PETA Kills Dogs and Cats, Even if Adoptable
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is not an animal welfare organization. While it often masks its true intent behind animal welfare actions, it's ultimate goal is the elimination of all human use of animals--no matter how humane. This story of PETA employees killing and dumping animals, my sources tell me, is going to get bigger. In the meantime, here is my take on the debacle.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:07 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
I am an animal lover, having both a cat and a dog. It sounds to me like PETA is the animal version of the Culture of Death.
The animals are not better off dead at all. It seems that they want to bring about the destruction of the world and of the ecosystem with their whacky ideas.
I love animals, too. But I recognize that they are not people. I'll be writing more on PETA soon.
Well, of course animals are not people and, yes, we have dominion over them and they are here for us. But what all of that means is the real discussion we should be having IMO, and people like Newkirk on the one hand, and Adrian Morrison on the other, prevent nuanced and intellectually honest debate with their stances of moral superiority that allow no room for discussion.
Yet it is the way that PETA sees animals as people that is the problem.
I have a dog who thinks that she is a person, or at least one of the "boys". She even sits bolt upright on the outdoor chairs. She is a companion and she loves to give affection (an Irish Wolfhound).
I have had several cats. My previous kitten was stolen last August. She was part Burmese and that breed is very intelligent. She was the first cat to steal my socks. The replacement kitten has a different personality. She likes to rule the roost.
When my dad passed away both dog and cat were sensitive to my feelings of sadness. I can remember clearly how Munchkin cuddled up to my chin and when I pushed her away she came right back again. I love to hear the purr of a cat and I enjoy the affection that is given by a cat.
Where I think that PETA is so very wrong is their idea that the animals have thoughts and feelings that can be hurt. I do not doubt for a minute that when we growl at the dog for some misdemeanour she understands. Also she has been clever enough to learn how to knock on the door. At the same time I have never come across a cat like Skittles because she is the first kitten that I have owned who has used toilet paper for her "doings" when she was trapped in the toilet in error. Yes, I am serious, for she was a very small kitten at the time, and she pulled down the paper from the toilet roll and used the paper!!!
Animals are not people, but they do have their own personalities. It is really great having both a female dog and female cat in the house. The dog thinks she is mother to the cat and vice-versa. It works out well. We can learn from animal behaviour and I have learned quite a bit about a level of companioship in the animal world that is not all that easy to comprehend.
I do not believe that animals have feelings that can be hurt in the manner implied by PETA. I do not believe that it is bad for an animal to be placed in a special pen for its own safety. Yet, I do know that animals are affected by some of the cruel things that happen to them as they are growing up.
Cats and dogs give companionship and loyalty to their owners. For the first time ever, I recognized that my dog could get depressed when Munchkn was kidnapped. Her animal depression was not the same as my own depression, yet it was obvious to me, her owner. She behaved differently because her companion was no longer around. When I got hold of the new kitten Ruby changed and became young again.
I think that the people involved in Peta are very wrong in their attitudes. They have not even taken into consideration that man was given dominion over the animal world. Most of their ideas will cause the loss of an animal species, rather than save a rare species. Thus they are involved in an animal version of the Culture of Death.
CCEPDX
Not familiar with Adrian Morrison?
What's your problem with him? From what I could "google" he is defending rationally the benefits of animal research. It is up to PETA and others to argue, also rationally, why animal research should be eliminated or even restricted without undue harm to medical research.
PETA and the "animal rights" people are disciples of the eugenicist and crackpot Peter Singer, which should tell us ALL we need to know about them.
These groups couldn't care less about animals or their humane treatment.
Yes, I can imagine that Peter Singer is the force behind PETA. He does not care for animals but he places them on a pedestal.
He is at the forefront of the language of eugenics and the lies that are told to the media on a daily basis.
It is truly disgusting that he is allowed to have such an important role at Harvard. I know all about his activities in Australia and how he used language to hide his real motivations.
Robert B,
My problem with Adrian Morrison is what I view to be his unwillingness to entertain the idea that there should be any limits to animal research. I am familiar with him in the context of the National Animal Interest Alliance(NAIA), an animal use group headquartered in Portland, Oregon (where I live). Morrison is a board member and a media "educator". NAIA controls the policies of our county animal shelter, so that a task force mandate to move in a pro-animal direction is not being enforced. Because, I believe, the media has been "educated" to think that anyone who is not on board with the unlimited animal research script is some kind of extremist who supports violence, we cannot get the local media to cover the story about the task force mandate. I could give you example after example of the dirty tricks the NAIA uses to retain control of an agency that deals with people's pets. This is a legitimate issue for discussion, but because of Morrison and people like him, it is being suppressed. I see this as the same kind of pretention to superiority we see in the legal and medical professions. Non-violent animal advocates such as myself (someone who has long had a problem with PETA) are not being heard by the media because Morrison and his ilk paint all animal advocates with a broad brush -imo-to their untoward advantage. I consider it ugly and unprofessional.
It's still not clear to me. Is the issue specifically with Morrison over policy - would that be that animals that would be "put down" are routed instead to research.
You would like to change that. He and his research institute want to keep that.
If that's so, then that's a clear controversy. I really don't believe that you can't get a hearing and media PR of your alternatives - protecting cuddly animals and fighting city hall and big business researchers would seem an easy pitch. Either you're bad at PR or nobody much likes animal liberation after they hear you out.
This blog has been posted at peta2, be prepared for alot of unintelligent spam.
When will these people learn that people are animals. Social animals.
And like many other creatures, we are capable of inter-special symbiotic relationships. Dogs and cats can find companionship with one another, and seek it as is the nature of social creatures.
There is nothing unnatural about owning pets!
Spot on cola. The prob, imho, is that we've confused civilized with domesticated. Everything PETA says about domestication is true, BUT IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO US. Some bright priest/philosopher/king got the idea once apon a time that the changes that happen with domestication was something they wanted for human society. Hence, religion. Oh, and what a coincidence that religion yells the loudest about dominion and humans uber alles.
As there are so few conscious, civilized, non-domesticated humans, I believe there is no hope. I really hope I don't live out this year to have to see people with no knowledge spout off all day, i.e. act american.
Post a Comment
<< Home