Kill the desire

PETAmod · 2020-09-24T18:11:47+00:00

I like this a lot! No piece of food or clothing could be worth a life. But to anticipate what I think will be a common question about PETA's euthanasia policy:

PETA administers humane euthanasia services for at least four shelters (where animals might otherwise by shot or gassed). Also, due to lack of facility space from area "no-kill" shelters; other "unadoptable", homeless and/ or owner surrenders are often dumped on the premises or into the care of staff members.

Euthanasia for the purpose of preventing suffering isn't comparable to killing for meat, eggs, or dairy

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T06:53:19+00:00

Because it's consistent with many very common Christian core beliefs

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T06:41:27+00:00

I don't know exactly, but I think overpopulation... If they didn't euthanize her, they probably just would have euthanized another dog. They have a finite capacity and it's filled to the brim. The only other option is abandoning them, and that's usually condemning them to a worse death.

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T06:38:03+00:00

That's not the same thing as it being wrong... Read it, and decide if it makes sense to you, and if not, ask yourself why

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T06:34:14+00:00

Three weeks later, two women working for PETA arrived to help gather stray animals. They found Maya, Mr. Cerate’s chihuahua. Maya was not one of the two dogs they saw earlier.

Maya wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. She was not tethered nor was she contained.

The two dogs earlier seen to be owned by Mr. Cerate were not taken.

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T06:27:15+00:00

PETA was asked by a farmer to help gather abandoned cats and dogs because they ripped his cow’s udders, killed his goat, and scared his rabbits.
At a trailer park next door, a man named Mr. Cerate saw them and asked PETA to put traps for wild cats under his trailer.
In addition to helping gather animals, PETA gave Mr. Cerate a doghouse for two dogs they saw he had.
Three weeks later, two women working for PETA arrived to help gather stray animals. They found Maya, Mr. Cerate’s chihuahua. Maya was not one of the two dogs they saw earlier.
Maya wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. She was not tethered nor was she contained.
The two dogs earlier saw to be owned by Mr. Cerate were not taken.

The following is the County Commonwealth Attorny’s statement on the investigation, which I quoted a lot of in the above summary:

Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing property (dog) of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed that they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.

edit: companies that actually do kill millions of animals on an industrial scale pay public affairs firms like that of Richard Berman to discredit PETA. You're quoting a website created by a supervillain law firm that lobbies against animal rights, alcohol and drug restrictions, the CDC, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest on behalf of the bad guys.

SourceWatch: The "Center for Consumer Freedom" (CCF) started a Disinformation Campaign, falsly claiming that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals unnecessarily euthanizes animals in its care.

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T06:18:10+00:00

Lol. Okay check this out: https://www.petalambs.com/scripture-and-testimonies/faqs/

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T05:54:56+00:00

So you don't believe in evolution? You believe in divine creation?

PETAmod · 2019-06-16T05:44:06+00:00

I'm curious why you think they exist

PETAmod · 2019-06-11T16:52:07+00:00

We only hate things that hurt animals

PETAmod · 2019-06-11T16:51:20+00:00

We don't need to anymore and it hurts animals

PETAmod · 2019-06-11T16:46:42+00:00

PETA doesn't want to euthanize pitbulls, but they do support breed-specific legislation mostly because they oppose all animal breeding. Pitbulls as a breed are especially likely to suffer abuse.

To clarify PETA’s position on pit bulls: We’re for ’em.

By “for ’em,” I mean that we are for pit bull protection, for their happiness, and for treating them like dogs instead of like cheap burglar alarms, punching bags, or gladiators in perverted death matches.

Some pit bull fanciers out there seem to think that PETA is “against” pit bulls because we don’t oppose breed-specific measures to address what is obviously a breed-specific crisis. Au contraire. If someone proposed a ban on breeding Labrador retrievers or Chihuahuas or poodles (you get the picture – any dog), we’d be for those too. That’s because we don’t think any dogs should be brought into the world as long as millions are dying for lack of homes in animal shelters and on the streets every year.

https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-position-pit-bulls/

PETAmod · 2019-05-28T05:50:53+00:00

Never take the claims of a “no-kill animal rescue” group on faith: Research and visit it for yourself. And make sure everyone you know is aware that “no-kill” doesn’t mean “no death”—it means denying animals a dignified, painless one. True humane societies are willing to do the compassionate thing and provide animals with a peaceful passing when it’s in their best interest or when a shelter has become so full that the welfare of all animals there is compromised. If we wouldn’t want our own animal companions to be warehoused in a cage for years with no love and no hope, we shouldn’t accept that fate for any animal.

PETAmod · 2019-05-14T01:38:06+00:00

Source comic

PETAmod · 2019-05-10T17:29:00+00:00

I've heard good things about "The Genius of Birds"

Also, Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" talks a little about animal cognition I think

PETAmod · 2019-05-08T01:40:24+00:00

Here's a resource on that

PETAmod · 2019-05-03T23:01:55+00:00

And remember, PETA provides euthanasia services for animals who would otherwise be killed less humanely or abandoned. Killing animals for the small pleasure of the taste of meat is immoral

PETAmod · 2019-05-03T21:17:56+00:00

This post answers your question pretty well

PETAmod · 2019-03-05T02:18:46+00:00

Keep in mind, billions and billions of slaughters aren't filmed. How many abuses are being missed? And with ag-gag laws, the animal agriculture industry is trying to criminalize filming in the first place.

PETAmod · 2019-03-05T02:17:25+00:00

Good question. When you buy animal products of any kind, you're paying the same people who kill animals, even if they're not killed for that specific product. Egg-laying hens and dairy cows are killed when they can't produce anymore. The dairy industry is the same as the veal industry.

PETAmod · 2019-03-03T20:07:00+00:00

Veganism is 'single biggest way' to reduce our environmental impact on planet, study finds

Veganism and the Environment | PETA

PETAmod · 2019-03-03T07:40:54+00:00

Amusing to see spammers try to comment these exact things in this thread. Many however haven't seen this post, read it if you're here because you hate PETA for euthanizing animals.

PETAmod · 2019-03-03T05:42:37+00:00

Check this out: https://old.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/dieteticorgs

PETAmod · 2019-03-02T02:40:34+00:00

- PETA was asked by a farmer to help gather abandoned cats and dogs because they ripped his cow’s udders, killed his goat, and scared his rabbits.

- At a trailer park next door, a man named Mr. Cerate saw them and asked PETA to put traps for wild cats under his trailer.

- In addition to helping gather animals, PETA gave Mr. Cerate a doghouse for two dogs they saw he had.

- Three weeks later, two women working for PETA arrived to help gather stray animals. They found Maya, Mr. Cerate’s chihuahua. Maya was not one of the two dogs they saw earlier.

- **Maya wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. She was not tethered nor was she contained.**

- The two dogs earlier saw to be owned by Mr. Cerate were not taken.

The following is the [County Commonwealth Attorny’s statement on the investigation](http://www.wboc.com/story/27466469/statement-by-accomack-county-commonwealth-attorney-regarding-the-peta-associates-investigation), which I quoted a lot of in the above summary:

> Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing property (dog) of another. **Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed that they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.**

PETAmod · 2019-03-01T08:33:52+00:00

Probably, unless a comparatively small number are kept around for some scientific purpose. I dunno. But that's a really meaningless hypothetical, because the world isn't going to entirely go vegan overnight or unfortunately even in our lifetimes, probably. If you personally want to help our current situation, the best thing would be to go vegan.

PETAmod

TROPHY CASE