Animal Cruelty - Page 7

[kapoentje]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

Thanks, I really appreciate the thoughtful reply! So, what then, is PETA's motive, in your opinion? Money? Or something more? I did hear about the situation with the cattle, that was very disheartening. I have to admit, I have a hard time following PETA...they contradict themselves at every turn. But, I'm really unsure where to turn to take the type of action many who contribute to PETA & the like WANT to take. Now, regarding your second paragraph - what do you mean? Who is prohibiting who from what? I wholeheartedly agree a yard dog, well loved & cared for, is way better off than a pound puppy! I don't believe, personally, in forcing anyone to spay or neuter. I think - for MOST - it's a good idea for sure though! Re: the comments there... : Nice. : Again, thank you for explaining a little - I'm still kind of sorting out my "stance" on this all.

As a long time animal lover/educator/activist/rescuer, I feel I must add my two pennies about the likes of PETA. :

If there's one thing I almost always see being brought up by people who are vehemently against the animal rights movement, it's the attack on PETA. PETA is a very easy target! Experience and a lot of research has shown me that there are really only a small handful of organizations out there who honestly and cohesively share the vision of compassionate treatment toward all animals.

Usually those people and organizations are a lot less visible, because we are the ones out there doing what needs to be done in a judicious manner. We peacefully, compassionately and non-violently conduct community outreach and education, provide resources and advice and offer friendly, involved support when needed, among other things.

Unfortunately PETA has the cash to be highly visible to the public eye with their foolish circus antics and IMHO, they are a horrible ambassador for animal liberation, animal rights, animal rescue and companion animals. They have been making a mockery of the AR movement for a good many years by abusing the public's trust with aggressive, hypocritical tactics. The people behind the curtain who are in charge of PETA's PR lack the necessary foundation of empathy, else they would take note that the public is aware of their non-sensical hysterics and are reacting as any normal person would when they feel they are being attacked, misled, lied to and deceived! :

PETA is making us, the hard working, sensible rescuers and preservationists look like utter nutcases who are deeply in need of serious therapy. I view PETA as painfully antithetical and it appears that they have completely lost focus of the original intent.

PETA's many different statements with regard to animals are, to many people, painfully paradoxical and just downright hypocritical.

One example:

As I mentioned above, I have been working with the public in a number of different facets. A large part of my work is with feral cats, feral cat colonies and their caretakers. We paradisiacally educate the public on the care and management of feral cat colonies, provide information about low-cost and free vaccinations, alterations (spay & neuter, commonly referred to as TNR, or Trap Neuter Return) in order to stop the growth of the colony (and overpopulation in general), etc.

TNR works. I bear witness many times over to this fact. The ASPCA and the HSUS are two well-known groups who endorse TNR. PETA, on the other hand, feel that feral cats should be euthanized: http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-feralcats.asp

Please check out my favorite group (in Seattle): http://www.feralcatproject.org

PETA continues to negate the meaning of compassion for animals and they've made the general public contrariant and antagonistic to the cause. I firmly believe that PETA has played and currently plays a significant role in the never-ending dissention and strife over the topic of animal rights among the general public.

Our volunteerism for the animals is all the more difficult with groups like PETA. People are less likely to take us seriously, less likely to trust us and less likely to try harder for the animals.

[kapoentje]

Originally Posted by kaydee

You have now proven that speciesism exists. Nice work!

Sad, ain't it? Man may be more intelligent than most non-human animals, however that does not give him the implicit freedom to treat the "lesser" species with blatant disregard for his well-being, nor the same freedoms to use at will for vanity's purpose, eg: fur coats, fur trim and the like, pointless acts of entertainment such as circuses and performing tricks in public, leather shoes and clothing, irrelevant and useless cosmetics testing, etc. :

Speciesism, indeed. :

[heartmama]

RPE wrote:
Thats based on the false premise that an animal has rights to begin with. Its an animal welfare issue not a social justice issue. We have the obligation to treat animals humanely that are in our care. That doesn't constitute rights on their part.

Many people do not believe they are obligated to treat animals humanely and/or they define "humane treatment" in a way that others don't agree is correct.

This really is an emotional, moral, and ethical debate because the different viewpoints tend to reveal profoundly different fundamental views on humans, animals, and their relationship on earth.

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by kapoentje

Sad, ain't it? Man may be more intelligent than most non-human animals, however that does not give him the implicit freedom to treat the "lesser" species with blatant disregard for his well-being, nor the same freedoms to use at will for vanity's purpose, eg: fur coats, fur trim and the like, pointless acts of entertainment such as circuses and performing tricks in public, leather shoes and clothing, irrelevant and useless cosmetics testing, etc. :

Speciesism, indeed. :

Well, you know you only think that way because you lack critical discernment skills.

Oh, scratch that; you’re an animal advocate—you don’t think, you only feel. Logic is the exclusive domain of animal use advocates.

You’ve pretty much been fully indoctrinated, so really, there’s just no hope for you.

Why don’t you just go off and heartlessly hurt some people.



Nice to have a few other thinking and compassionate voices here (although I really do hope this thread is euthanized soon).

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by heartmama

Many people do not believe they are obligated to treat animals humanely and/or they define "humane treatment" in a way that others don't agree is correct.

This really is key, I think.

If you think, say, keeping an elephant in a circus can be done humanely, then you will defend the circus’s right to do that.

If you think that by definition keeping an elephant in a circus environment is inhumane, then you will fight to abolish that practice.

This can apply to all sorts of uses of animals, whether it’s meat, fur, rodeos, pets, you name it.

What is “humane” is opinion (belief, perception), not fact (verifiable, quantifiable). Humane is what we as a society say it is, and it has changed throughout history.

This really is an emotional, moral, and ethical debate because the different viewpoints tend to reveal profoundly different fundamental views on humans, animals, and their relationship on earth.

:

[rpe]

Originally Posted by kaydee

You have now proven that speciesism exists. Nice work!

No I've just shown it was a crackpot theory coined by a crackpot. That was an incredibly nonsensical sentence you just wrote.

By your 'logic' then Ebonics is a real language.

Sad, ain't it? Man may be more intelligent than most non-human animals, however that does not give him the implicit freedom to treat the "lesser" species with blatant disregard for his well-being, nor the same freedoms to use at will for vanity's purpose, eg: fur coats, fur trim and the like, pointless acts of entertainment such as circuses and performing tricks in public, leather shoes and clothing, irrelevant and useless cosmetics testing, etc.

Name one animal that is more intelligent than man. There isn't one.

What you just said is an excellent example of the dishonesty inherent in the AR movement. Not only does it assume a moral authority they just don't have but it presumes those who realize animals don't have rights have no regard for their well being or condone abuse.

Read The Hijacking of the Humane Movement.

Many people do not believe they are obligated to treat animals humanely and/or they define "humane treatment" in a way that others don't agree is correct.

Most DO. The problem with ARs is everyone's an abuser or a potential abuser and they think of themselves as crusaders and protectors while at the same time working toward eliminating animals. Illogical isn't it. Some have no idea that they're aiding that agenda.

An animal welfarist can work in rescue, encourage spay/neuter, humane treatment, help educate pet owners but they are firmly opposed to anti-pet measures that organizations like the HSUS back. They also work hard to educate people on the real agenda of the animal rights movement. They are against the indoctrination of children (its not education) by ARs. Rightly so.

PETA continues to negate the meaning of compassion for animals and they've made the general public contrariant and antagonistic to the cause. I firmly believe that PETA has played and currently plays a significant role in the never-ending dissention and strife over the topic of animal rights among the general public.

Its not just PETA but the HSUS as well and other groups. Right now in fact the HSUS is showing its true colors (again) in California pushing for mandatory spay/neuter statewide with virtually no exceptions except for commercial breeders who it won't effect. Commercial breeders are not the ones that maintain breed integrity and health. HSUS is lying to legislators to get this bill passed. They're very good at it.

The HSUS also negates the meaning of compassion for animals they just go about it in a less overt way than PETA.

TNR works. I bear witness many times over to this fact. The ASPCA and the HSUS are two well-known groups who endorse TNR. PETA, on the other hand, feel that feral cats should be euthanized: http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-feralcats.asp

TNR does work! (and you are SPOT ON about PETA) The HSUS is not responsible for that though nor is the ASPCA. The HSUS is speaking out of both sides of its mouth in its inexorable move toward a petless, meatless society.

I hope various TNR projects realize that and shun the HSUS as any animal welfare organization should.

PETA continues to negate the meaning of compassion for animals and they've made the general public contrariant and antagonistic to the cause. I firmly believe that PETA has played and currently plays a significant role in the never-ending dissention and strife over the topic of animal rights among the general public.

PETA is the perfect foil for the HSUS. Sadly, people don't realize the latter has the same agenda. The HSUS is just PETA in an expensive suit.

Our volunteerism for the animals is all the more difficult with groups like PETA. People are less likely to take us seriously, less likely to trust us and less likely to try harder for the animals.

Its a mistake to lump in everyone with the likes of PETA or the HSUS. The reason most don't take animal rightists seriously (as opposed to animal welfarists) is the animal rightists put as much value (and in many cases more) to animal life as human life. Thats not enlightened, moral or ethical by any stretch of the imagination but rather reflects a lack of morals and ethics.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by kaydee

Oh, scratch that; you’re an animal advocate—you don’t think, you only feel. Logic is the exclusive domain of animal use advocates.

Yet you've failed to refute many points with any fact or logic regarding pets. Your language is very revealing. Somehow we're "using" animals because we have pets and that is wrong.

You’ve pretty much been fully indoctrinated, so really, there’s just no hope for you.

Nice to have a few other thinking and compassionate voices here (although I really do hope this thread is euthanized soon).

[/quote]

You counter no facts on anti-pet measures and have only offered empty rhetoric on medical research.

In the absence of a coherent argument what do you do? Why you fall back on emotion of course because its all you have.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by rpe

No I've just shown it was a crackpot theory coined by a crackpot. That was an incredibly nonsensical sentence you just wrote.

By your 'logic' then Ebonics is a real language.

Hijack alart!

So, why is Ebonics not a real language?
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc.../eboneil.shtml
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc...ebdelpit.shtml
http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/spring19...9nebonics.html

Animals have no rights, and a number of African Americans don't speak a real language? Any other obvious lage sweeping generalizations that I'm not aware of?

[rpe]

Originally Posted by athansor

Hijack alart!

So, why is Ebonics not a real language?
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc.../eboneil.shtml

Animals have no rights, and a number of African Americans don't speak a real language? Any other obvious lage sweeping generalizations that I'm not aware of?

Ever heard it? Its not only African Americans who speak it either but Hispanics, Whites and Asians. Most African Americans think its ridiculous to think its a language rather than a dialect and are insulted that its promoted as such.

If you've ever travelled in England you'll notice many dialects and some are hard to understand. Much like it is for those hearing Ebonics for the first time. But those dialects are no more separate languages than Ebonics is.