A full page ad in the New York Times yesterday said "Who's Killed More Animals?" Under a picture of recently convicted Michael Vick, the score is "8." Under an image that's supposed to represent the animal rights organization PETA, the score is 14,400. Aha, so the infamous pro-animal organization is actually in the business of killing animals?I would have turned the page quickly if it weren't for the fact that a student in my animal rights class last semester did a presentation comparing different animal rights groups and presented these allegations. I had never heard them before, expressed skepticism, and moved on. The group behind the allegations evidently has a lot of money and really wants to slime the folks at PETA, so yesterday I decided to look into the matter.
I should say, to begin with, that I'm basically in sympathy with the PETA people. I've met the president of the organization, Ingrid Newkirk, and she struck me as extremely decent, compassionate, and reasonable. My own perspective on animal issues is not absolutist and uncompromising, like PETA's is, but their clear, simple message is valuable. I also think they're masters at attracting attention--and Newkirk was completely forthright about that goal. Once people are looking (at naked celebrities, shocking images, or whatever) you can tell them something important. The Humane Society is more my style, but the PETA people are good guys, in my opinion.
So what about all the animal-killing that's allegedly going on at PETA? Apparently the organization doesn't want to help the "PETA kills animals" campaign gain publicity, so they don't respond on their website. But I sent them an e-mail and they sent back a thorough response. You can read it here. Bottom line--people turn to PETA as a last resort with animals that are not adoptible. PETA does euthanize animals.
I don't feel scandalized by this fact. "No kill" animal shelters have a happy image but they aren't really responsible for less killing than the rest. The "no kill" shelters take animals only by reservation. The animals they turn away wind up...of course...at the other animal shelters that do euthanize.
One of the most passionately pro-animal students who ever took my animal rights class worked at the SPCA and actually helped euthanize animals. This was painful for her, but there simply isn't enough room at animal shelters to house all the unwanted cats and dogs.
The people we should feel angry at are not the ones doing the euthanizing. It's folks who don't spay and neuter their pets. And even worse, people who adopt a cat or dog and then for the most trivial reasons decide to return it. An article in the New York Times magazine last year said that some people will actually take a dog to a shelter because he no longer seems like the right accessory. You know, last year I was an Irish Setter person, but now one of those miniature dogs would fit my image so much better.
It's people like this that scare me.
46 comments:
Good balanced commentary. Check out this web site for more info on Center for Consumer Freedom and their not-so-hidden agenda:
http://www.consumerdeception.com/
Some thoughts about PETA here - from a philosopher! Not directly relevant to your main point in this post about people misusing pets (with which I agree) but thought you might find it interesting in the wider context. See also the other posts linked.
Do you know what scared me? It was seeing “It’s people like this that scare me” written in the blog of a published, philosophy instructor. It casts a shadow over the validity of my view that though we see humanity divided, the consequences of our conflicting activities are united in a resultant human activity. “People like this” might contribute to the lower end of the resultant but we all play a part in determining how low that end is. To raise the resultant we must work together. To judge them we judge ourselves.
People who totally lack compassion are scary. Sorry, can't budge on this.
Are you then dividing "people" into two groups, those who have compassion and those who don't? In my view there are no "people who totally lack compassion". They are at the end of a continuum. People who are slightly removed from this end point are indeed scary. As we move away from this end point toward the "ideal" people become increasingly compassionate. We are all on this continuum. Our individual levels of compassion helps determine where between the two end points the median is located. We can raise the median and bring up the bottom. At the present time I place the median closer to the end of no compassion. That is why we see so many scary people.
I am not in not in a class of perfectly compassionate people. The pet dumper is probably not through and through evil. Still, it's good to express disapproval for dumping pets for trivial reasons. The more people disapprove, the less it will happen, and the fewer animals will need to be euthanized.
I think you are deliberately choosing to ignore the facts about PETA. Last summer, 2 PETA employess faced criminal charges for euthanizing *in the back of a van* a group of adoptable animals they accepted from local veterinary clinics, and dumping the bodies behind a grocery store. Those animals didn't even make it to PETA's headquarters for evaluation, much less be deemed unadoptable. (Really helps lower the published kill rate, doesn't it?) To PETA, EVERY dog and cat is unadoptable, because it's better to be dead than an "animal slave".
If you really want to know how a true animal lover acts, got to Nathan Winograds site at http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/. If San Francisco, San Diego, and an small shelter in the middle of nowhere in Nevada can go no kill, so can the entire country. If we really cared, THAT is what we would be pushing---not self aggrandizing, animal hating organizations like PETA and HSUS.
Janipurr, You reduce your credibility when you call PETA and HSUS "animal hating organizations." That's just silly.
The folks who placed that ad strike lme as anti-PETA, not pro-animal. I find it plausible that, as PETA says, they are actually involved in PR work for the restaurant or beef industry, or some such.
So no, I don't take their allegations seriously. I wouldn't unless I heard them from an organization I trust (like HSUS).
Could all animal shelters be no-kill? I did look up the website you cited and will look at it some more. I've always assumed no, but I'm happy to revisit the issue.
On the surface it seems deeply ironic. But most people believe they are doing the right thing when they are forced to euthanize their pet for medical reasons. The Human Society euthanize a tremendous number of animals every year and few people think they are unethical for doing so because people see there is a need for this. PETA is more concerned with the treatment of animals while they are alive (see http://meat.org).
Hi Jean. When I reread my last post I noticed there was a comma missing between “ideal” and people. If you have the ability to edit comments could you please insert the comma for me in case someone else reads the post and thinks I am talking about “ideal people” rather than an “ideal”? If you don’t want to it won’t be a big deal because the possibility my post will be read again seems remote. This conversation is becoming typical of the threads of a philosophy forum. Everyone is arguing about the ethics of particular animal “rights” organizations and no one is talking about the unnatural environment we have created that gives life to these organizations. Why have we created a fabric of existence in which have to euthanize animals or pre-birth humans for that matter. Why are we “harvesting” animal wild animals to the point of extinction? Why are we clear cutting forests? Why do we continue to destroy our environment? Why? Why? . That's what we should be discussing but everyone wants to talk about philosophy; no one wants to talk about life.
You'd think I'd be able to edit comments, but it doesn't look like there's a way. A blogspot flaw, I guess. On the substance of your comment--I am all for "big questions" and talking about life. But this post was about something very specific. You do have your choice of blogs to read. I understand there are 30,000 philosophy-related blogs on the internet!
I think you're giving PETA too free a ride on this one. As has been pointed out there was some controversy about the standards employed in their euthanasia programme a few years ago (wikipedia is probably as good a place as any to start looking).
And this jars somewhat with the high profile exposé approach they use against other organisations. Presumably they don't want all their operations to be tarred with the same brush as these individuals, yet they use that very same tactic in their own campaigning.
As far as I am aware in the UK most shelters do not routinely euthanase animals to anywhere near the extent of the US. This may be to do with capacity problems but does suggest that PETA's 'there is no alternative' position could be a little more nuanced - they seem to be making an explicit utilitarian (rather than rights based) decision to concentrate funding on prevention rather than housing animals.
This contrasts somewhat with their position on pest control in general. And I wonder how it works philosophically with their opposition to animal research and characterisation of it as animal 'torture'.
More than anything else, I think what the case highlights is the inconsistencies that can arise when uncompromising ideologies collide with the realities of everyday priority setting.
PJ, I'm starting to recant...a bit...
But last night I was looking into the group behind the "PETA kills animals" campaign. They are a PR firm that works for alcohol, tobacco, & soft-drink companies and the meat industry. Their goal is to increase profits for companies that don't care about human or animal welfare. So for them to pose as MORE concerned about animal welfare than PETA...well, it's deceptive and evil and irritating...and did I mention that it bothers me?
But as to the underlying issues. You're right--I can't really say for sure there's been no wrongdoing on the part of PETA employees, and I have never throughly looked into the issue of whether animal shelters MUST euthanize. If it's not standard in the UK,that's interesting.
I don't agree with PETA's uncompromising stance, but it can be useful to have that voice in the mix. Folks with more nuanced positions don't tend to get listened to.
According to [cough] PETA:
"Sanctuaries in Britain – unlike those in many other countries – typically do not euthanise animals unless doing so is necessary for medical reasons. This means that there are fewer places available and that more animals will be euthanised by local authorities...In the UK in 2003, 10,000 stray dogs were put to sleep by local authorities because placement in sanctuaries was not an option for these abandoned animals."
While according to USA Today:
"the USA is already well on its way to becoming a "no-kill nation." Euthanasia of animals is down 70%, from 17 million in the 1980s to fewer than 5 million today"
So even factoring in a 5x population difference, plus the additional other species (not sure how many, cats are the other major large animal pet but I doubt so many end up in shelters) it still looks like the US euthanises more animals.
But I don't know how widespread neutering is in the US vs. the UK, and how many strays there are overall.
My main objection to PETA has nothing to do with their practice of euthanizing unwanted pets. Instead, I object to the fact that they campaign in favor of welfarist "reforms" that, if enacted, would hurt the animals more than they helped them. Welfarist reforms produce good PR for the animal-exploitation industry, make people feel better about consuming animal products, and do precious little for the animals.
An example of such a campaign is the "cage free" movement. Hens raised in cage-free environments are treated in a way that is only marginally less cruel than hens raised in battery cages. If PETA (and other organizations, such as HSUS) had instead focused their resources on creative vegan education, we would see a greater return on investment.
Professor Kazez described PETA as being "absolutist and uncompromising". On the contrary, PETA has come a long way from its abolitionist roots and now openly collaborates with industry -- even to the point of giving awards to designers of slaughterhouses.
The most-articulate proponent of abolitionist (vegan) activism is Gary Francione, who is a distinguished professor of law at Rutgers University Law School. He recently started maintaining a blog. For an excellent blog entry by Professor Francione, see:
The Four Problems of Animal Welfare: In a Nutshell.
I like Gary Francione's book on animal law a lot. I learned a lot from it, and will have to look at his blog.
PETA's absolutist in the sense of being opposed to all animal research (for example) but also pragmatic. They're trying to address problems as they are, and not just work toward very distant goals.
I don't know where you live, but here in Texas it sure seems to me that folks are going to be eating meat for a long, long time. Helping the animals that inevitably will be killed this year seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate goal.
That said, it sure is disappointing finding out what "humane" labels really mean. The example of cage-free eggs is a good one. I think cage-free hens are better off than caged hens, but that doesn't mean very well off. (Singer & Mason are good on this topic...)
Hi Jean. Thanks for trying to edit my post. At least you know what I intended. Blogspot may have another deficiency but it could be my inexperience. I have been finding it very difficult to create links. I managed in one post but in the last one, even though the preview with my one word link seemed perfect, in the published post the one word was missing and the entire last sentence and date became the link. I will try again.
In your reply you said, “I am all for "big questions" and talking about life. But this post was about something very specific.” I suggest to you again there are no “specific” issues. Specific issues are only pixels in the big picture. Focusing on pixels is far easier than focusing on the big picture but I am inclined to think continuing to ‘pixel pick’ will destroy us.
In a post below you said, “…here in Texas it sure seems to me that folks are going to be eating meat for a long, long time.” It can’t be more than a decade ago that ‘people’ were saying that about east coast cod and west coast Salmon. These fish stocks are now insufficient to sustain a viable fishery. Fortunately beef cattle will not suffer the same fate. To satisfy meat eaters’ need to eat beef producers will continue to cut down oxygen producing vegetation until the amount it can produce becomes less than the methane produced by farting cows.
Except for an egg a day, probably laid by a caged chicken, and a bit of cottage cheese, I am a vegetarian. I became one because while thinking of self-destructive activities it occurred to me taking more out of “life” than we need is self-destructive; and eating one pound of beef rather than eating one of the 10 or so pounds of soy beans required to produce the one pound of beef was more than I needed. As much as possible I did not want to follow the new ‘golden rule’: to get as much as we can any way we can, the dominant feature in the big picture of us trying to fill the void
When I read that you heard there were 30,000 philosophy related blogs I searched “philosophical blogs” and the number that appeared at the top of the page was over 43 million. I won’t be searching these for a big picture. Together they are it and for awhile at least I will continue trying to describe .
I see what I did wrong. I didn't leave a space between my link and the last period. Too confirm my suspicion I will print my last sentence again.
Together they are it and for awhile at least I will continue trying to describe .
sorry. I will quit trying.
Jean,
Rather than attempt to rebut the points you made regarding meat-eaters in Texas, PETA's strategies, etc., I'll just say that I do hope you'll take a look at Gary Francione's blog. He addresses many of those same issues, and he does so in a very eloquent (and, to me, convincing) manner. Even if you end up disagreeing with him, you'll get more grist for the next time you teach your animal-rights class.
Also, if you have an iPod, I would recommend listening to these two interviews (or reading the transcripts). Gary Francione has argued before the Supreme Court, and it shows -- his speaking style is very captivating.
http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/gary_francione
http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/gary_francione2
If it seems like I speak highly of him, it's because my whole view of animal-activism changed after I encountered his work.
Thank you for all of that. I will look at the blog, and listen on my ipod. And yes, whether I agree entirely with him or not, he's got views I really ought to give more time to in my class. Thanks for the links.
Can't look at Gary Francione's blog at the moment (internet connection on the fritz) - Doug.E.Barr mentions deforestation and livestock, but of course we mustn't forget that it isn't just meat consumption driving this but industrial agricultural production as evidenced by the large scale deforestation driven by the need for soya. Admittedly this is mainly for cattle feed but then that is because there aren't that many vegetarians.
I think the environmental issues are really serious.
Re: Gary Francione's blog. I did have a look and put it on my blogroll, then changed my mind. It's certainly informative about the absolutist position, but there are no published comments.
I think somebody who comes out swinging against other animal activists on a blog (Singer & PETA are both too moderate for him) really ought to allow room for debate. Not that he needs to spend his time coming back to respond to comments, but why not at least publish them?
Some respected authorities think it's a bad idea to enable comments on your blog:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/07/20.html
Myself, I like 'em, but I can see the reasoning behind disallowing them.
That's a very amusing article. He says:
"When a blog allows comments right below the writer's post, what you get is a bunch of interesting ideas, carefully constructed, followed by a long spew of noise, filth, and anonymous rubbish that nobody ... nobody ... would say out loud if they had to take ownership of their words."
!!!
I have to say that I have reservations about the reasoning of someone (Gary Francione) who says:
"The animals we eat—even those supposedly raised “humanely”—suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting."
Now I agree that we (society) suffer from a 'moral schizophrenia' (sic) when it comes to pets (and other cuddlies) versus livestock (or lab rats) - but I really doubt that, say, lambs suffer in the same way fighting dogs do, even with the admitted flaws in animal slaughtering practices.
I would say that this kind of reasoning highlights the problems of 'absolutist' animal rights, people end up adopting contradictory positions in order to avoid making difficult consequentialist decisions (cf. animal research).
Lambs are often castrated and have their tails docked (cut off) without anesthesia:
http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Essays/2005/leeder.html
There's also the practice of mulesing, which involves cutting the skin off a lamb's backside -- again, usually without anesthesia:
http://www.liveexportshame.com/mulesing/mulesing1.htm
By the way, "abolitionist" (not "absolutist") is the term that animal-rights activists apply to themselves if their goal is to end all animal exploitation, rather than working toward taking the exploitation (allegedly) more humane.
Hmm, wasn't aware that tail docking and castration was routine in lamb raising - that isn't good. But of course humanely reared animals shouldn't be castrated or docked (I think it is in the organic standards somewhere). So that doesn't really support Francione's contention that "...those supposedly raised “humanely”—suffer as much as the dogs..."
I used the expression 'absolutist' because 'abolitionism' is not incompatible with still agitating for improved rearing conditions. I think absolutist better captures the refusal to engage with any incremental compromise positions.
My point was that Francione has to believe that animals raised under even the most humane conditions are still really really suffering, a level of suffering not qualitatively or even quantitatively less than the worst industrially farmed animals, because otherwise the absolutist abolitionist position argues that we shouldn't bother fighting for achievable incremental improvements in animal welfare and consequent reduction in animal suffering - which unsurprisingly causes some cognitive dissonance.
I've compared this with those opposed to animal research where you very often find the view that animal research is not useful - and I believe that this position is due in no small part to the cognitive dissonance that results from holding that morally animals shouldn't be used for research, but that therefore humans will, to some degree, lose out on treatments and potentially die.
The degree of animal suffering under "humane" conditions is somewhat of a red herring here. There are two points:
1) Every dollar and every hour that you spend on welfarist campaigns could instead be used to promote abolitionist goals.
2) When people feel better about eating animal products, they are less likely to give them up entirely. I get very frustrated when I talk to someone about veganism, and they respond by saying, "Well, I'm OK, because I eat cage-free eggs, and I usually buy the humane meat at Whole Foods". I'm particularly distressed by all the colleges that are going "cage-free" now. The students will graduate with the (false) impression that it's OK to eat eggs, as long as the eggs don't come from hens in battery cages. The reality is that cage-free facilities are almost as bad as battery-cage facilities.
I'm an abolitionist not because I somehow consider myself more "pure" but because I think that welfarist "reforms" hurt the animals more than they help them.
It is a very seductive point of view - but I think a rather more persuasive argument is that currently ever dollar spent on promoting abolitionism is a dollar wasted (I overstate only slightly) - because the vast majority of people will not accept that position.
So sure, if you think from a consequentialist view that concentrating on abolitionist arguments will bring about total abolition then that makes sense - but I just don't see abolition happening in the current climate. You can't argue from 90% odd meat eaters to abolition - it is just pie in the sky.
Whereas I can see that if people began to accept the need for more humane animal rearing the ground would shift so that abolitionism would then become more acceptable.
At least gradualists have tangible improvements in animal suffering to point to - currently I can't see how the abolitionists have achieved much.
Anyone old enough may notice how this reflects revolutionary versus democratic socialism - except the animals are unlikely to provide a very useful proletariat whatever the vanguard do.
I'm not familiar with the reference to socialism — my preferred historical analogy involves the abolition of human chattel slavery in the American South.
In any case, Erik Marcus (arguing in favor of welfarism) and Gary Francione had a long debate on this subject. The debate was recorded, and also transcribed. This may be more than you are willing to listen to (or read) — but I, for one, found it to be captivating.
Haven't read it all, but skimming through it looks that my characterisation of Francione's position is pretty accurate - according to him no welfarist reform makes any tangible difference, it is "a concentration camp with a string band on the way to the gas chamber".
I think I have to disagree with him fundamentally, and that is at least part due to his rejection of Singer and Bentham's utilitarianism, and his emphasis of the evils of animal 'exploitation' (which comes through in your comparison with slavery) and the subtext of comparisons with the Holocaust, which is that it is killing animals in and of itself which is wrong.
Now I'm afraid I just don't buy these arguments - animals are not humans and do not have any intrinsic objection to exploitation because they haven't got the interests that humans do, and this of course generalises to ending ther lives. My concern is with animal suffering, and this is because the capacity of animals for suffering is what prompts me to give them moral consideration. Otherwise what is to stop me assigning similar consideration to rocks?
I'm intrigued as to Francione's position of euthanasia for suffering animals, because that is where the two positions come head-to-head - particularly as the prevailing moral view in humans is shifting towards the current view we have towards animals to some extent.
Finally, I have to wonder at the opportunity cost of railing against 'welfarists' - but again, a la Monty Python, that also reminds me of the far left.
Ideally, you'd convert every potential vegan and thereby save a lot of animal lives. And after that you'd go to work on everybody else, and convert them to eating humanely raised animals. Thus, you'd save the maximum # of lives. And you'd also decrease suffering for the rest.
(But is it important to save animal lives... ? pj raises a good question, and I'm only 73% certain of my view on this, which is that it IS important.)
Staunch Vegan's worry is that if you make both efforts at the same time,you save fewer lives than you could. My feeling is that, while that's true, the benefits to the rest of the animals are worth it.
I think this turns on numbers, really. Without the humane alternative, you'd save X more animals. But I don't think X is huge. In my experience, there is a serious limit on the # of people who will become vegans, sad as that might be.
X is small and the animals spared extra suffering is huge...But then how much suffering are they spared? I should think a cage-free hen really does suffer a lot less than a caged hen, though the cage-free shouldn't be romanticized.
Singer's book The Way We Eat is good on humane farming, which he portrays as not very impressive, but better than the status quo.
Jean - I'm curious as to your rationale for saving animal lives as opposed to minimising suffering. It is something I to have often wondered about, but I've tended to fall on the suffering side.
With the coverage/controversy the human/animal embryo cytoplasmic hybrid story's been getting here I was reminded of how the essentialist view of animal life ties in with the abortion debate. I wonder how absolute opposition to killing animals can be squared with a pro-choice agenda?
There's also an obvious problem for the suffering focused utilitarian, particularly those that are pro-choice, as to where you draw the line, and why, when it comes to killing humans.
This issue is something I'm wrestling with these days.
Peter Singer's view about these things is my starting point. He says suffering is the more serious problem with factory farming. But the reasoning here is kind of tricky. Killing animals is definitely bad, in his view, because it prevents a set of future happy experiences. But, he says, we can fix that problem by breeding more animals. One pig's happy experiences can replace another's. So perfectly humane farming would be OK (but doesn't exist...and we shouldn't kid ourselves and believe so-called humane farming is really all that humane).
Next question--could you also kill humans and replace them? No, Singer says, because humans have thoughts about their futures. If you kill X and replace him with Y, you create a problem that never gets solved, the problem of X's unsatisfied desires for the future.
This all sounds fairly plausible and even ingenious, but I'm coming to feel that Singer's view turns on a not entirely correct idea about animals--that they are stuck in the present. They certainly don't dream of the future and make plans for retirement and the like, but in a lot of ways animals are "non-cognitively" oriented to the future. Birds build nests, squirrels collect acorns, beavers build dams.
There's an unfixable tragedy when a person dies before satisfying their desire to...whatever. But also a tragedy (I will admit, on a much smaller scale) when a bird has done all that work to build a nest but is killed so that his efforts don't come to fruition. So I'm inclined to say you can't fix the problem of killing one bird by creating another any more than you can fix the problem of killing one person by creating another.
I agree that this way of thinking of things looks to lead toward a pro-life view, except that it seems to me that a fetus (at least early on) isn't enough of a full organism to have a future of it's own. It does, in a very limited sense, but maybe just in the way an egg does, or a sperm does.
Saying all of this in a much, much more simple way: doesn't it really seem like at least a small tragedy when any animal dies? My gut feeling is yes.
I'm not impressed by any argument that suggests you can do a simple linear summation of (animal) happiness - down that road lies offsetting suffering by breeding large numbers of minimally happy organisms.
I'm not sure that (most) animals are meaningfully future oriented - most of those future related behaviours seem to be instinctive rather than planned (I'm thinking things like squirrels here).
But now that you mention it, dislike of ending animal life does enter into my practical morality (rather than any abstract theorising) with the concern given pretty much weighted by animal CNS sophistication (so I don't kill insects for no reason, but I wouldn't need a massively overwhelming motivation to do it).
So I'm not sure how I justify that intuition ethically speaking - it seems an almost aesthetic impulse. Perhaps it is something to do with respect for other minds (or proto-minds)?
Even if instinctive, there's some sense that the animal is heading toward the future, and that something is left incomplete if it doesn't get there. "Some sense"--definitely not very crisp!
I think my intuition is just the same--the more CNS sophistication, the better the reason needed to kill. And yes,it seems like a matter of respect for other minds. I like that way of putting it. I used to think this was just too vague an intuition to be worth paying much attention to, but I find myself paying it more and more attention.
Maybe the primary imperative, when it comes to animals, is to give everything "all due respect," which is different for different animals. This actually goes against what Singer says about equal suffering deserving equal consideration...
Lots of maybes. I'm not done thinking about any of this stuff!
I suppose it is worth asking what the point is of sliming PETA in the first place? Is it really going to lead to an improvement in the lives of animals? Doubtful. Was the ad taken out by an organization hoping to fund no-kill shelters?
I suppose it is also worth asking what we're supposed to take from the fact that PETA has killed more animals than Vick. Does PETA lose the right to criticize someone who kills animals for sport because their record is less than perfect?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAPO4xiyniI&feature=related
www.petakillsanimals.com - THIS SITE I SUPPORTED BY MEAT INDUSTRY/ FUR INDUSTRY ETC. - BY PEOPLE WHO HATE PETA
SOME ANIMALS HAVE TO BE PUT TO SLEEP BECAUSE of overpopulation of homeless dogs and cats
:/
In reference to the term "abolitionist" that keeps popping up. Animals are definitely exploited in horrible ways and deserve way more respect by human society. However, comparing the exploitation of animals to the exploitation of African Americans as slaves does not seem equivalent in my mind and just seems plain old ignorant. Human slavery should be considered very very carefully if you are going to compare it and use it as an analogy to the domestication and exploitation of animals, and then label yourself an "abolitionist".
In reference to the term "abolitionist" that keeps popping up. Animals are definitely exploited in horrible ways and deserve way more respect by human society. However, comparing the exploitation of animals to the exploitation of African Americans as slaves does not seem equivalent in my mind and just seems plain old ignorant. Human slavery should be considered very very carefully if you are going to compare it and use it as an analogy to the domestication and exploitation of animals, and then label yourself an "abolitionist".
ETA Kills Animals -- And It's A Felony
Authorities in Ahoskie, North Carolina dropped a disturbing bombshell yesterday with the news that they had charged two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty. PETA's Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle were arrested late Wednesday night after police saw them dump bags containing seven dead puppies and 11 other dead animals in a grocery store's dumpster. Their PETA-owned van, seized by police, contained another 13 animal bodies. Ahoskie's police chief told reporters: "We've been investigating animal cruelty and illegal disposal of dead animals within our city for the last four weeks" -- roughly the same period of time in which our popular PetaKillsAnimals.com website and giant Times Square billboard have been making news.
Responding to our website, PETA has claimed that most of the animals it kills are "broken beings" and that: "[W]e refer every healthy, cute, young animal we can to shelters." But the dead animals included a female cat and -- according to a local veterinarian -- her two "very adoptable" kittens. "These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for," he told PETA's hometown Virginian-Pilot. "PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county."
The animal-control officer responsible for the county where Cook and Hinkle were arrested told the Associated Press that PETA had picked up the animals just a few hours earlier. He added that PETA's employees "told him they were picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes."
Instead, the animals wound up being treated in a decidedly unethical fashion. This morning the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald began distributing a grisly photograph showing a police detective in hazmat garb removing a puppy carcass from a garbage bag found in the now-infamous dumpster.
Last night WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs ... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."
Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA. WKTR-TV reported today that Cook and Hinkle are out on bond, "thanks to the President of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."
In a story that eerily resembles the current charges facing PETA's employees, the Associated Press reported on April 8 that an additional 150 euthanized dogs were found in rural Virginia, apparently dumped in trash bags near a riverbank. The Scott County, Virginia Sheriff is investigating.
PETA is absolutely INSANE. Do not support them. They are not like other animal rights groups.
Let's not focus on the animals that PETA kills.
These are some of the reasons PETA is screwed:
1. They are against people keeping animals as pets, people eating animals, and people using animals for medical/psychological testing.
And this isn't just an opinion. They are literally trying to make this happen. And they DO fund terrorists organizations like ELF. That isn't a rumor.
2. They compare human tragedies to animals being slaughtered. In one ad they created, they compared a young man who was decapitated by a man on a train to the slaughter of animals. And they tried to have the ad published in the newspaper of town where the incident took place!
They also have compared the Holocaust to animals being slaughtered. Shocking people does NOT make them listen to you. Most people do not feel that the slaughtering of animals is the same as the slaughtering of humans.
Because most people value human life more than animal life. Which makes sense because we ARE human. The comparison is absolutely tasteless. Instead PETA could just describe how terrible it is to slaughter animals without comparing them to humans.
3. PETA targets children and teens. They actually hang around schools telling kids that their parents are MURDERERS because they eat/kill animals. I'm sorry, but that crosses the fucking line and it shows how insane PETA is.
4. Many of their ads are misogynistic. They claim to be for the liberation of ALL animals and yet the have no problem with putting down women.
5. “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it."
-Ingrid Newkirk (President and co-founder). I rest my case.
Do not support PETA. They are NOT a normal animal rights group and they ARE dangerous. They find nothing wrong with destroying property or injuring people physically or emotionally.
Anonymous, The majority of PETA's positions can be backed by facts and solid ethical arguments. Where they go too far (e.g. the Holocaust analogy) they do it mostly to attract attention. The fact is, the strategy works. They are probably the #1 most effective group in the US for publicizing the horrendous things we do to animals. Despite the extremes to which they sometimes go, I am a fan.
All I can say is animals ARE equal to humans. Anyone who doesn't think so is obviously the crazy one and should jump off a cliff.
Also, it's not good to hurt people. But I deem any "person" who hurts animals as less than human and deserving of severe punishment.
Post a Comment