Animals Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

Is it just me or i being entirely ignored here :( ?! What a shame, i thought you were interested in my opinions at the start of this debate SVF. Shame that you choose not to talk to me anymore, heh, cant please everyone can i :relief: ? Be careful MeAndroo, if you question his beliefs/opinions too much he might just ignore you entirely too :blush: .
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Keep in mind, too: The orgs you listed above seem to be shelters or a network of shelters, PETA is not a shelter and to compare them isn`t really fare unless you want PETA to change its mission statement from mainly fighting for AR and AW to sheltering. The two are different. Likewise, those two orgs probably do not spend the bulk of their recources fighting for AR and AW. Both kinds of orgs have their place in the world of Animal Activism but it is not right to expect all orgs dealing with animals to be all things to everybody.

I understand PETA can't do everything, but the reason I put them in such a difficult spot is because like it or not, they are the face of the animal rights/welfare movement. An organization of that size and with that kind of name recognition should seemingly be able to find shelters/homes for a great majority of these animals. If they want to push an agenda that's all or nothing, they have to behave in a way that's all or nothing. Otherwise they compromise their integrity.

The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy. Is PETA just the officially accepted euthanizer amongst the AR/AW movement? Or am I missing something here...:eek:kashii:

Certainly PETA isn't the end-all be-all of animal rights, but I just think if their leaders are going to make such bold of the general public, they should hold themselves to the same standards.
 
MeAndroo said:
I understand PETA can't do everything, but the reason I put them in such a difficult spot is because like it or not, they are the face of the animal rights/welfare movement. An organization of that size and with that kind of name recognition should seemingly be able to find shelters/homes for a great majority of these animals. If they want to push an agenda that's all or nothing, they have to behave in a way that's all or nothing. Otherwise they compromise their integrity.

I think that comment underlined (which I did) is very inciteful and an honest one -- and to tell you the truth, I would like to see PETA either abandon euthinasia or taking in strays or responding to the shelter problems in total rather than risk the contradiction of one of their tenets.

But, "all or nothing" is extreme and very few orgs can or proclaim to be so ideological pure that contradictions don`t arise. Again, I can`t hold them to perfection because I hold no one else to perfection. Even Peta knows society will never be perfect about not consuming beef or that the slaughter business will completely ever go out of business -- therefore they also hope and fight for better slaughtering methods.

I don`t think they compromise their integrity because their euthinasia is not done in secret. They are open about that so if people want to support them or not, they can see their policy on it and make a decision based on what they openly say. If they were purely AR and euthinized, then there would be an integrity problem -- along if they didn`t admit to it. But, they are open about the kind of org they are and their practices.

But personally, I wish they wouldn`t euthinize but the U.S. does a lot of things I also wish they wouldn`t do, but that doesn`t make me abandon them. It would call for America doing something egregiously wrong for me to do so. Likewise, Peta would have to egregiously do something counter to their stated goals and practices of AR and AW for me to abandon them. Everything they have done in euthinasia is stated by them and the majority of AW orgs do acknowledge euthinasia as practical. But again -- it is one thing I don`t like. I will bet however, that PETA in the years to come will move away from it.

Should their size affect what they do, like you hinted at? Possibly. They do seem to have the recourses to branch out. Who knows? Could be that a stronger network of placement for animals could come about as new people come into the leadership positions of PETA. They are a dynamic group and I am sure that shifts of powers with opinions on policy will occur.

The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy.

Well one thing is for certain, I am getting behind on catching up to your links you are providing. I still have two previous ones I haven`t addressed from a previous post of yours. I will try. If you don`t mind, try to afford me a little time before you bury with some more(smile).

Is PETA just the officially accepted euthanizer amongst the AR/AW movement? Or am I missing something here...

From anyone else I may have taken that as an insult, but you and I have been having a good conversation on the poinst so actually... I even laughed with that phrase of words. First time I have heard it. At least I will be prepared if I hear it again.

You sure aren`t missing wit, and I appreciate wit when it comes in a good conversation.

But, "no," Peta is not the "official euthanizer" in the AR movement. They couldn`t do it in the AR department because the AR side of their org is against violation of autonomy. In the AW department however, the charge is fair. However, I am sure pounds in counties and cities across the U.S. euthanize more animals than PETA does.

Certainly PETA isn't the end-all be-all of animal rights, but I just think if their leaders are going to make such bold [demands] of the general public, they should hold themselves to the same standards.

Fair enough. I agree because as you know, I have already told you I wish they would distance themselves from euthinasia. I think they will. I think they are.

However, I can`t and I won`t, and the large number of supporters of PETA and the new ones joining every year accept the realism that PETA is confronting the stray problem with. I do though wish, that my idealism on hoping to find all strays and abandoned animals could be realized or that PETA could do much more than they have on this issue. I think they will eventually. It just takes time. I think everyone knows that PETA has to choose its fights carefully with its recourses and they have opted to focus more on industry abuse rather than the problems that stem from individual pet ownership.

I know it looks like PETA is flushed with money -- but compared to the corporations they take on as rivals, PETA`s annual intake of funds would not even compare to KFC, and they are fighting more than just KFC. They have to play their chess game with their recourses as to how the insiders who move their pieces see fit. AS you know, in chess some pieces are sacrificed in the short run for the long term victory. I know it sounds cold but all generals in their own wars will tell you the same. PETA knows they are fighting a war and to be idealistic would invite defeat.
 
Hachiro said:
Just to let you know I don't consider it lost time, I must say you have conviction in your beliefs and I respect you for that.

Hi Hachiro,

Thanks for replying and I am glad that you don`t consider it a waste of time. Also, thanks for acknowledging my convictions. That was kind of you to do so in a positive light.

By the way, since your reply was rather short, I am wondering if I didn`t do a good job in addressing your original comments. If so, sorry about that and feel free to point it out to me and I will try to do so better. Sometimes I miss things as I get behind in replying to other posts.

Looking forward to your continued participation in the discussion.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
But, "all or nothing" is extreme and very few orgs can or proclaim to be so ideological pure that contradictions don`t arise. Again, I can`t hold them to perfection because I hold no one else to perfection. Even Peta knows society will never be perfect about not consuming beef or that the slaughter business will completely ever go out of business -- therefore they also hope and fight for better slaughtering methods.

That's true, and is one of the reasons I get so frustrated by other AR/AW organizations. PETA straddles the line between ideological and pragmatic better than some of their more extreme brethren, but it still seems wrong to me as an idealist.

From anyone else I may have taken that as an insult, but you and I have been having a good conversation on the poinst so actually... I even laughed with that phrase of words. First time I have heard it. At least I will be prepared if I hear it again.

It certainly wasn't intended to offend, but the picture those figures painted was rather striking.

I guess what it boils down to, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or not, is that it's tough for me to watch groups like PETA claim a moral high ground and engage in the very act they condemn so publicly. I really tend not to differentiate between the politics of groups within the AR/AW movement so much as I differentiate between their tactics. I'm curious to know how many people in PETA are affiliated with more extreme groups like the ALF, ELF and ADL. I can't help but wonder if, as you say, these groups exist to draw out the spectrum of politics and make groups like PETA appear reasonable, as a communist would to a simple liberal, and if there's people involved with both simultaneously.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Hi Hachiro,
Thanks for replying and I am glad that you don`t consider it a waste of time. Also, thanks for acknowledging my convictions. That was kind of you to do so in a positive light.
By the way, since your reply was rather short, I am wondering if I didn`t do a good job in addressing your original comments. If so, sorry about that and feel free to point it out to me and I will try to do so better. Sometimes I miss things as I get behind in replying to other posts.
Looking forward to your continued participation in the discussion.

No I'm sorry I have been rather tied up with work and family these past few days and have very little time to "thoughtfully" reply to posts. I read most of the posts here at around 5 or 6 in the AM and my brain is not always functioning yet.

Interesting conversation to say the least. Thank you.
 
Hey Hachiro, can you ask strongvoicesforward these questions please 'cos he is ignoring me?;

"Yes but your philosophy on farming is that it is wrong to keep an animal for its benefets and its wrong for farmers to keep animals against their will.
Surely then you also believe that keeping pets, even in a responsable mannor, is wrong? Or do you not believe that the lady who keeps the slave for emotional comfort is actually keeping a slave? You cant have it both ways.
Also i would be interested to hear your veiws on fish farming, since surely going by your belief that farming is unesarsary and slavery towards animals, that fish farming is wrong?

If we stopped all farming tomorrow, there'd be no meat, so what would all the pet dogs and cats do? Or would you rather that millions of animals be euthanised?"


Do you know why he is ignoring me hachiro? He said he was a flexable person with strong views, i cant think why he doesn't want to answer my questions Hachiro?
 
MeAndroo said:
My main "beef," so to speak, is how ARists may target lower employees and people not necessarilly affiliated with the industries.
They sometimes target people who work within a department, despite having no real connection to what they oppose (in the 2nd link they target a Volunteer Coordinator).

Ok, MeAndroo, I have looked at and read the links you gave me.

This is the problem when orgs fighting for social change have been ignored and the status quo forces them to go underground because they are forced to adopt Direct Action to cause change and to be taken seriously. If they write and picket for years and nothing changes when the urgency of the situation demands action, they find themselves needing to take stronger action. If they were taken seriously and invited to the negotiation table with their most urgent grievances, then many problems could addressed and at least the frustration toward Direct Action pushed back further into the future. The problem with creating a situation in which orgs feel they must go underground is that the public no longer can be certain which group or org is actually doing an act attributed to an org.

Now, I am not saying this is certain, I am just saying that it is a possibility: It is not so wild to consider that an entity, either be it corporate or government, in an effort to get the public to turn against animal rights, itself does not stage some attacks on animal exploiters in order to shock the public. All that is is a version of the "dirty trick." With orders to discredit ARists or their orgs, an agent could easily do any of those heinous acts on those site links and send a letter of responsibility to the ALF site as an ALF cell and the ALF site would list it as such.

The organization of the ALF is set up in such a way that no one cell really knows another and there is no leader that directs things. No leader has knowledge of ALF operatives other than what he or she himself may be involved in. So, if a corporate attack meant to make the ALF or ADL look bad were the goal, it would be very easy to do (The ALF let`s any action done on behalf of animals, so long as human physical injury does not come about, to be attributed to it).

So, a person of a corporation could do an act targeting an exploiter and then send a letter to the ALF site claiming responsibility and if no one were injured ALF would accept that, but the shocking nature of it could have been conceived and produced by an animal exploiter in order to discredit ALF and further move them away from public sympathy -- all part of the strategy of keeping the public from more and more joining ALF efforts. Again, I am not saying that is what happened in those cases, but it is not too inconceivable.

ALF and the ADL have the experience in planning and most probably the skill of performing an action that could harm someone if in fact they really wanted to. However, they have been around for years and they have not ever caused the death of one person. In fact, all their actions throughout the years have been carefully planned to avoid death or serious injury. As a social movement fighting for change against oppression, taking into account how long they have been around, compared to any other historical social movement against oppression, the ALF and ADL and many of the militant AR groups, have shown remarkable self restraint despite any rhettoric that may come from them from time to time.

Now, is it wrong that Direct Action targets people for intimidation? Well, if those in those industries (i.e. animal exploitators) are combatants (i.e. on the other side of the spectrum that supports animal exploitation), then they are fair game for targeting. If someone doesn`t view them as part of the apparatus of the exploiting machine, then they should not be a fair target.

How would one decide if they are a fair target? Many feel that if the machine gets a hiccup because the infrastructure (inanimate or human recourses essential for the smooth functioning of the machine) has been monkeywrenched or in all probability would get a hiccup, then that is a fair target. ALF however, specifically says that people are not to be physically harmed as part of monkeywrenching (if they are targeted for specific physical harm, then that is not an ALF action). But, that does not include "intimidation" techniques that causes worry or causing the setting in of seige mentality. Those have proven to be effective. They work. That is just mere fact and Direct Action in order to intimidate has been used by many social activists throughout history.

Does intimidating a widow of a former exploiter come into fair play like that was on the link??? Strategists would say that that emphatically underscores a message to those still in the business of animal exploitation -- letting them know that while they are around, they may be able to provide some modicum degree of protection to their family, but if they were to be gone tomorrow, their families would then be vulnerable. It is creating the siege mentality which causes people to not focus on their work or daily lives. It causes people to question themselves if what they are doing is worth it and if their family would be better off if they totally disengaged at a time before things escalate against them. That is the message that is being sent in that particular case. I am sure other exploiters in industries in that company in which he was hired took notice of that fact and had their own inner dialogue voices talking to them.

The thing is, some point the finger of wrongdoing at Direct Action activists for intimidating others, but fail to point out in the same sentence the terrible tyranny being inflicted on animals in labs, fur farms, factory farms etc... where animals are having painful intrusive actions done to them physically and psycologically. It is no secret that animal activists who embrace Direct Action feel that animals are deserving of the same interests of consideration, so they therefore are moved and compelled by their concience to act in a manner to relieve that suffering just as someone maybe would if they knew there were a Treblinka in the countryside nearby them doing horrible things to humans that have been carted there.
 
Hachiro said:
No I'm sorry I have been rather tied up with work and family these past few days and have very little time to "thoughtfully" reply to posts. I read most of the posts here at around 5 or 6 in the AM and my brain is not always functioning yet.

Interesting conversation to say the least. Thank you.

You're welcome and thanks for adding to the discussion yourself. Yes, AR is an interesting topic. We agree.

What I think is important is that both sides understand where each are coming from. That doesn`t mean we have to agree with one another, but just understanding the viewpoint and foundation of their thoughts is important and does have value to it.

I already said to MeAndroo that, "I may understand why southerners in the 50s and 60s were fearful or didn`t want black to have or exercise civil rights, but that I DIDN`T AGREE with it." "Understanding" and "agreeing" are just not the same. For another example, "I understand why America used the atomic bomb on Hiroshiman and Nagasaki, but I most definitely DON`T AGREE with it."

So, when I am asking someone to understand AR or Direct Action, that does not mean I am asking them to agree with it. If they do agree or come to agree with it, then fine. But, if they don`t then all I can hope for is that a better understanding of the reasons and dynamics are garnered on the point. Indeed, America, Russia, and China, spend hundreds of millions of dollars learning to understand one another -- but that does not mean they are agreeing with one anothers ideologies or policies. Fair enough on that point? I hope we agree on those two words because I think that will aid the discussion to continue.

When your family and work don`t keep you tied up, be sure to get back to the thread.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
This is the problem when orgs fighting for social change have been ignored and the status quo forces them to go underground because they are forced to adopt Direct Action to cause change and to be taken seriously. If they write and picket for years and nothing changes when the urgency of the situation demands action, they find themselves needing to take stronger action.

I think we talked about how people can get impatient with legislation, as the slow moving wheels of bureaucracy affect more than just animals in daily life. Certainly the AR/AW movement has made strides in gaining protection for animals and sites like PETA's detail some of those victories. And I'll be a bit pragmatic here when I say real change is going to take time. I see the AR/AW underground movement as guerilla tactics versus a large, well funded army in the form of corporate interests in industries related to animal use. Sometimes the guerillas can hold their ground, drive back their adversaries and discourage further loss (like a Vietnam). Other times the well-funded army rolls over the guerillas despite inferior tactics (see American Civil War). I understand that they feel the need to take action now, but sometimes I wonder if their all-or-nothing method of attack will backfire. What do you think about it?

If they were taken seriously and invited to the negotiation table with their most urgent grievances, then many problems could addressed and at least the frustration toward Direct Action pushed back further into the future.

The tough part about this, and I'm pretty sure we agree on it, is that there isn't a unified front on the part of the AR/AW groups. There isn't a single agenda being pushed. Some people think lab testing is wrong, but eating meat is ok. Some think eating meat is bad but wearing cotton is ok. Presenting a specific common desire, like in the case of the American Revolutionaries or Civil Rights periods like MLK's, was a great rallying point and, I think, a major factor in their success.

Now, I am not saying this is certain, I am just saying that it is a possibility: It is not so wild to consider that an entity, either be it corporate or government, in an effort to get the public to turn against animal rights, itself does not stage some attacks on animal exploiters in order to shock the public. All that is is a version of the "dirty trick." With orders to discredit ARists or their orgs, an agent could easily do any of those heinous acts on those site links and send a letter of responsibility to the ALF site as an ALF cell and the ALF site would list it as such.

I agree, this scenario is not unbelieveable. Certainly corporate interests are capable of performing such acts, but there is no real remedy for it, considering the makeup of organizations like the ALF. If they do indeed see it as a war, it's a loss they must be willing to accept.

Now, is it wrong that Direct Action targets people for intimidation? Well, if those in those industries (i.e. animal exploitators) are combatants (i.e. on the other side of the spectrum that supports animal exploitation), then they are fair game for targeting. If someone doesn`t view them as part of the apparatus of the exploiting machine, then they should not be a fair target.
How would one decide if they are a fair target? Many feel that if the machine gets a hiccup because the infrastructure (inanimate or human recourses essential for the smooth functioning of the machine) has been monkeywrenched or in all probability would get a hiccup, then that is a fair target. ALF however, specifically says that people are not to be physically harmed as part of monkeywrenching (if they are targeted for specific physical harm, then that is not an ALF action). But, that does not include "intimidation" techniques that causes worry or causing the setting in of seige mentality.

My view of the side against animal rights activists is slightly different than those engaged in private industry. The closest it has hit me was when bomb threats were made against public sector agencies dedicated to controlling animal populations, i.e. Los Angeles Animal Services. It's not for profit, and the majority of the people working in its central office don't see a single animal during their time there. My friend specifically is an accountant. Yet bomb threats are made, GMs are forced out, and work is indeed disrupted; work that may in fact be contributing to what animal rights activists WANT. The wheels of change spin slowly in the public sector, and disruption of leadership only serves to exacerbate that. In this scenario, an accountant, or a file clerk, or a secretary who is afraid to come to work will not benefit animals anywhere. In fact, it could only hurt them in the long term.

Does intimidating a widow of a former exploiter come into fair play like that was on the link??? Strategists would say that that emphatically underscores a message to those still in the business of animal exploitation -- letting them know that while they are around, they may be able to provide some modicum degree of protection to their family, but if they were to be gone tomorrow, their families would then be vulnerable.

But isn't it a bit senseless? Their true target is dead. His family has no connection to any of the problems the activists had with the man, yet they continue to use resources targeting her. Who's to say they won't continue to target the family if the man quits? It's the same result, he no longer engages in the work they condemn. Wouldn't that just encourage tougher crackdowns on said activists? I don't understand how this can be morally justified.

I don't agree with seige tactics, but I certainly see how they work. Perhaps I just don't see how intimidating say, a CEO, would not encourage the board of directors and shareholders to search for someone more hard-nosed and defiant to any protestors.

The thing is, some point the finger of wrongdoing at Direct Action activists for intimidating others, but fail to point out in the same sentence the terrible tyranny being inflicted on animals in labs, fur farms, factory farms etc... where animals are having painful intrusive actions done to them physically and psycologically. It is no secret that animal activists who embrace Direct Action feel that animals are deserving of the same interests of consideration, so they therefore are moved and compelled by their concience to act in a manner to relieve that suffering just as someone maybe would if they knew there were a Treblinka in the countryside nearby them doing horrible things to humans that have been carted there.

True, but that is the burden of proof activists of any kind must face. There are certainly those willing to admit that abuse of animals is wrong, and many not actively involved in protest. But the sliding scale of what is judged to be cruel means there must be a sliding scale of goals, and that ultimately is seen, at least by me, as a weakness.

A major hurdle I see in the fight for animal rights is the disputed perception of animal's place in a natural hierarchy. ARists see no difference, and the rest see a major difference. Until there is widespread acceptance of the AR point of view on this issue, I don't think real change will ever take place. And I see THAT as the true root of what ARists are fighting for.
 
MeAndroo (ok to call you "Roo" for short?), just trying to catch up on these links you had listed before for comment.

MeAndroo said:
The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy. ... Or am I missing something here...

Those numbers are probably right as to how they are listed ont those links. I won`t dispute them. On that point you aren`t missing anything.

However, on what many people do miss when they see those numbers or that site is that those are put forth by the CCF (Center for Consumer Freedom) to discredit PETA. The CCF is a front company that was launched by a conglomeration of corporations such as Tyson Foods, fast food industry, Tobacco, Industry, Ranchers, Alchohol, Firearms industry etc... -- in short, just about every producer of a vice that has been detrimental to society in many ways. Everyone of these industries has come under intense scrutiny from PETA with campaigns and they have seen the threat to their corporate profits posed by PETA. They have decided it is in their best interest to stop ignoring PETA and to in fact try to roll them back.

The CCF had even come out against Mothers Against Drunk Driving with negative comments resisting some of their goals/campaigns to affect change for the protections of the roads. Remember the tobacco CEOs testifying several years ago on Capital Hill that they didn`t think Tobacco caused cancer? They were lampooned as the 7 Dwarfs for the incredulous statements they were making -- basically perjuring themselves. And the CCF represents this group of characters! Now, if they are going to spin about tobacco and MADD, you can be sure they are going to spin on PETA.

The thing is, while those numbers above may be accurate, the pets PETA do take in and euthinize are the ones which do have a very low chance at adoption. That may be because of injury or age or temperment. That site also makes it sound like PETA actually "takes them in" which I am not sure is the correct words of choice to describe all those in the numbers referenced. Does all animals euthinized by PETA means that they have become PETA`s and are therefore considered "taken in" by PETA?

PETA is often called in by shelters requesting that PETA offer their help in euthinizing because they are overrun. Yes, some mistakes are made from time to time when an animal is adoptable is put down and in fact should not be. The fact that PETA has put down a high percentage of the animals they 'take in' is because those are the animals for the most part PETA seeks to offer relief to. Remember, PETA is not a shelter. It just isn`t in their mission statement and to expect them to do that is not right.

Should they do more. I think I said before and I don`t mind repeating, perhaps yes, and I, myself, would like to see more done and perhaps even an official PETA sheltered open in the future. Could that happen? I think so. The chances are not so remote to dismiss it. There is a much better chance of PETA opening a shelter for animals than the entitities making up the CCF deciding not to kill the billions of animals that pass through their money making centers.

To say PETA is bad or falls unacceptably short of aiding animals simply because they are not perfect and that a few thousand animals may be euthinized by them and therefore not worthy of support from those concerned with AR and AW, is like comparing a mole hill to 100 Mt. Everests where billions and billions of animals are piled on top of one another with the CCF flag planted at the top. And they have the audacity to look down from the top of the carnage and say PETA is being hypocritical becuase they euthinize??? Well, perfection is not PETA, and they always seek better ways to bring their practices in line with their beliefs at lessening animal suffering -- but one thing is sure, they sit on their molehill of a few animals euthinized knowing that those animals were released from this life in a way that did not see them defecating out of fear and gasping for breath in a CO2 administering gas champer or a not well aimed bullet to their head.

The CCF on the other hand in their dark caverns that produce the Everest High numbers of death of billions of animals sends animals to vivisections, cruel slaughter, animal testing, skinning precedures, rendering plants etc... where animals meet their end in terror and excruciating pain. If someone were an animal and their end was coming, they should only hope that if they were not 'placeable' to live out a life to their natural end, that instead of an employee from the CCF coming up to it for commodifying it, that a PETA worker with a peaceful drug of injection were coming to it. I know I most definitely would prefer the latter. I pat on the head, a few kind final words, and a few seconds falling into sleep is much more preferable than being forced to smoke to black lungs then vivisected alive, or electronically prodded into a stick pit.
 
MeAndroo said:
That's true, and is one of the reasons I get so frustrated by other AR/AW organizations. PETA straddles the line between ideological and pragmatic better than some of their more extreme brethren, but it still seems wrong to me as an idealist.

Fair enough. I understand the feeling. I think most who innitially come to PETA do so as idealists when they first begin to get involved with helping animals and are moved to give of their time and other recourses to do so. However, after the enormity of the problem becomes clearer and clearer, pragmatism takes hold.

Some people around the world look at the U.S. and all her rhettoric for freedom and promoting it, but as we all know from being citizens of the U.S. and inside the system, we just cannot act purely on our ideas to all parts of the world at the same time. Even the richness of our country would break under such a strain if we attempted to do so. Can we do more? Of course. Should we do more? Of course. However, just because decision makers choose their battles to address in a particular order, does not make them wrong. It just makes them constrained by the reality of the situation on the ground.

In rhettoric and philosophical musings, all things can be said and expressed. But, in action, only those things that can be done at a particular time can be realized. All others must stand in line and wait their turn.
 
MeAndroo said:
I guess what it boils down to, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or not, is that it's tough for me to watch groups like PETA claim a moral high ground and engage in the very act they condemn so publicly.

I understand what you are saying but it is hard for me to agree with it. I think the key phrase in what you said above is "very act." Yes, Peta euthinizes, there is no debate there, but the purposes for that are caused by the pet and ownership industry which creates the problem. In order for PETA to be anywhere near equal in doing the "very act" of the industries in which they denegrate and campaign against, they would have to be doing the same things. And that just isn`t the case. There is a big difference in what Tyson foods and university researchers do to animals that bring about their deaths and what PETA does as a reaction to a system that has caused unadoptable, injured, diseased animals to come to them. PETA for the most part relieves these animals of the miserable lives they have been forced to live by providing them with a peaceful release from this world -- one in which abuse and neglect marked their lives.

So, one does have to look a little deeper into the euthinizeing policy of PETA rather than just lump it with industry killing. If the two acts were not different, then most people who do not want their pets anymore because they are old, sick, on their last days of life, have gotten temperment problems, would then just take them to universities for research or kill them in anyway they wanted without any thought for how they are killed.

But, many people do take their animals to vets to be PTSed because eventhough the animal to them is no longer 'fine,' they see a sense of duty and value in ending their life in the most peaceful way as possible. PETA does that but they do it as an org and not as an individual person. Therefore, the numbers of a few thousand animals PTSed under their auspices looks bad. But, in actuality, they are doing nothing worse than a person professing love for their animal/pet but deciding a peaceful exit is what is called for at that time. And just because that person/pet owner criticises their neighbor for having shot their dog or killed it in some other heinous way, it in no way detracts from the moral high ground of administering euthinasia in a kind way.
 
My idea of animal rights is that when i EVENTUALLY catch a bastard mouse in my house, i defend its right to be released in the nearby park and not chucked in with the rubbish bin.

Meh, i woulda probably kept the bugger as a pet....damn he was small...:souka:

He also likes dog-food it seems.

Not fish, i like fishing, i mean, i felt sorry for scarface, hacing to get a hook cut out but, he tasted good so i didnt worry much more after that.

(BTW the mouse escaped again so he will probably be found again unexpected...)
 
Looks like a virus could be on the way to put an end to the constant cycling of chicken misery in Eqypt.

In Cairo people have traditionaly raised chickens on rooftops because people had no land or enough money to rent a bigger space to do so. The government of Egypt is worried that roof top chickens could help spread the desiese from migratory birds. 4 of the 6 birds found to be infected with the deadly H5N1 strain of the 'bird flu' had been rooftopped farmed.

One housing resident moaned, "They said on television that it's dangerous to mix with the birds but they are my only source of income. Thanks to God, my birds are okay so we will eat those and then we will stop but what other job will I find?"

Eeeerrrr...how about a job that doesn`t earn money off the blood of living beings?
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Eeeerrrr...how about a job that doesn`t earn money off the blood of living beings?
Will you be the one to offer him such a job?
 
bossel said:
Will you be the one to offer him such a job?

If he has the skills for what I am looking for I will. But, as it is right now, my company isn`t looking for anyone with the experience of rooftop farmers who raise animals in small cages and butchers them.

But, he may apply within any of our offices overseas. One may be in sight of his rooftop -- once he clears all the empty cages away from his roof.

hahahaha.... Looks like he is really on his way to unemployment now once he eats all his reproducing stock. I guess that is literally someone "eating themselves out of home and kitchen." <snicker snicker>

A win for a few animals. Fewer rooftop squalid prisons for chickens.
 
GRRRRRRRRRR....

A bear is stalking Prince Charles and he has taken notice of it. He even has taken the time to have a short chat with it saying, ?gI recognise you! I?fve seen you in America!?h

BOO!

And he will be seeing a lot more of The Peta Bear as it vows to be at every public event the Prince shows up for.

The Bear is getting in his face to remind him and the Queen that the hats made of bear fur for Buckingham Palace should be exchanged for faux fur.

This is a victory that is not a question of "if, but "when."

Free, good, and natural:
bear1_big.jpg


Arrogant exploitation for meaningless fashion:
Guard.jpg
 
I had a look around the web about this. It seems that the hats are made from the pelts of bears which are culled in Canada. The culling would continue whether or not the guards changed to fake fur. I noticed a lot of the animal right sites make out that the bears are killed just for the hats. More objective sites do mention that there is a annual cull in America and Canada and the hats are just a by product of the cull, which will continue whether or not the British army require them or not. I think that PETA must really stop the culling in North America, that way the drive to find a substitute is more pressing. BTW the MOD has been running trials to find a artifical substitute for several years.
 
The culling of black bears is not necessary. Fur for fashion is not necessary.

If culling is necessary as some conservationists may put forth, then the cull should be the cull. Blood money should not be made off of it. If money is being made off of some cullings, then I would bet that many of those who are for the cull are all for the money to be had, too.

If a bear is going to be killed for the good of the environment, then at least let its corpse lay where it fell to give back biomass nutrients to the forest. But, of course we know that is not what the hunters want. They don`t want to 'help' the forest that much -- in a way they don`t profit from their fun hunting. They want the fun and the fur to sell and to add 'value' to for their benefit.

The Guards can have their faux look alike hats and the bears can keep their skins. Sounds like a good trade to me. If the cull is necessary, then let the forest keep what falls in her to reclaim and recycle. I suspect, though, that if the orders for bear hats were to stop coming from Buckingham palace, the number of culls would lessen and surely a drop in prices would come about making it less profitable.
 

This thread has been viewed 154556 times.

Back
Top