PETA & The HSUS

[Kayti]

So this is also for vegans. But, if you dont eat meat or animal products what do you feed your carnivorous pets?

I can't speak for all vegans, but my pets are not vegan because they cannot be healthy on a vegan diet. I can, and I have the option, so I take it.

I have absolutely no moral qualms with animals eating animals and animal by-products, including people, as long as the animals they eat were raised and killed humanly. Unfortunately, it's super hard to find humanely killed and raised meat and meat products, especially in pet foods, so I just feed my carnivores and omnivores the best quality food I can find. To me, veganism is a choice people can make, but not animals. Eating meat is natural, but the way we do it today is not, in my opinion, so I choose not to support it for myself.

So I guess EJ would call me a radical, because I hold myself to a higher moral standard than a non-human omnivore. Oh well

Adding onto this: my way of thinking about this is always changing, so I'm sorry if it doesn't make much sense. But thank you, Rhyno47, for asking the question because it's a very good one, and it's always been something I've never felt totally positive about. I've tried to get other vegans to talk about it, and I've never really got an answer I was happy with.

 

[terryo]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you talking about the PETA, or just humanity in general. If you are talking about humanity in general, then I apologize. But...the PETA are fighting for a cause, and they have to fight hard, but they do not have an evil streak. Also we just can't sit around and wait for the world to change before we consider standing up for a cause...animal rights? So if you are sitting around waiting for people to put aside their differences and for the world to become a better place......well you have a long wait. That sounds like a cop-out to me.

 

[Candy]

3. Some of the board members of PETA are diabetic or have other conditions that the cures for involve animals in the testing or production. They are on record as feeling that this policy does not apply to them for some reason or another. While I am not fond of the type of testing, I want to be DANG sure that a medicine that my wife or children use is safe and effective on humans. (Cleaners, cosmetics, etc. being tested this way really should stop and be made with safer ingredients in the first place.)



Madkins I don't quite understand where you got your information on the PETA diabetics can you show me that information that you're referring to? What record are you talking about? And about the statement that "you want to be dang sure that a medicine is safe for you and your family" think again. Do you watch the news at all? Do you watch all those drugs adds and theirs so called side effects? This is your FDA you're talking about do you really think they're doing right by you? I hope you're not that foolish. Talk about bad organizations! There are a lot of natural medicines and over the counter natural treatments that are just as good if not better then those other drugs you're referring to and the plus is there's no animal testing for most of them.








4. This is a rather blanket statement that includes pets, circuses, zoos, etc. Some horrible things have been done to animals in the name of the greater good or for the money, but there are a lot of things about pets, zoos, etc. that work in favor of animals. We will not care about or protect what we do not understand. Animals in entertainment areas accomplish this and more



Madkins, are you trying to say that we protect animals more from watching them in the circus? If humans would leave wild animals alone and research them in their own environment don't you think that would be better?

 

[terryo]

Seeing as how my posts were deleted from the prior thread I'm not going to even participate in this one short of one question.
If or when these groups manage to outlaw the keeping of non native animals are you the supporters of these groups going to relinquish your animals?
I will forego my personal opinion in this issue but am curious how far you are willing to go to support at least one of these groups agendas.

To my knowledge, the PETA is not trying to outlaw the keeping of non native animals or any other animal that might be someones loving pet. Also...keep in mind there are many branches of the the PETA and many people who claim to be working with them, or using their name for their own cause.

 

[nickpanzee]

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I do not agree with inhumane treatment of animals. I do not agree with peta's treatment of animals. It seems to me that some animal rights groups feel that animals are better off dead than in captivity or as they may put it "enslavement."

I just know that I try to treat animals and people as I would like to be treated. I think that should go for everyone. Just put yourself in their place.

 

[terryo]

There are many, many organizations that have people working for them that don't do the right thing. This doesn't mean that the organization, as a whole, is responsibile for what each chapter does.

 

[Luvthemtorts]

You may want to research that a bit. Their agenda is cloaked in nicely worded packages that need to be unwrapped to fully understand.
Also I encourage you to do some independent research on their policies and goals from an outside source.
In addition I would suggest reading some of Ingrid Newkirks' personal quotes to see her stance on animal ownership.

Seeing as how my posts were deleted from the prior thread I'm not going to even participate in this one short of one question.
If or when these groups manage to outlaw the keeping of non native animals are you the supporters of these groups going to relinquish your animals?
I will forego my personal opinion in this issue but am curious how far you are willing to go to support at least one of these groups agendas.

To my knowledge, the PETA is not trying to outlaw the keeping of non native animals or any other animal that might be someones loving pet. Also...keep in mind there are many branches of the the PETA and many people who claim to be working with them, or using their name for their own cause.

 

[DoctorCosmonaut]

I have to agree with terryo all the way. I just think people are scared of what they don't understand fueled by rumors. Most people I know barely barely even know what PETA is if anything, the one thing they can tell me is that they heard it was practically a terrorist group. So people obviously have preconceived notions about the organization without even knowing what the organization is about. PETA wants animals not to suffer, can anyone here argue with that ultimate goal? You don't have to agree with them or like them, but I think most peoples fears or claims here are pretty unfounded in fact and mostly off of a society that fears change. Think about all of the people, groups, and ideas that were once seen as radical or fringe? Maybe cosmetic companies should start making products that they are confident in wouldn't pose a possible danger to humans. Doesn't it scare you that there is something that they use that really needed to be tested on animals? Also as far as animal testing goes my friend who is a bioengineer said that a most animal testing is arbitrary in this day and age. Now most of you will probably label me as a radical or brain washed for believening the idea of not testing cosmetics on apes or cats or for thinking that PETA is harmless... but that's fine with me. A lot of my greatest heros were rebels and dissenters (e.g. Martin Luther King, Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, even Luke Skywalker).

PS I am not at all for animal ownership banning or about to go blow up a building or cut locks on cages... in case you were worried. lol

PPS I am not a member of PETA.

 

[Luvthemtorts]

As suggested to Terry, Please read some of Ingrid Newkirks' statements made to various publications throughout the years. Its hard to be confused or cry conspiracy when the words were uttered from her own mouth.
I have no doubts that many people have no idea what this group is about and therefore scream "radicals" but on the same hand I have no doubts that many well meaning pet owners have no idea of this groups true goals and beliefs.

I have to agree with terryo all the way. I just think people are scared of what they don't understand fueled by rumors. Most people I know barely barely even know what PETA is if anything, the one thing they can tell me is that they heard it was practically a terrorist group. So people obviously have preconceived notions about the organization without even knowing what the organization is about. PETA wants animals not to suffer, can anyone here argue with that ultimate goal? You don't have to agree with them or like them, but I think most peoples fears or claims here are pretty unfounded in fact and mostly off of a society that fears change. Think about all of the people, groups, and ideas that were once seen as radical or fringe? Maybe cosmetic companies should start making products that they are confident in wouldn't pose a possible danger to humans. Doesn't it scare you that there is something that they use that really needed to be tested on animals? Also as far as animal testing goes my friend who is a bioengineer said that a most animal testing is arbitrary in this day and age. Now most of you will probably label me as a radical or brain washed for believening the idea of not testing cosmetics on apes or cats or for thinking that PETA is harmless... but that's fine with me. A lot of my greatest heros were rebels and dissenters (e.g. Martin Luther King, Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, even Luke Skywalker).

PS I am not at all for animal ownership banning or about to go blow up a building or cut locks on cages... in case you were worried. lol

PPS I am not a member of PETA.

 

[dmmj]

I am against peta for one simple reason, for statements pulled from their own website."As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife." When you compare a rat to a human you are on the fringe and shold be considered radical. sorry to say. Also from their own website. "Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable" If you equate humans with animals you are a radical. you can of course believe anything you want but this IMHO is wrong.

 

[Kayti]

I am against peta for one simple reason, for statements pulled from their own website."As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife." When you compare a rat to a human you are on the fringe and shold be considered radical. sorry to say. Also from their own website. "Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable" If you equate humans with animals you are a radical. you can of course believe anything you want but this IMHO is wrong.

Arguments like yours were made when slaves wanted freedom and when women wanted to vote, FYI. Differences have nothing to do with rights. I'm open to debate about exactly how big those differences are, but simply claiming "animals aren't people" as if that justifies anything, is ludicrous.
Humans ARE animals. There are countless comparisons to be made between us.

But I'm totally fine with being called a radical. Without radicals, I wouldn't have any rights!

 

[dmmj]

I personally get disgusted when people try to equate animal rights with slavery or women's suffrage issues, Just saying.

 

[-EJ]

It's Monday morning... point being... clear head.

Give it a little thought and it will make sense.

This might help... urban terrorists spiking trees, blowing up clinics and burning structures to name a few points.

These people want to save the planet or puppy but have no problem hurting another person.

(is it a little clearer?)

I have a problem with people who put animals in front of people. These people are called radicals.

Think of the largest radical group in the world...

Sure there are bad people but lets put it in perspective. If a person does not have compassion or understanding for their fellow man... the animals don't mean a whole lot.

It seems the activists against those causes outside of humans seem to have an evil streak way worse than a kid torturing a cat...

When I see people willing to put aside their differences to better a relationship that will give me time to consider those injustaces outside of humanity but I'll be willing to bet that if that happened... I probably wouldn't have to worry about the latter part of that statement.

Your post doesn't even make sense.

 

[terryo]

It's Monday morning... point being... clear head.

Give it a little thought and it will make sense.

This might help... urban terrorists spiking trees, blowing up clinics and burning structures to name a few points.

These people want to save the planet or puppy but have no problem hurting another person.

(is it a little clearer?)

I have a problem with people who put animals in front of people. These people are called radicals.

Think of the largest radical group in the world...

Sure there are bad people but lets put it in perspective. If a person does not have compassion or understanding for their fellow man... the animals don't mean a whole lot.

It seems the activists against those causes outside of humans seem to have an evil streak way worse than a kid torturing a cat...

When I see people willing to put aside their differences to better a relationship that will give me time to consider those injustaces outside of humanity but I'll be willing to bet that if that happened... I probably wouldn't have to worry about the latter part of that statement.

Your post doesn't even make sense.

Good for you Ed, I was worried about you.
I happen to agree with you to a point. They have many policies, that I don't agree with ...and...irrational agenda's that are up for dispute, but , that being said, I think that anything that has a brain, and can feel pain, should not be subjected to torture, no matter what the species. Pain is pain. No one has the right to inflict pain on another living thing. Animals being a lower species depend on us to protect them.
Like I said, I don't agree with many of their policies, but IMHP, they do more good than they do bad.
And as Kayti said, where would we be without radicals? Woman would be nothing more than slaves to their husbands, or fathers, would own nothing, and would not have a say in anything political or financial. We are not talking about animals vs. people here.....we are talking about radicals fighting for the rights of others....animals or humans....
As far as Ingrid Newkirk goes.....if we don't like what the president of our country does, should we leave the country? If we don't care for everything the Pope does, should we find another religion? IMO..no...we stay because we find the good in it.
My argument in this debate is that the PETA does more good than it does bad. I am for the good it does, and therefore have to support it.

Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures.

His Holiness The Dalai Lama

 

[-EJ]

One really important word in that line... 'want'. That would imply the animal is aware of it's existance. Again... give that a little thought.

Question for the audience... who here hunts or fishes???... come on... don't be shy.

Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures.

His Holiness The Dalai Lama

 

[mctlong]

PETA members are well intentioned. Their goal is to prevent animal suffering and as an animal lover, I appreciate and respect their objective. However, the problem is that PETA oversimplifies. The relationship between humans and other animals is not black and white. Its extremely complex.

Example of oversimplification: PETA Plank #1: Animals Are Not Ours to Eat.

Umm, Yes they are. We are omnivores. Our nature compels us to eat other animals as we have been for the past 4 millions years. Some people choose to obtain their protein by other means and thats fine if it works for them, but we cannot condemn people for eating their natural food source. We don’t scold our dogs for eating meat. We don’t shame a lion for stalking an antelope.

Now, if PETA said, “animals are not our to lock up in tiny enclosures and feed vast amounts of unhealthy, fatty foods to make them taste better for human consumption” and “animals are not ours to kill in some painful, inhumane way so that we could eat them.” Well then, I would agree with that message. Unfortunately, PETA simply states “Animals Are Not Ours to Eat”. This simplified message is an invitation for some radical, naive member to take it to the extreme and condemn all meat-eating people.

Another ridiculous oversimplification is that PETA opposes zoos. They do not differentiate between good zoos or bad zoos but simply condemns them all. There are some awful zoos out there, but there are also magnificent zoos which spend millions of dollars annually on wildlife conservation efforts. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Oversimplification is the problem. PETA’s message is too black and white. I appreciated their efforts to reduce animal suffering, but I do not condone their marketing strategy. Franky, in my opinion, their marketing strategy, which consists of throwing around vague concepts such as "animals are not ours to eat" is lazy and does not adequately address the the core issues of animal rights and animal suffering.

 

[DoctorCosmonaut]

It's Monday morning... point being... clear head.

Give it a little thought and it will make sense.

This might help... urban terrorists spiking trees, blowing up clinics and burning structures to name a few points.

These people want to save the planet or puppy but have no problem hurting another person.

(is it a little clearer?)

I have a problem with people who put animals in front of people. These people are called radicals.

Think of the largest radical group in the world...

Sure there are bad people but lets put it in perspective. If a person does not have compassion or understanding for their fellow man... the animals don't mean a whole lot.

It seems the activists against those causes outside of humans seem to have an evil streak way worse than a kid torturing a cat...

When I see people willing to put aside their differences to better a relationship that will give me time to consider those injustaces outside of humanity but I'll be willing to bet that if that happened... I probably wouldn't have to worry about the latter part of that statement.

Your post doesn't even make sense.

Do you have a news article on sometime that PETA blew something up? (I want a news article because then it won't be from an equally "radical" opposition site). I may be wrong, but if they have done that then they would haven been labeled as a terrorist group by the government and prosecuted, shut down, etc. Most PETA volunteers I have met handout brochures on vegetarianism passively and don't even confront you, wait for you too walk up to them.

 

[mctlong]

PETA's a well-known name, often associated with radical ideas. As a result, people blame PETA whenever some wacko breaks into a lab or sets an explosive claiming to protect animal rights. PETA's never bombed anything.

In 2007, two professors at UCLA who had been working on animal research had bombs placed under their cars. The bombs were never detonated. Everyone assumed it was PETA, but turns out it was some off-the-wall group that no one had ever heard of.

 

[t_mclellan]

Just a bit of easy reading!

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/0/3/2/p260321_index.html

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2833-peta-kills-animals----and-its-a-felony

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

http://www.eskimo.com/~rarnold/arrests.htm

http://www.fur.ca/index-e/news/news.asp?action=news&newsitem=press04

Just think about it!

 

[GBtortoises]

Why all the animosity against pitas?

I think they're great to eat with lamb, lettuce, cucumbers and onions in them!

Oh wait, you mean PETA!

Nevermind, I thought we were talking about something good.

Let's talk about pitas instead, I'm hungry.