PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET
https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041

Another day, some more PETA contradictions and lies...

Hunting/Farming/Taxidermy, any topic that may get heated debate.

WARNING things may get a bit rougher here than the other forums.

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

vulpini
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:22 pm

Another day, some more PETA contradictions and lies...

Postby vulpini » Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:57 am

I got too curious and ventured onto the donations-begging heart-strings-tugging website that is http://www.peta.org

Things got pretty interesting when I went to their FAQ section. I'll list some of the questions/some of the answers with my notes. I'll be interested to see what you guys think!
(Very long because I got on a roll reading some of these questions. Feel free to just skim because all of PETA's responses to the questions are equally insane. Also, please note that my answers are very sarcastic and when I use 'you' I'm referring to PETA :lol: )

As an animal rights group, we cannot condone using animals for any reason

Wait...aren't you exploiting/'using' animals every single time you use pictures of them on your website to back up your claims??


Choke and prong collars are designed to punish dogs for pulling by inflicting pain and discomfort.

Wait what?? Yes, sometimes they're used for strong dogs, but aren't prong collars to dogs as bits are to horses? To enhance/lighten cues, not to inflict pain?? But, you know, they look scary so they must be bad for the animals :icon-wink: You know what also looks scary? Euthanasia needles. But wait..you guys support those (and use them quite frequently! 30k animals killed in a year is pretty impressive, PETA! Good job :roll: )so I guess not everything that looks bad is bad for the animals :o

Domestication has certainly not benefited horses, as they’ve long been exploited as beasts of burden and are kept constantly constrained and only allowed to move about at the will of others.

Um...no, actually. As someone who owns a horse, I can tell you that domestication has certainly benefited horses. They are (in competent homes, of course) free from the constant danger of wild animals, natural disasters, and food shortages. They receive routine health care and hoof care (contrary to popular belief, not all mustangs have great hooves because they're 'natural'). I think freedom from a life of constant fear from your surroundings is certainly a benefit...


Would you approve an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?
Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human for the “greater good” of others because it would violate that individual’s rights. There is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.


Did PETA just compare animals to mentally disabled humans???? Are you kidding me?? So they're suggesting that animals and mentally challenged individuals are on the same level, intellectually? I really can't say much more about this answer. It's infuriating.

Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?
An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability’s inability to do so. Like small children, most animals are not capable of choosing to change their behavior, but adult human beings have the intelligence to choose between behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn’t.


And again. I can't believe they are comparing mentally disabled persons to animals :wall: :wall: :wall:


Vegetarianism is a personal choice. Why are you trying to force it on everyone else?
[...] actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. Murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals are all immoral. Our society now encourages meat-eating and the cruelty of factory farming, [but] society also once encouraged slavery, child labor, and many other practices now universally recognized as wrong.


So...eating a hamburger from grass-fed, local beef is on the same level as murder? You're comparing the TRAUMA of child abuse with eating a hamburger??


The animals have to die sometime, don’t they?
Humans do, too, but that doesn’t give us the right to kill them or cause them a lifetime of suffering

Wait...a few questions back you answered a question about your view on euthaniasia by saying: Those who refuse to spay and neuter their animals, who abandon animals when they grow tired of them, and who patronize pet shops instead of adopting stray or shelter animals make euthanasia a tragic necessity. So humans don't have the right to kill animals...only to euthanize them. Oh wait, that's the same thing. Whoops, guess you didn't mean to directly contradict yourself.


Isn’t hunting okay as long as I eat what I kill?
Did the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims justify his crimes? What is done with the corpse after a murder doesn’t lessen the victim’s suffering. Furthermore, hunters are harming animals other than the ones they kill and take home. Those who don’t die outright often suffer disabling injuries. Additionally, the stress that hunting inflicts on animals—the noise, the fear, and the constant chase—severely restricts their ability to eat adequately and to store the fat and energy they need to survive the winter. Hunting also disrupts migration and hibernation [///]

Oh, right. Hunting an animal and humanely killing it is the exact same thing as the serial killer and cannibal who ate his victims. What a logical comparison :wall: Animals cannot be murdered, as much as you would like them to be. And the /good, ethical majority/ of hunters don't let wounded animals go and they also kill the animal before it has a chance to know what hit it (ergo, before it experiences the 'debilitating stress' of the chase).


Is the fur industry really as cruel as people make it out to be?

Crueler. PETA’s investigations at fur farms have found animals being killed by anal electrocution—an electrically charged steel rod is inserted into the animals’ rectums, literally frying their insides. Exposed broken bones, upper respiratory infections, and cancerous tumors were among the wounds and diseases that animals endured—without veterinary treatment—on one fur farm that we investigated.

Animals caught in steel-jaw traps are in so much pain that some actually bite off their limbs in order to escape. Unable to eat, keep warm, or defend themselves against predators, many die horrible deaths before the trapper arrives to kill them. Others suffer in the traps for days until they are caught and killed. To avoid damaging the pelt, trappers often beat or stomp the animals to death. Most states have no regulations regarding methods of slaughtering these animals.


(You guys can respond to this one better than I can, as I do not claim to know very much about the fur industry. However, I /do/ know that I believe any method of euthanasia is acceptable as long as it is extremely quick and the animal cannot register their pain. Meaning, no matter how cruel a method /sounds/, (AR organizations seem to do that, don't they...make a method of euthanasia or some type of training practice seem horrible with word choice), if it's painless and quick, why would it be cruel?
Now I can't speak to trapping as I personally disagree with it and think it is very cruel, so I won't comment on that.


Without hunting, deer and other animals would overpopulate and die of starvation.

Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature’s way of ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing the only ones they can catch—the sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace—often the large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting creates the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate. If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not hunt but instead take steps to reduce the animals’ fertility. We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. Ironically, many deer herds and duck populations are purposely manipulated to produce more and more animals for hunters to kill.


Picture this "a helpless animal runs as fast as it can, feeling abject panic coursing through its veins. It tries to run but its body gives out and suddenly a horrible creature catches it and begins to eat without giving the animal the dignity of dying first." Man, PETA wouldn't approve of that, would they? Yes they would, because that's what happens in nature with predators and prey. So...PETA thinks that animals being killed in the wild is better than human euthanasia on farms?? The scenario above, where a sick or young animal is targeted and then eaten sometimes half alive, sounds horrible but it's part of 'nature,' right? Nature is inherently cruel. I cannot believe PETA thinks that animals are better off starving to death, succumbing to painful diseases, being eaten alive, dying in blizzards or heat waves, then being in the care of a human. This is ridiculous. Nature is everything PETA stands against when you consider its cruelty!!



I think that's about it. There are 15 pages of FAQs on the website if anyone wants to have a frustrating read!

http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/

.
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2179
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Another day, some more PETA contradictions and lies...

Postby Juska » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:57 am

"Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?"

...So why should PETA apply their ideas of "rights" to them? Animals don't understand rights, correct? They cannot reason, correct (they actually can)?

Children don't have the legal rights an adult does regardless of their capacity to reason or understand what rights are. Why? Because their abilities to reason and understand aren't at the level of an adult. They (generally) can't live on their own without a parent or guardian to provide for them. To protect their WELLBEING.

Animal welfare is the idea we should be fighting to protect. Not animal rights. Giving animals rights they don't understand/that can't help them, taking them away from their guardians and homes, barring people from from raising and enjoying time with companion animals is not only useless, but detrimental...we're seeing those detriments with breed-specific legislation, the closing of zoos, circuses and sanctuaries, and the banning of exotic pet ownership starting to take hold and become more common.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2179
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Another day, some more PETA contradictions and lies...

Postby Juska » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:07 am

And which one is worse: farming animals, or forcing children to grow and develop without the critical nutrients, minerals and allergy-preventing foods they need to thrive, by only feeding them a vegetarian or vegan diet? (if we're going with the "humans are more important" ideal.) But it's the same with pets...you can't feed a dog a vegetarian or vegan diet. A child will become malnourished and weak when limited to these things. Why? Because they NEED a specific diet, and vegetarian/vegan is not what they need. Humans are omnivores and the proof is as easy to find as looking at your teeth in a mirror. Those are not herbivore teeth and we didn't survive as a species by only eating plants.

It is illegal to feed your child a nutrition-devoid diet. It is CRUELTY. So...stop pushing a false, biologically improper diet on people, especially kids. Go ahead and do it yourself, but keep it to yourself. Because it's not for everyone.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
vulpini
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Another day, some more PETA contradictions and lies...

Postby vulpini » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:22 pm

Juska wrote: Giving animals rights they don't understand/that can't help them, taking them away from their guardians and homes, barring people from from raising and enjoying time with companion animals is not only useless, but detrimental...we're seeing those detriments with breed-specific legislation, the closing of zoos, circuses and sanctuaries, and the banning of exotic pet ownership starting to take hold and become more common.


This. THIS is so important. Giving animals rights they don't understand/can't help them BY taking them away from their guardians and homes is one of my core problems with AR activists. I'm not saying not to show animals things like compassion and respect just because they don't understand it--I'm saying if your idea of compassion/respect for animals means you want to take them away from the environment they know because YOU BELIEVE it isn't the right environment for them, you need to reevaluate how much you're really 'helping' animals. Truth is, animals can't talk to us with words. We don't KNOW what they're thinking all the time, so how can AR activists claim that animals want to be in the wild (their ideal environment in every case)? That's applying human reasoning to animals, which is illogical. Just because HUMANS long for freedom doesn't mean animals have the mental capacity for the same thing. How can forcing your idea of an environment that will make an animal 'happy' on said animal be in that animal's best interests if you really have no idea if that animal will be happy in your form of a good environment?

And the whole "well obviously they do want to be in the wild because if you take factory animals and put them in a wild setting they start doing natural, wild-animal things" argument is just dumb. Obviously they're going to alter their behavior to fit their new surroundings. It's called instinct. And an AR activist might argue "well, who are we to change their instincts." But does that mean we should let animals breed freely? Since that's an instinct? Oh, wait, PETA is against breeding....so that must mean that not all animal instincts are in the best interests of the animal, and that it isn't wrong to keep them from following instinct in all cases because we have no way of knowing if they enjoy doing the things their instincts lead them to do.

The thing that bothers me about AR activism is that it's all about projecting the ACTIVISTS' idea of a good life for an animal onto every animal. For instance, how do we know that cage-free hens are unhappy? PETA says so, but how do we /know/? Is it because they peck at each other or their feathers? Well, I'd imagine chickens do that whenever you get a large group together. I think that activists believe these animals are unhappy because their living conditions don't meet the activists' preconceived, one-size-fits-all notion of a good environment for that animal. But how can we honestly have any way of knowing without speaking to the hens themselves? How can they KNOW Seaworld's animals are unhappy and need to be free when they're obviously thriving right where they are? As we say in the South, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the animals are thriving where they are, why release them into the wild in the HOPES that they will be happier there, when the risk of mortality or injury is huge? Why risk the animal's health to make ourselves feel better knowing the animal is in a 'natural' state??

They seem to believe that returning animals to their natural state will instantly make all of them happy. Like releasing domesticated animals into the wild will be amazing for them because they will realize their freedom and be happy. What about the animals' confusion and utter fear surrounded by predators they never had to encounter before? What about their bonds with humans and their herd mates? What happens when nature strikes (that nature that activists believe is the best thing for the animal) and the now-wild domestic animal falls over a cliff and breaks its neck because it wasn't used to its new surroundings and was scared out of its mind, separated from the security of its 'place'?

As I've heard it said before "Orcas CAN swim upwards of 100 miles a day in the wild, but they do it to survive." Horses CAN run for 20 miles in a day, but that's only to search for food, not because they enjoy their freedom and the wide open spaces. Let me tell you, when a horse finds a spot to eat, it parks itself there and there could be an active tornado around it and it wouldn't move. So, domestic animals who have 'restricted' spaces must be so sad because they can't run free, right? Well, no, they're thriving because they have a constant, reliable food source so they DON'T NEED TO ROAM like they do in the wild TO FIND FOOD. Orcas roam to find food. That means they don't need to, just that they can. Saying that orcas need to be released because they need the wide open spaces of the ocean is like saying humans need to run a marathon every day to find food because we're happier that way. I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad I can live in a confined space (house) and have food there. Just because an animal can do something (horses /can/ go barefoot, orcas /can/ swim 100 miles a day) doesn't mean it's the best thing in every case for the animal. It just means that animal is looking out for itself and keeping itself alive.



(by the way, all of the 'you' and 'yours' in this reply are general :lol: Not directed at you, Juska :lol: )

I agree with you about the diet thing too, Juska :roll: I HATE when people put their animals on a vegan diet when the animals are carnivores. Not omnivores, CARNIVORES. If they're trying so hard to return to a natural state, why would they do that? That's the most unnatural thing you can do to an animal!! I also think it should be each individual's choice about their diet, and forcing your own vegan diet on your child is just wrong. They should grow up and decide on their own :icon-frown:


Sorry for the novel :lol: I sort of got on an angry rant-roll when I started talking about activists pushing their ideas of an animal's happiness onto all animals :roll:

Return to “Controversial ANIMAL Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest