Are most people here PETA supporters or fans?
- Thread starter Hog
- Start date
I can only speak for Germany, where I am living, and here the "German Animal Protection Association", the organization under which all shelters are organized, has anwered the question that only animals that have a severe uncurable illness, or in some cases, a severely disturbed personality, are allowed to be euthanized after a joint decision of veterinarians and shelter employees. In all other cases, the killing of healthy animals is prohibited by law.
So, by definition, a thing like a "kill shelter" is not allowed to exist in Germany.
Last edited:
Okay... perhaps I'm not exactly clear on what PETA's basic philosophy is, but here's my take.
I believe PETA has a basic philosophy that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment upon, or intentionally breed to be a human's companion... in other words, humans have no right to exploit animals for whatever reason- although I think PETA does not oppose the idea of someone adopting a homeless domestic animal. I don't see how this outlook can be reconciled with the notion that they can make the decision to end a homeless animal's life, even if they sincerely believe that this is for the animal's own good. As I see it, their philosophy would require them to release the animal to fend for themselves (perhaps after sterilizing them so that they could not reproduce and continue the cycle of overpopulation, disease, and starvation).
And when PETA or anyone else argues that animal rights and human rights are basically equivalent, I think most people interpret this as disrespectful to humans- although I would argue that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Apart from those two specific issues, I don't have a problem with them overall. At least they appear to be more sincere in their concern for animals than a hunter or rancher.
I believe PETA has a basic philosophy that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment upon, or intentionally breed to be a human's companion... in other words, humans have no right to exploit animals for whatever reason- although I think PETA does not oppose the idea of someone adopting a homeless domestic animal. I don't see how this outlook can be reconciled with the notion that they can make the decision to end a homeless animal's life, even if they sincerely believe that this is for the animal's own good. As I see it, their philosophy would require them to release the animal to fend for themselves (perhaps after sterilizing them so that they could not reproduce and continue the cycle of overpopulation, disease, and starvation).
And when PETA or anyone else argues that animal rights and human rights are basically equivalent, I think most people interpret this as disrespectful to humans- although I would argue that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Apart from those two specific issues, I don't have a problem with them overall. At least they appear to be more sincere in their concern for animals than a hunter or rancher.
Brian W
Conscientious Christian
Re. pets and farm animals only: When we choose to keep animals, we choose to involve them in our system which means we have the responsibility to afford them all the care the sytem is designed to provide for all. Under such a system, a healthy being would never be killed and support should be available for the homeless. Re wild animals: I think that a human's ability to empathize compels any decent person to do what s/he can but there is often nothing that can be done in which case I hold a tentative view that it is best to let nature take its course.
This is true. I think that, sometimes, even some people who have work to do improving their attitude toward animals don't look bad at all compared with how most people treat most animals (indirectly, as a rule- most meat eaters I know are not hunters).
I know this isn't right. The fact that PeTA appears to generally treat animals better than the animal-welfare standards in my country require does not excuse them from killing companion animals who might have been placed in homes. Stated another way... PETA supporters claim to care more about animals than most people generally do; since they hold themselves to a higher standard, they are obliged to measure up to it. I'd still be hesitant to focus on criticizing them.
I understand.
So I am a rather good person, as I do not break all the laws every day? Asking for a friend.
So I am a rather good person, as I do not break all the laws every day? Asking for a friend.
Lou
Forum Legend
PETA in the news. (Again)
So in case you didn't hear PETA is in the news again. PETA's President Ingrid Newkirk is getting criticized for a letter she wrote to her staff in response to some of their ideas about ... well one of the articles, from Yahoo News seems to get as much wrong as they do right. I'll just give you a link to the article.
uk.news.yahoo.com
Below is a message from PETA for the public. And PETA has published the internal email conversation. IMHO, it reads like a Top Ten list of all the controversial things that PETA (and vegans) have ever said and done. As a vegan I think of these things as all the things a vegan should NOT say. But yes, I do think that way.
Keep in mind that these emails were internal emails. And probably if it wasn't for all the controversy about them we wouldn't be reading them now. I think maybe kudos goes to PETA for making the public. But on the other hand this is a company that not only does not shy away from controversy but lives by the credo, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I think after reading this you will probably recognize many of the point made as things we have discussed here at the VF.
So in case you didn't hear PETA is in the news again. PETA's President Ingrid Newkirk is getting criticized for a letter she wrote to her staff in response to some of their ideas about ... well one of the articles, from Yahoo News seems to get as much wrong as they do right. I'll just give you a link to the article.
PETA Boss Defends MLK Day Plans in Unhinged Internal Emails
Punit Paranjpe/AFP via GettyEmployees of the People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are revolting against the organization’s plan to “speak up for animal issues while honoring MLK Day,” emails obtained by The Daily Beast show.And PETA President Ingrid Newkirk isn’t taking it...
Below is a message from PETA for the public. And PETA has published the internal email conversation. IMHO, it reads like a Top Ten list of all the controversial things that PETA (and vegans) have ever said and done. As a vegan I think of these things as all the things a vegan should NOT say. But yes, I do think that way.
Keep in mind that these emails were internal emails. And probably if it wasn't for all the controversy about them we wouldn't be reading them now. I think maybe kudos goes to PETA for making the public. But on the other hand this is a company that not only does not shy away from controversy but lives by the credo, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I think after reading this you will probably recognize many of the point made as things we have discussed here at the VF.
As we enter a holiday weekend honoring Martin Luther King Jr., PETA is sharing an important conversation about social justice that took place among our staff and PETA President Ingrid Newkirk. Our hope is that it will encourage similar discussions in households across the country.
We hope you will read it all and join us in respectful dialog about the points it raises.
Perhaps it has never been more vital for every caring person to think critically, to discuss their thoughts, and to take action to combat injustice.
Vegan Dogs
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2016
- Reaction score
- 196
- Age
- 66
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
Urban Gardener
Forum Legend
Because of their anti-pitbull history, I don’t support them.
I also think their marketing is a little dodgy. They’re not good representatives of the animal rights movement. They come across like they’re just all about the $$$$.
I also think their marketing is a little dodgy. They’re not good representatives of the animal rights movement. They come across like they’re just all about the $$$$.
Lou
Forum Legend
So here, IMHO, is another thing PETA got right.
www.foxnews.com
Animal rights nonprofit People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) pushed back against a California animal shelter's decision to turn away potential pet adoptees based on their opinions about gun control.
Catie Cryar, the assistant manager of PETA, told Fox News Digital that they have known the shelter "to do good work and are sure they have the best intentions, but from PETA’s perspective, because there is a homeless animal crisis, what counts is that adopted animals are treated well and cared for and that is the criteria we feel is important."
PETA rebuts California woman who won't allow pro-gun supporters to adopt pets
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said they are against a California shelter's decision to screen potential adoptees based on their gun control opinions.
I support them but don't always agree with them .
Really the only way I can handle cruelty to animals is to keep away from it (makes me sound a bit of a wimp ) .
But day in day out Peta and their staff are up to their necks in the cruelty of different species , so that's why I support them.
Really the only way I can handle cruelty to animals is to keep away from it (makes me sound a bit of a wimp ) .
But day in day out Peta and their staff are up to their necks in the cruelty of different species , so that's why I support them.
I’ve gotten really bad with handling any of it. I cried when I saw a dead Racoon on my morning walk. Maybe because I got a trail cam and there are 2-3 that come to my deck every night for remnants of birdseed. I think I was afraid the one that died was “one of mine”. Any kind of harm to animals is becoming unbearable for me to the point where I feel like my reactions are excessive. I don’t even open links anymore if it has anything to do with animal suffering, even when it has a happy ending. I’m finding I can handle less and less of it. Doesn’t feel normal to me to be that sensitive. So I try to stay away from it too.
Brian W
Conscientious Christian
NYC Gardener hasn’t been here for awhile now so I don’t think you will be getting a reply. Just an FYI.
Brian W
Conscientious Christian
I just realized, the post is a bit old. I ought to read dates!NYC Gardener hasn’t been here for awhile now so I don’t think you will be getting a reply. Just an FYI.
That’s ok…I do it sometimes, too, lol. I’ll “like” a post that I evidently missed somehow prior, only to find out it’s old, lol. I can’t figure out how to get the posts to show most recent posts first, so sometimes the page loads on the first page which is really annoying. If I don’t catch it right away I find myself liking or replying to old stuff.I just realized, the post is a bit old. I ought to read dates!
I know this was asked a long time ago. I didn't respond initially because I didn't know what the point was.
I don't know that you would be a "rather good person" in that case; I guess it would depend on exactly what laws you were breaking. I'll put it this way: suppose you routinely littered and shoplifted items of little value, and the authorities came down hard on people such as you while ignoring murderers, arsonists, and rapists. That would make no sense to me. I think, overall, PeTA does more good than harm for animal advocacy. Again, this does not excuse their killing companion animals just because they can't find homes for them, and I don't agree that any publicity is better than no publicity at all- PeTA HAS caused a backlash against animal rights/welfare. I still say that the negative things PeTA does are not a primary problem for animal advocacy.
ETA: PeTA isn't for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with an animal advocate who chooses not to support PeTA or even publicly criticizes them a lot.
Last edited:
Lou
Forum Legend
I think the way you state is an oversimplification. Most of PETA's critiques take umbrage by their position on No-Kill shelters. one of the best article I have ever seen on the subject was in the Huffinton Post - but now I can't find it. But PETA has explained their position any number of times.
The Deadly Consequences of 'No-Kill' Policies | PETA
"No-kill" policies often do more harm than good in ending the cycle of companion-animal homelessness. Find out how we can truly help end this crisis by getting to the root of the problem.
www.peta.org
or this one from a third party
Has the no-kill movement increased animal suffering?
Shelters hew to a strict euthanasia rate at animals' expense, veterinarians say
news.vin.com
Yup, there is that old adage : Any publicity is better than bad publicity. And it does seem like PETA has taken that to heart.
Their opposition to no-kill shelters has resulted in a lot of "bad publicity". Once I took the time to understand their position I actually gained more respect for their leaders. once they realized that no-kill shelters were causing they took a stance that would be unpopular among the base. A gutsy but ethical decision.
Another common criticism for them is some of their ad campaigns are kind of crazy. but they make a buzz in the media and make waves. I'll go as far as to say before PETA animal advocacy started and stopped with companion animals. PETA has put animal advocacy in the media's vocabulary.
