't a debate forum. I just don't support Peta nor do I approve of their practices nor their arguments excusing their own animal cruelty and hypocrisy.

PETA does euthinize animals when they cannot find homes for them. This is a necessary evil and very unfortunate, but I don't see it as anything to hold against them.

Actually, they don't try and find homes for them. And I got that from Peta themselves.

I was stating that in general, I was not referring to you. You don't have to be so pompous and defensive.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, but you can avoid this in the future by not replying to one specific quote then following it up with a statement you don't intend to direct to that person.

I'm not going to debate this because this isn't a debate forum. I just don't support Peta nor do I approve of their practices nor their arguments excusing their own animal cruelty and hypocrisy.

That's your perrogative, but understand that most folks won't agree with your claims.

That's your perrogative, but understand that most folks won't agree with your claims.

Most folks in the real world don't support PETA.

And it's prerogative.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prerogative

I don't think it's a necessary evil any more than I think euthanizing orhpaned children when they cannot find home for them is a necassary evil.

But I suppose there will always be people who will defend PETA to the death.

I hate the idea of euthanization, but I don't see the alternative until people stop purchasing animals and people start becoming more responsible about getting their animals fixed. Until that point, exactly what can we do with all the dogs/cats that need homes. The shelters are overcrowded.

I don't think [euthanasia] a necessary evil any more than I think euthanizing orhpaned children when they cannot find home for them is a necassary evil.

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, so please don't get defensive. But what realistic alternative do you propose to euthanasia considering the sheer numbers of homeless companion animals?

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, so please don't get defensive. But what realistic alternative do you propose to euthanasia considering the sheer numbers of homeless companion animals?

I think Peta would do better to use all the money they waste on annoying campaigns that alienate the public for a nice no-kill shelter instead, and work on educating the public about caring for domesticated animals. I think people would be willing to donate for a cause like that.

I have worked in Humane Society shelters, and seeing animals euthanized nearly every day scarred me for life. I cannot accept that euthanasia is the best solution to this problem.

That's a nice thought, VeganKat, but even with all its resources, PETA does not make enough money to care for all the homeless animals in the US, let alone in the world. They would barely make a dent. And I don't know that warehousing homeless dogs and cats over a long period is what's best for them. They weren't meant to be kept in kennels like that.

The problem is that PeTA do not try to find homes for the animals before putting them down. Even my local death row has a minimum 14 days before they poor cat gets the axe. Not so with PeTA. And the spin they put on it is appalling. "A shelter of last resort". No, it's not a shelter. Call it like it is. It's a euthanisuation service being offered to the local pounds.

The problem is that PeTA do not try to find homes for the animals before putting them down. Even my local death row has a minimum 14 days before they poor cat gets the axe. Not so with PeTA. And the spin they put on it is appalling. "A shelter of last resort". No, it's not a shelter. Call it like it is. It's a euthanisuation service being offered to the local pounds.

:yes: The glossing over of the truth is what really gets me. They're hypocrites with no compassion.

Most folks in the real world don't support PETA.

Thank you for stating the obvious. But that wasn't my point.

And it's prerogative.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prerogative

OMG I made a typo! Whatever in the world will I do now that you called me on it? And you dare call me pompous? And you dislike PETA for their hypocrisy? Pot meet kettle.

The glossing over of the truth is what really gets me. They're hypocrites with no compassion.

Riiiiiight. An animal rights organization who tries to get people to make more compassionate choices has no compassion. Good luck with selling that one.