This is like the rolling coal of meat eating. I hoped we were better than this
Who’s we? Don’t associate with anyone
fossil fuels need to be phased out completely.
meat eating doesn’t, it can be part of sustainable gardening.
but yeah the anti-vegan circlejerk is stupid, who gives a shit what you eat
The world is burning. Meat has got to go, just like short holidays by plane. And of course a whole bunch of other things.
who gives a shit what you eat
We all should because we share this planet. You should judge a friend who eats steak frequently the same as someone who once in a while chops down a bit of rainforest. The consequences are the same.
you are an extremist mate, chickens in you backyard helping keep your garden clean won’t end the planet
The animals that are being eaten, presumably
Would chickens really know tho?
Is that the metric then? If you don’t know you’re going to be killed, it’s ok to kill you?
I don’t know what the metric is, but chickens wouldn’t exist without us eating them. So from a species standpoint they need us to keep eating them. From a humane standpoint it’s probably cruel to keep the species alive.
what about you killing my beloved tomatoes?
Look, PETA is not exactly the model organization they think they are. Actually they have plenty of issues and hypocrisy with their own messages and IMO are by no means a credible or reliable source. BUT, credit where credit’s due, their shitpost that everyone hated got more discussion from both sides on the realities of the meat industry than any whistleblower or researcher publishing a paper on the conditions of industrialized meat farming, its environmental and climate implications. More engagement from this than pretty much any measured response, analysis, or criticism of the meat industry or the ethics of eating meat that has ever come out. This thread is an example of that.
That might say more about the nature of internet culture and what people will actually respond to and engage with than anything else. Obviously in an ideal world everyone will engage way more with those whistleblower and scientific researcher findings and organizations like PETA wouldn’t even exist, and it would be the measured responses that will be the things triggering discussion on subjects like plant-based meat and veganism, probably a much more level headed discussion since that tend to be more dependent on the context of the discussion than the subject itself, and we really should be working toward that. But, I think that’s still a silver lining because we absolutely need to be having these discussions.
Yeah fuck this comm. It’s all I see when I open Lemmy, and the jokes really are just boomer humor.
You can block communities
No no no! It’s better to shriek about my hurt little feelings and demand federation or whatever.
Ur so cool and macho for downplaying others opinions on animal slaughter.
I bet your dad would be super proud of you! Yes he would! Who’s a good little daddy’s boy! You are!
My dad was killed before I was born, and I was raised by sisters and aunts. So you can take your hollering about the patriarchy somewhere tf else lol. Got any other talking points you’d like to try out?
If that’s true and not an attempt to emotionally stun the conversation as is common in dipshit trolls, I’m sorry for your loss.
Back to your dumbass toxic masculinity comment now - you literally argued that they were being “emotional” despite nothing in their argument being emotional
But yeah we can pretend you somehow had a point lmao
That Texas heat has you delusional. hopefully climate change from the massive meat farm industry won’t fuck up that privatized (lmao epic win right) electrical grid yall rely on.
Lord knows I’ll be lobbying that you all get not one penny of aid.
Dude starts yapping on about “my daddy” like it’s a kingpin argument. Now I’m “emotional” you fuckers are comical.
KFC’s newest disclaimer: Family Bucket does not mean the entire family of chickens are in the same bucket.
Oyakodonburi
Oya = parent Ko = child Donburi = on rice
Chicken and egg on rice
Ah yes, the food that sounds cute but has deep dark meaning: kill the parents and eat the unborn children.
Maybe step relative but definitely incest free!
Personally, I just think the moral middle ground would be to be the person that slaughters and butchers the animals you eat. It would allow the most respect for all parties imo.
The moral middle ground is to not kill animals (or pay someone to) if you don’t need to.
I don’t know. That feels a bit off-center to me rather than middle considering one end of the spectrum is “kill nothing ever” and the other end is “How many endangered animals can I make extinct just for funsies.” If everyone killed what they ate themselves, manually, I bet we’d have a bunch more vegetarians hanging around.
Surely one side would be “kill nothing” and the other would be “kill animals”?
Right but how else will they move the goal post to get a conversational W
I think it’s morally neutral to ask why we kill animals. Do you kill the animals you eat?
I agree that question is morally neutral. And not yet, I don’t, but that is the long term goal. I’ve got the land I would need and am working on fencing. In the interim, I have switched to meat raised and butchered by hand.
By your definition, are you morally evil, trying to become neutral?
Hmmm, I hadn’t considered it in those particular terms, previously. I would definitely say my actions are less moral than they would be if I was doing the raising and butchering myself. Evil feels harsh but if we are using clear cut terms like good, neutral and evil, then I have to put my current actions in the evil column. And since my entire argument is based on a moral middle ground, I would say yes. I am attempting to move into morally neutral territory.
I’ve kept chickens. They do not understand the family concept. Roosters will happily rape their siblings or their mothers, and hens will enforce a gruelling pecking order even if it means someone dies of hunger/beatings 😢
Chickens are a truly enlightened people
And that makes it okay for humans to abuse them in even more brutal ways?
Or what are you saying?
Wow, no.
But what it does do is point out that PETA is full of shit and you shouldn’t listen to the organisation that runs kill shelters becaus they think you shouldn’t have pets.
The fuckers have actually STOLEN PETS and “euthanized” them inside of a day, when the animal was in good health and in a loving home.
FUCK PETA, they are a bunch of animal killers.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/peta-taking-pets/
PETA does not kill animals because they’re against pet ownership. PETA administers euthanasia services for shelters that are over capacity.
And I have mentioned PETA when or how?
You were commenting on someone’s rebuttal to PETA.
Fuck the context I wanna be MAD!
FUCK PETA, they are a bunch of animal killers.
I assume that you are vegan and dont contribute to the industrialised mass killing of sentient beings in any way? Otherwise you seem quite hypocritical.
For a group of people saying thay they are for the ethical treatment of animals, they kill a whole lot of them unnecessarily.
PETA takes any animal. So those no kill shelters that you probably love so much have to get rid of animals and send the animal to the next shelter in the chain. Eventually, that could mean PETA shelters. Guess what that means? The most aggressive animals, the most disabled animals, the most sick animals, the most expensive to take care of animals, and otherwise those least desired by those looking for companion animals, are likely to end up at a PETA shelter. They don’t have the funding, the staff, or the safety protocols in place to deal with the never ending supply that breeding creates. If you don’t want PETA to kill animals, which they don’t want to do, encourage the ban on animal breeding so there are fewer of these cases. Also stop pretending that your local no kill shelter is separate from that process. They just offload the bad press to PETA. Do not buy animals. Rescue & adopt.
deleted by creator
Lmao this bullshit again. PETA only euthanizes animals that are suffering and beyond saving. They accept animals that are rejected by those “no-kill” shelters that are more concerned with how their statistics look than helping suffering animals, which sometimes means euthanizing. The whole “PETA hates animals” thing is just another way for people to justify their own behaviour against animals. Do you honestly believe PETA is some kind of evil organisation that’s out to kill animals out of pure spite?
Edit: see here
This person is 100% correct. I’m not a fan of PETA, but think before you downvote.
Abuse? No. But kill and make tasty? Absolutely.
Have you seen videos of how chickens are kept?
Unfortunately yes, I don’t like that, that’s abuse, but I’m not against murdering and eating things. I support stopping cruelty towards animals whilst they’re alive.
You know what, I am totally cool with that.
Have you seen what happens to the human body without meat?
Like dumb lizards jammed into a murder box? I know a farmer that uses them to generate all of the liming agent he needs for his fields.
How does that work. The egg shells? Do you mean fertiliser maybe, chicken manure is basically guano so it’s incredible for that.
Also egg shells are good fertilizer as well.
That one whooshed right over your head eh? He’s saying that chickens families are not, in fact, the same as human families. They don’t form a family unit with bonds above those of other chickens. It’s mostly because they’re chickens…and not humans and it was a dumb comparison for PETA to try and make.
Pointing out how chickens relate to other chickens does not mean it’s an endorsement for cruelty…you stretched big time for that one.
I really really want you to explain to me how in your head what I wrote made you think I didn’t get this absolutely obvious thing that OP stated lol.
So, do you think that there are ethical and non abusive animal husbandry methods for raising livestick?
Do you think there are ethical ways to slaughter livestock?
You seem to be making this a false binary.
I make this practically correct binary because in practice more than 90% of all livestock is kept in inhumane conditions.
The theoretical possibility of an ethical way to raise and slaughter livestock is irrelevant to my argument and in essence a straw man because I don’t argue against a hypothetically well raised and humanely slaughtered livestock but against the fact that in reality livestock is mistreated, tortured and killed in horrible conditions in most of all cases.
If I go to the supermarket and buy meat I am all but guaranteed that the animal has suffered.
If you raise your own livestock out on open field and treat it right I don’t have a problem with you. But you don’t, do you?
And even if you just are a carnivore I don’t have any problem with you, you can live your life how you see fit. I don’t really care.
But if you go to the internet to shit on people that care about animals to feel better about the fact that you don’t, I think you are a dick.
Not saying that applies to you specifically, but I have seen examples in this thread.I might be a dick. But you sir/madam/xir or whatever, are an asshole.
Possible.
The majority of people I know in person would disagree I hope.I agree that I am pretty combative here, but I am also tired of the ever same old and disproven arguments. I am not even vegan myself, but ridiculing people for trying to save animals is just low imho so I kinda don’t care if I am an asshole to people that do it.
Well, either you’re really bad at expressing yourself through online comments…or you forgot to add a /s to the end of your comment. Certainly seems to me like you’re still a bit confused.
PETA does often miss the mark on the way they try to make a point.
PETA bad amirite?
More like frequently insufferable.
I would assume that large chicken farms would separate the mother from the chicks long before any family bond could be established. There are a lot of viable concerns about how the animals are handled and treated, but the issue of separating a family is just not one of them.
Peta is Peta’ing yet another subject.
I wonder if they would do the same free in the nature. Locked together in tight spaces and restricted freedom will change the behaviour of every creature.
This is the default behaviour for chickens. I can’t think of any chicken like creatures that exists in the wild that resembles. The chickens I kept had plenty of room both inside and outside. Outside was a predator proof fence around a large area with different kinds of vegetation, bushes and wet and dry environments (I also had a couple of mallards). Inside they had running water, things to climb on to roost, and various boxes to lay and sleep in. Every week I cleaned their living quarters and threw down fresh bedding. They were not for food or for egg production. I ate and gave away the eggs they laid.
Edit: to keep the roosters from doing the dirty with close relatives, I swapped rooster with other people that kept poultry as a hobby
yea i do the same with mine, they roam free in the garden during the day and have a protected outdoor and indoor area so its basically a large playground for them and still the behavior you mentioned is what i see as well. also chickens in the wild? the measures i had to take to keep my chickens safe from foxes, martens, cats, dogs… is just crazy, they have zero defense capabilities so i dont know how they survived ubtill we kept them as livestock
This all reminds me I miss having chickens and ducks. One of the bad sides living in a big city for work, I guess
i love my chickens, they eat all my scraps and weeds from the garden, fertillize my garden, fresh eggs every day which i trade with neighbors for his surplus veggies or a a batch of waffles. its a nice way to live
Chickens originated from the red jungle fowl which is a much leaner and flighted bird (as are certain breeds of chicken) We’ve made modern chickens into something that can’t survive in the wild, much like we turned wolves into pugs!
deleted by creator
Red junglefowl are undomesticated chickens.
And are far enough removed genetically that they can’t interbreed.
It does change, but these type of behaviours are pretty regular in the animal world.
Ever heard of domestication?
So you consider humanity superior in morality to chickens right? Which means that you identify the horrible things they do as horrible, and deem them unacceptable and definitely shouldn’t be repeated by a being of supposed higher intellect and control over one’s own actions beyond simple instincts?
Seems like an even better argument against eating other animals and especially, especially industrialized factory farming if you ask me, where everything you said is still done, but by humans to the chickens.
Big logical gaps in this argument:
The op never said they were superior morally.
Even, given the above, the op deemed chickens immoral that does not make all chickens’ actions immoral. Preening, roosting and eating grain are not immoral activities.
Defining only the horrible acts as horrible is a circular argument as no definition has been provided as horrible.
Other than those three, you really stuck it to the carnist, chief.
Wow, Hilarious! What an enormous penis OP must have to make jokes just so fresh and unexpected! Huge, definitely not-high-school sized, manly penis!
PETA is such a joke lol
do you eat animals?
That makes no difference, PETA is still a joke.
Copied from an old reddit post.
This is why people hate PETA.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:
Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That’s just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and “news articles” as well, so it’s not always very obvious.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
-
[Their biggest victories] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/)
-
[All victories sorted by recent] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/victories/) (several per week!)
-
See also http://www.petakillsanimalsscam.com/
PETA and their kill-shelters:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
I don’t really like PETA.
That’s OK, it just means the smear campaign against them has you brainwashed. Check yourself, and I hope you find out what you don’t like about them.
It’s their own materials and marketing, it just gets on my nerves. I hadn’t heard any of those claims about them, so the smear campaign didn’t reach me. I’m a vegetarian anyway, but yeah, I don’t like PETA.
It gets on your nerves because it addresses something you don’t want to think about, I understand.
The smear campaign has reached you unknowingly, given away by your comment of “it just gets on my nerves”. You seem to know little about what they do.
I dont see what you being vegetarian has anything to do with PETA, but OK.
Again, I hope you find out why you don’t like PETA.
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
-
This is why it’s important to order the nuggets too.
Haha don’t be silly - most of the chicken’s family went into the chicken shredder to be turned into feed.
I think I saw my 67 year old aunt post this on Facebook.
Boomer cringe
fOr eVeRy aNiMaL YoU DoN’T EaT, i’lL EaT TwO
More for me.
I dunno, I have a pet chicken, and I still eat chicken.
Shitty flawed emotional manipulation fails
Its like PETA doesn’t understand the topic they are about.
Hahhahaha PETA bad amiright?? Updoots to the left!!
They are really.
Copied from an old reddit post.
This is why people hate PETA.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:
Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That’s just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and “news articles” as well, so it’s not always very obvious.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
-
[Their biggest victories] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/)
-
[All victories sorted by recent] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/victories/) (several per week!)
-
See also http://www.petakillsanimalsscam.com/
PETA and their kill-shelters:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
I don’t really like PETA.
The milk comment is just funny
Everything has to be white supremacy or racism now in our democracy, gotta manufacture it or it won’t be there
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
-
I’m getting the feeling all that shit people say about them is a smear campaign.
Copied from an old reddit post.
This is why people hate PETA.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:
Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That’s just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and “news articles” as well, so it’s not always very obvious.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
-
[Their biggest victories] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/)
-
[All victories sorted by recent] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/victories/) (several per week!)
-
See also http://www.petakillsanimalsscam.com/
PETA and their kill-shelters:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I don’t really like PETA.
-
So you might as well say you fell for PETAs bullshit excuses.
Just research Ingrid Newkirk.
Ingrid is not a reasonable human being.
Have fun with the smear campaign…
Surely the first result you see has no link to the meat lobby whatsoever right? Right??
Or you could keep scrolling down and see many other articles.
WTF is that?
Sorry, forgot to do the link thingy. My back hurts and I have used muscle relaxers.
deleted by creator
Oh look an anti-vegan circlejerk.
Do the “how do you know someone’s vegan? They’ll tell you” joke next. I promise it doesn’t come off as insecure.
Those lame jokes make me wanna mention the Vegan Bullshit Bingo.
cheese is too tasty
yeah, I’m not sure about that
Free Space really should be “Where do you get your protein?”
WHERE WITH ALL THE ANIMALS IF ALL WENT VEGAN NOW?
Can someone please answer this?!
Simple: If the animals were freed they would destroy the ecosystems they were freed in (all ecosystems). They could all be killed so they don’t cause any impact. The animals would be suffering from pain, illnesses and slow deaths just as nature intended. Animals would not turn vegans. The world would probably suffer a supply issue. Everyone would be weak, unhealthy and have a lower lifetime cause of their horrible diet. Everyone would be hypocrite as they kill plants and don’t feel remorse just because they’re killing something that can’t walk and doesn’t have eyes and mouth.
This is the list, add more if you wish.
In the wild.
Yeah but where with all the animals?
An interesting tangent is that this could entail the extinction of several human-designed strains of animal which are not well equipped to live in the wild.
So mote it be I guess.
Base genetics are still around for the chicken, pig, and sheep, but the Aurochs’s extinction means we irrevocably altered the cow. I’m sure a few varieties of cow would adapt to the wild though.
Buffalo may need to keep their vestigial wings too.
More broadly, the answer is that it doesn’t really matter that much. Species go extinct all the time, and with humans around the rate has been astronomically higher. Replacing animal products with plant based or cell based products might even have a net benefit in extinctions, since land that would otherwise go towards feeding and raising livestock could instead be let back to nature.
Thank you for this!
Oh look, you just told everyone what you eat. Joke’s on you.
Begone vegan
deleted by creator
How do you know someone hates vegans? They’ll tell you.
