Thought I'd move this topic to it's own thread so as not to further steal the Zine thread. One thing I always find is that many people who know me are surprised to hear that I don't support AR/PETA. They assume because I am so involved with pets (mostly dogs) that I naturally would support a group that is out there for "animal rights". Usually these people have some idea that PETA does a lot of good for animals. If you don't believe animals should be bred for any reason and support PETA's no-birth nation goal then where do you think future pets will come from? The anti-breeding push from AR groups IS a push towards no one having pets. Part of being AR is believing that while it may be ok to take in strays, you can never own an animal and it is wrong to continue keeping animals as pets. You can't even get your facts on this straight - it was a man and a woman. They were found guilty of littering and the woman admitted in court that she had done the same thing at least "a couple time" before. You can not say that it was just a single incident when PETA continued to support these two, as well as paying for a good lawyer for them. Except that it puts the euthansia rate at their shelter around 80-90%. Meaning of the total animals coming through their doors only about 20% are adopted out. That makes PETA's shelter a "high kill", worse then many areas local dog pounds/animal shelters. How is that in any way acceptable? No way all those animals were old and/or sick. Two vet workers testified in the crulety trial that they were led to believe PETA would be placing the animals they took. The animals were then killed in PETA's van - never even given a chance to see a shelter vet or be evaluated for adoption. If those animals were ill beyond help, why would the vet office try to find a shelter to place them through? It really is frustrating to see people blindly defend and support a group like PETA. There are so many good organization's which aren't "publicity sluts" (PETA's own term for themselves) and actually do use their money for helping animals, I just can't understand why PETA continues to receive such widespread support. It is totally bizarre that they can state on their website that they would like to see an end to pet ownership and people who want to continue to have the right to have animals would ever dream of supporting them. I have known otherwise sane and reasonable people who have this vague idea that "PETA does some good" and because of that they continue to support them.
Ive disliked PETA since I discovered them in 6th grade. That organization is a complete paradox, and simply terrible. "We're against killing animals, but we can justify euthanasia." "Violence against animals other than humans is disgustingly wrong. But its ok to beat up a person who abuses dogs." No, those arent actual quotes, lol...Though, this is PETA's attitude. Such an immorale organization >.< They make me so angry.
the founders are in it for the money the followers are in it out of ignorance, or in the name of being 'progressive' it's an evil cult, nothing more
There's no doubt in my mind that some of the people involved in PETA or any similar organization are in it for the right reasons.
You know, I get this all the time about PETA...my Aunt works for them, and she LOVES animals as I do, she would do anything for them, and the way people make PETA workers sound, shes nothing like that. And because she works for PETA, i've met other people who also work for PETA, and i've seen how they work, what they do, and it's never anything like what people say it's like in threads like this. I've always been a huge supporter of PETA, a regular monthly donator, and want to do lots if work for them in the future. The thing is, I'm telling you, I've seen how they work first hand, and all this stuff about how their fake and they contradict themselves, and how they torture animals (I hear that one a lot), It's just not accurate. I've watched them put themselves on the line to save an animal (my aunt mostly), and her partners no the same. I'm not quite sure where and why all these rumors about them have started, niether are they. But all i'm saying, is PLEASE don't spread this stuff that you hear and read off papers and websites until you've seen them in action FIRST HAND. As i've said, I've watched these people work, and their amazing in what they do, and their only thought is about the animals. I'm not saying I don't believe that you guys have heard this, I'm just saying that it's not accurate. YOUR not there, YOU don't see what happpens, so please don't act as though you know exactly what your talking about. If these people were bad, i'd be the first to say so and i'd be against them, as I'm a huge animal activist, but their not, they do so much good and help millions of animals, and it's just not right that they get this stuff said about them. It's typical, i'm definitely not suprised, but not right.
I ask repeatedly in veg for people to list the other orgs who work on compassion. When I was a wobbly-legged baby vegetarian back in the 80s, that was usually vegetarian, with a bit on how bad eggs and dairy were in excess. Today, the line has gotten rigid in mission statement (which is , of course less than performance) as vegan. Some vegan have the attitude that vegetarian is merely a stepping stone, that all will be vegan if they are enlightened enough, which shows an incredible lack of understanding of why people turn to vegetarianism. AR is ONLY one reason, and even then you see the honey debate. (how low do you go in evolution with your compassion? a vegan diet assumes that vegetables are fine. A fruitarian one does not. Will fruitarians say they are what vegans want to be when they grow up?) pets: I'd love to see purebreeding cease. Mutts and alley cats have better long term health because of genetic diversity. right of ownership? I;'d like to make this RESPONSIBILITIES of possession: and that means every rope-headed puppypuller who is feeding the puppy of the three months fast food burgers and not getting then their shots as well as purse rat carrying yuppies, should have to be licensed. YES, an owner's license.
Good point. The "my aunt works there and they aren't like what people think" also doesn't explain or excuse the facts about them, many of which are on their website or easily proven. Duck's observation is pretty accurate - "the founders are in it for the money the followers are in it out of ignorance, or in the name of being 'progressive' it's an evil cult, nothing more".
lol... that billboard is from my home town! Rock on! Keep discussing guys! I'm enjoying your opinions from both sides. I'm actually glad to get a conversation like this started. We can all learn from eachother, I just hope that everyone keeps a level head and can discuss their opinions with grace... which everyone seems to be doing so far! Good Job
