Peta Kills animals?
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Joined
·
2,095 Posts
Wtf? Can somebody verify or refute this please?
Joined
·
3,793 Posts
No idea. But I can't take seriously a site that does not provide any information about who they are. No contact information, nothing. Most of their claims against PETA are pretty outrageous and laughable, especially the link above. For instance how do they determine when someone from PETA buys or brings in an animal at the shelter? Wouldn't take it seriously at all. If you look around their site, they bash celebrities for mundane stuff and look for anyway to discredit their veganism/vegetarianism. Their tactics are more obnoxious than PETAs...
Joined
·
936 Posts
This site gets their information from the Virginia Department of Agriculture. If you scroll down the page on this link, the PETA shelter provides (under state law) records of how many animals they took in, were claimed, adopted, transferred and euthanized. I suppose if one was interested, they could contact the VADA and get their own copies, as this is public information, available upon request.
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf
What it does not say is the reasons the animals were killed. It is assumed some were sick or injured beyond being able to be saved, but not all animals dropped off at a PETA shelter were beyond hope upon arrival. In essence, PETA does run kill shelters, but their PR team glosses it over under the guise of "doing societies dirty work".
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf
What it does not say is the reasons the animals were killed. It is assumed some were sick or injured beyond being able to be saved, but not all animals dropped off at a PETA shelter were beyond hope upon arrival. In essence, PETA does run kill shelters, but their PR team glosses it over under the guise of "doing societies dirty work".
Joined
·
4,278 Posts
I think their message is 'Peta kills animals, so you can go back to eating your bacon sandwich with a clear concisions'
Joined
·
936 Posts
I see nothing on that site that is pro-meat/pro-cruelty. They just don't like PETA and aren't afraid to put it out there how outright obnoxious/extremist they are. Perhaps the message is that if you want to donate money/time to help animals, there may be better organizations than PETA... Like your local no-kill shelter for example. OR the fact many vegetarians and vegans do not support or want to be associated with PETA (in this case, many people find an animal rights organization that runs kill shelters to be offensive and wrong)
PETA has done a lot of good for animals, don't get me wrong, but they've also done a whole lot of damage to the publics perception of a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle (which equates to less people being willing to try). They lie too. They should stick to their undercover documentaries because that's their strong suit. They need to leave taking in homeless animals to local no-kill shelters.
Joined
·
17,977 Posts
The Center for Consumer Freedoms is a right-wing lobbying group supporting meat, fast food, tobacco and alcohol. Peta actually doesn't have a "shelter". It does have a network of foster families who help with displaced and adoptable animals, and limited facilities to house animals. However, Peta offers free euthanasia services to the general public, and people bring them their very sick, old, and unadoptable pets.
Here is an interesting website: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/understanding-petas-shelter.html
I wish our area offered free euthanasia. I believe it would cut down in the number of animals given up to municipal shelters and pounds - especially seniors and animals with major health problems.
Here is an interesting website: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/understanding-petas-shelter.html
I wish our area offered free euthanasia. I believe it would cut down in the number of animals given up to municipal shelters and pounds - especially seniors and animals with major health problems.
Did a little more research. Yes, the original information came from a biased source although I found some information from a site run by Nathan Winograd.
Nathan
On his site it said "Since 1998, PETA has killed over 30,000 animals, roughly 2,000 animals a year including kittens and puppies." In a debate between Nathan and a peta attorney, PETA argued that animals were better off dead.
Actual peta members, employees, kill the animals.
Nathan
On his site it said "Since 1998, PETA has killed over 30,000 animals, roughly 2,000 animals a year including kittens and puppies." In a debate between Nathan and a peta attorney, PETA argued that animals were better off dead.
Actual peta members, employees, kill the animals.
Joined
·
17,977 Posts
Ha! Nathan Winograd is also a biased source! Just try to get into debate with him on FB, he'll ban you so fast your head will spin! 
It seems as though the leaders of any branch of the animal rights movement are quite the characters. Nathan has some wonderful ideas about creating a no-kill environment and many, many shelters are increasing adoption/save rates simply by implementing his ideas. But, like Gary Yourofsky or Ingrid Newkirk, he is very controversial and expresses opinions that make you scratch your head at times.
It seems as though the leaders of any branch of the animal rights movement are quite the characters. Nathan has some wonderful ideas about creating a no-kill environment and many, many shelters are increasing adoption/save rates simply by implementing his ideas. But, like Gary Yourofsky or Ingrid Newkirk, he is very controversial and expresses opinions that make you scratch your head at times.
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom Like Poppy said, Petakillsanimals is a front for the Center for Consumer Freedom. I don't think it's possible to read the Wikipedia entry on Center for Consumer Freedom and impute ethical values to anything they say or do. This org was originally funded by $600,000 from Phillip Morris to fight efforts to ban smoking in restaurants. Because, you know, consumers should be free to do what they want where they want. They lobby the interests of puppy mills and factory farms, as well as tobacco and alcohol, and they are the mortal enemy of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It's occured to me they are actually run by the Antichrist's evil twin. If I didn't like one other thing about PETA, I'd admire it for attracting this particular adversary.
Here is a link to a peta article, "The deadly consequences of no kill policy."
They never actually say, its better to kill than cage, although its hard not to interpret the article any other way.
They never actually say, its better to kill than cage, although its hard not to interpret the article any other way.
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
The article seems to be mostly saying that a shelter can be admit-all or it can be no-kill, but it can't be both. In the absence of unlimited resources, unlimited staff and unlimited space, that would seem to be true. Spay/neuter is the custom in some parts of the country but not others. I don't see the folly in transporting from where the animals are to where the homes are. The article doesn't recognize differences between one region and another that way. I've experienced it as a North/South difference, for one thing. If I drove 200 miles south, there would be many more healthy, socialized, adoptable dogs in shelters than there are where I live. Where I live, the rescuers sweep in and take all the "easy" dogs out of the shelters. And when you go to adopt from one of the rescuers, there's a blizzard of roadblocks and barriers to navigate as they find one reason after another to say No Dog For You. And No Cat Either. Some of the homeless animals problem really is logistics, and the article writer isn't acknowledging that.
I've been under this impression as well. However, if PeTA does in fact euthanize animals, I'm not sure how this could be compatible with their usual "human-hands-strictly-off-animals" philosophy. (Okay, I might be oversimplifying or mis-stating their position... at least some PeTA members have adopted animals in need of homes, even if other members have stated that "pets" should ultimately be extinct.)
Posted January 4th by Professor Gary L. Francione. Not entirely related to the current subject I originally posted but I think its very important.
VEGANISM, PETA, "PERSONAL PURITY," AND PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
PETA says:
>>Being vegan is about helping animals, not maintaining personal purity. Boycotting products that may contain trace amounts of animal products can actually be harmful to animals in the long run. For example, by refusing to eat a veggie burger from a restaurant because the bun may contain traces of milk or eggs, you are discouraging that restaurant from offering vegan options because it is seems too difficult a task. So use our list as a guide, and do your best to avoid animal ingredients.<<
http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/animal-ingredients-list/
This is speciesist. A social movement that seeks justice for nonhumans says that we should *never* choose to participate in animal exploitation. Period. We should not decide to eat the product with milk or eggs to make the owner think it's easier to serve vegans. That is like saying that we ought not to object to "small" instances of misogyny or racism because we don't want racists or misogynists to think that the equality of woman and people of color is "too difficult."
And what's a "trace"? How much is "okay"? And what if it's a "small" amount of meat? How is that different from a "small" amount of egg or dairy? Answer: it isn't. So if you buy this nonsense, go ahead and eat the pork sprinkled on your dish as well--as long as there's not a lot.
A number of "animal advocates" support this approach. For example, Bruce Friedrich, formerly of PETA and now with Farm Sanctuary, says:
>>We all know that the number one reason why people don't go vegan is that they don't think it's convenient enough, and we all know people whose reason for not going vegan is that they "can't" give up cheese or ice cream.
But instead of making it easier for them to help animals, we often make it more difficult. Instead of encouraging them to stop eating all other animal products besides cheese or ice cream, we preach to them about the oppression of dairy cows. Then we go on about how we don't eat sugar or a veggie burger because of the bun, even though a tiny bit of butter flavor in a bun supports significantly less suffering than eating any non-organic fruit or vegetable, or using a plastic bottle, or about 100 other things that most of us do. Our fanatical obsession with ingredients not only obscures the animals' suffering-which was virtually non-existent for that tiny modicum of ingredient-but nearly guarantees that those around us are not going to make any change at all. So, we've preserved our personal purity, but we've hurt animals-and that's anti-vegan.<<
http://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/…/read-essa…/effectiveadvocacy/
Peter Singer, considered by some to be the "Father of the Animal Rights Movement" says:
>>I think it's more important to try and produce a change in the right direction than to be personally pure yourself. So when you're eating with someone at a restaurant, and you ordered something vegan but when it comes there's a bit of grated cheese or something on it, sometimes vegans will make a big fuss and send it back and that might mean the food is wasted. And if you're in company with people who are not vegan or not even vegetarian, I think that's probably the wrong thing to do. It'd be better off just to eat it because people are going to think, 'Oh my god, these vegans…'<<
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/singer.html
I agree that being vegan is not about "personal purity." But I *don't* see not exploiting vulnerable beings--human or nonhuman--as being about "personal purity." I see it as a matter of caring about fundamental justice and acting on it. To call that a matter of "personal purity" is simply to say that justice should not be a matter of clear moral principle. And I could not disagree with that more.
So if the restaurant won't give you a vegan meal, don't eat the non-vegan meal just because you think it will help animals. It won't. What it will do is to send a very clear message that you do not regard animal rights as a matter of moral principle.
And that is very harmful to animals.
People are more likely to embrace veganism if they agree that there's something serious and important at stake. And as long as you choose to eat any amount of meat, dairy, and eggs, they will never see veganism as a matter of fundamental justice.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
VEGANISM, PETA, "PERSONAL PURITY," AND PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
PETA says:
>>Being vegan is about helping animals, not maintaining personal purity. Boycotting products that may contain trace amounts of animal products can actually be harmful to animals in the long run. For example, by refusing to eat a veggie burger from a restaurant because the bun may contain traces of milk or eggs, you are discouraging that restaurant from offering vegan options because it is seems too difficult a task. So use our list as a guide, and do your best to avoid animal ingredients.<<
http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/animal-ingredients-list/
This is speciesist. A social movement that seeks justice for nonhumans says that we should *never* choose to participate in animal exploitation. Period. We should not decide to eat the product with milk or eggs to make the owner think it's easier to serve vegans. That is like saying that we ought not to object to "small" instances of misogyny or racism because we don't want racists or misogynists to think that the equality of woman and people of color is "too difficult."
And what's a "trace"? How much is "okay"? And what if it's a "small" amount of meat? How is that different from a "small" amount of egg or dairy? Answer: it isn't. So if you buy this nonsense, go ahead and eat the pork sprinkled on your dish as well--as long as there's not a lot.
A number of "animal advocates" support this approach. For example, Bruce Friedrich, formerly of PETA and now with Farm Sanctuary, says:
>>We all know that the number one reason why people don't go vegan is that they don't think it's convenient enough, and we all know people whose reason for not going vegan is that they "can't" give up cheese or ice cream.
But instead of making it easier for them to help animals, we often make it more difficult. Instead of encouraging them to stop eating all other animal products besides cheese or ice cream, we preach to them about the oppression of dairy cows. Then we go on about how we don't eat sugar or a veggie burger because of the bun, even though a tiny bit of butter flavor in a bun supports significantly less suffering than eating any non-organic fruit or vegetable, or using a plastic bottle, or about 100 other things that most of us do. Our fanatical obsession with ingredients not only obscures the animals' suffering-which was virtually non-existent for that tiny modicum of ingredient-but nearly guarantees that those around us are not going to make any change at all. So, we've preserved our personal purity, but we've hurt animals-and that's anti-vegan.<<
http://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/…/read-essa…/effectiveadvocacy/
Peter Singer, considered by some to be the "Father of the Animal Rights Movement" says:
>>I think it's more important to try and produce a change in the right direction than to be personally pure yourself. So when you're eating with someone at a restaurant, and you ordered something vegan but when it comes there's a bit of grated cheese or something on it, sometimes vegans will make a big fuss and send it back and that might mean the food is wasted. And if you're in company with people who are not vegan or not even vegetarian, I think that's probably the wrong thing to do. It'd be better off just to eat it because people are going to think, 'Oh my god, these vegans…'<<
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/singer.html
I agree that being vegan is not about "personal purity." But I *don't* see not exploiting vulnerable beings--human or nonhuman--as being about "personal purity." I see it as a matter of caring about fundamental justice and acting on it. To call that a matter of "personal purity" is simply to say that justice should not be a matter of clear moral principle. And I could not disagree with that more.
So if the restaurant won't give you a vegan meal, don't eat the non-vegan meal just because you think it will help animals. It won't. What it will do is to send a very clear message that you do not regard animal rights as a matter of moral principle.
And that is very harmful to animals.
People are more likely to embrace veganism if they agree that there's something serious and important at stake. And as long as you choose to eat any amount of meat, dairy, and eggs, they will never see veganism as a matter of fundamental justice.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
Joined
·
4,278 Posts
Is there a bit of confusion here between possible cross-contamination, "may contain traces of milk or eggs" and intentional contamination, "the pork sprinkled on your dish"?
It is confusing, thanks for catching that. Cross contamination at a factory that produces a vegan and non-vegan product is usually mentioned so if someone has an allergy they will not become sick. I personally buy products all the time that have that have warnings even though I obviously don't consume dairy.
Careless preparation of food at a restaurant, calling it intentional contamination or something else, causing my plate of food to have dairy on it is completely different in my mind. Actually happens many times when I order salad without cheese and it shows up with cheese. I politely refuse it and ask for it to be redone. If it comes back with small amounts of cheese still on it, i.e. the cook picked off the cheese, I won't pay for it and will either leave if I am alone or stay if I am not alone, and won't eat anything else.
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
