PETA asks Obama to spare the pardon on turkeys

[jj]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

To be fair, only a very small percentage of that money will support terrorism. Most of it will go towards incendiary ad campaigns, nude models, Flash programmers, copyright lawyers (for the Flash games), insulin, and slave-labor Apple products for those brave crusaders of justice to play with while they track down whale boats to film themselves throwing soap at.

So it's supporting graft and piracy, instead?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

Hear, hear. The record is clear on this matter.

I disagree. If you want to support animals, "donate" to your local pig farmer. How many of these animals would even be alive if it weren't for bacon? It's clear who really has animals' interests in mind.

The ASPCA is infiltrated by PETA-types. All those middle-aged women in cat sweaters are blowing up research labs at night.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

If you want to actually help animals, I implore you to donate to your local Humane Society chapter or the ASPCA, and not PETA.

Eh, not quite the same. Those mainstream orgs support "humane" slaughter, IIRC.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Congratulations on supporting terrorism, Cain, Dessi and John. There is now blood on your hands. Not animal blood--that doesn't count. Also, not the blood of humans. The most important blood of all: property blood.

In response, I'm going to donate like $501 in steaks to me. (For the record, that is divisible by three.)

PETA funds the ELF, organized arsonists and domestic terrorists, money not well spent.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by jj

So it's supporting graft and piracy, instead?

and organized arson, dont forget the organized arson.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Congratulations on supporting terrorism, Cain, Dessi and John. There is now blood on your hands. Not animal blood--that doesn't count. Also, not the blood of humans. The most important blood of all: property blood.

In response, I'm going to donate like $501 in steaks to me. (For the record, that is divisible by three.)

Be careful of what you wish for.
According to statistics this may decrease your life span considerably

And according to some Indian religions, you may be reborn twenty times as animal in a cage..

BTW Does properties have blood?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

PETA funds the ELF, organized arsonists and domestic terrorists, money not well spent.

Mainstream media educated people are known for calling as “terrorism” everything that does not fit in the frame of mind of what they have been told.

[jj]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Be careful of what you wish for.
According to statistics this may decrease your life span considerably

That all depends on what you eat, and how much.

Humans could only afford to grow the brain they have because they could catch and eat meat, after all.

[jj]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Mainstream media educated people are known for calling as “terrorism” everything that does not fit in the frame of mind of what they have been told.

The ELF and ALF are both implicated in things like arsons, bombings, and releasing of animals from research facilities, or that's the last thing I saw in the news about them.

PETA, on the other hand, simply runs the opposite of a 'no-kill shelter operation, or so we have likewise been informed.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by jj

The ELF and ALF are both implicated in things like arsons, bombings, and releasing of animals from research facilities, or that's the last thing I saw in the news about them.

PETA, on the other hand, simply runs the opposite of a 'no-kill shelter operation, or so we have likewise been informed.

So PETA is not involved in damaging, harming, killing any human being in order to protect animals?

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

So PETA is not involved in damaging, harming, killing any human being in order to protect animals?

Technically, no, since they fail at actually protecting animals.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by jj

Quote:

If you want to actually help animals, I implore you to donate to your local Humane Society chapter or the ASPCA, and not PETA.

Hear, hear. The record is clear on this matter.

Originally Posted by jj

PETA, on the other hand, simply runs the opposite of a 'no-kill shelter operation, or so we have likewise been informed.

PETA has euthanized about 23,000 animals between 1998 and 2009, Humane Society euthanizes around 4 million per year. I hope you understand that you can't support the Humane Society and oppose euthanasia in shelters at the same time.

Oh, and PETA isn't an adoption facility, never has been (in their own words, a "shelter of last resort"). Most of their animals come from open-admission, high traffic shelters which don't have enough space or caretakers for animals. Sick, dying, dangerous, or overcrowded animals are likely to be euthanized humanely. Others are adopted directly, or through volunteers who foster animals.

On the plus side, PETA run adopt-a-thons every year on behalf of other shelters, especially animals displaced after natural disasters. They cleanup after oil spills, and mobile spay/neuter services sterilize 1000s of animals for free every year.

If you have some idea of how PETA can end or substantially reduce animal euthanasia in shelters, don't just shoot your mouth off for internet points. I promise you, PETA, the Humane Society, ASCPA, and every animal shelter in the country wants to hear your plan. What do you say? How do we end euthanasia in all shelters?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Technically, no, since they fail at actually protecting animals.

Are you doing better than them?

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Are you doing better than them?

Yes. Zero is greater than a negative.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Yes. Zero is greater than a negative.

No comment.
This is pure trolling

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by Dessi

PETA has euthanized about 23,000 animals between 1998 and 2009, Humane Society euthanizes around 4 million per year. I hope you understand that you can't support the Humane Society and oppose euthanasia in shelters at the same time.

I read somewhere (sorry, no source at the moment, but I will look) that the 23,000 represented about 80% of the animals that came into PETA's care. I don't really know if the Humane Society or other shelters fare much better; however it's my understanding that only PETA actively fights no-kill shelters, decreeing instead that killing them is kinder than keeping them.

But my problem is not really the euthansia. I know there's always a surplus of homeless animals [[although...my nasty little inner voice speaks up here and reminds me the very existence of puppy mills proves there's a market demand, otherwise they would all go broke]], and the current spay/neuter programs just aren't enough. But...OTOH, I also disagree with both PETA and the Humane Society when they try to make it impossible for an animal to be adopted if it's not spayed or neutered.

What I take offense at is PETA's general attitude that animals should not be used for medical procedures or research, raised for food, kept as pets, or used "as entertainment" in circuses and movies. In other words: many animals just plain shouldn't exist.

The fact is that if we released all the slaughter animals in the country (Go! Be FREEE!), we would have nothing in a few weeks but chaos and carcasses. A herd of cows on main street is a thing of the past. 20,000 chickens loosed in suburbia would cause traffic accidents, ruin lawns, and probably spread diseases. They certainly wouldn't survive for long, and cleaning up would be a messy business. And the only way to clean it up at all would be to put the survivors...right back in cages or kill them outright.

Let's also remember the disgusting and offensive advertisements they've distributed. Holocaust on a plate, anyone? Dead women outside KFC? Really? They couldn't think up better campaigns than those? Maybe they didn't eat enough meat....

Oh...and let's not forget the blatent hypocrisy:

Quote:

PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals:

“I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I’m not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”

Right. It's fine for HER.... But you and your children...well....
Sorry...but I can't stand PETA. I'll happily watch all of you go broke trying to support it, though...in the high hopes that when you have no more money to give, just maybe, they will have no more money at all.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I read somewhere (sorry, no source at the moment, but I will look) that the 23,000 represented about 80% of the animals that came into PETA's care. I don't really know if the Humane Society or other shelters fare much better; however it's my understanding that only PETA actively fights no-kill shelters, decreeing instead that killing them is kinder than keeping them.

But my problem is not really the euthansia. I know there's always a surplus of homeless animals [[although...my nasty little inner voice speaks up here and reminds me the very existence of puppy mills proves there's a market demand, otherwise they would all go broke]], and the current spay/neuter programs just aren't enough. But...OTOH, I also disagree with both PETA and the Humane Society when they try to make it impossible for an animal to be adopted if it's not spayed or neutered.

What I take offense at is PETA's general attitude that animals should not be used for medical procedures or research, raised for food, kept as pets, or used "as entertainment" in circuses and movies. In other words: many animals just plain shouldn't exist.

The fact is that if we released all the slaughter animals in the country (Go! Be FREEE!), we would have nothing in a few weeks but chaos and carcasses. A herd of cows on main street is a thing of the past. 20,000 chickens loosed in suburbia would cause traffic accidents, ruin lawns, and probably spread diseases. They certainly wouldn't survive for long, and cleaning up would be a messy business. And the only way to clean it up at all would be to put the survivors...right back in cages or kill them outright.

Let's also remember the disgusting and offensive advertisements they've distributed. Holocaust on a plate, anyone? Dead women outside KFC? Really? They couldn't think up better campaigns than those? Maybe they didn't eat enough meat....

Oh...and let's not forget the blatent hypocrisy:



Right. It's fine for HER.... But you and your children...well....
Sorry...but I can't stand PETA. I'll happily watch all of you go broke trying to support it, though...in the high hopes that when you have no more money to give, just maybe, they will have no more money at all.

Interesting post.

First, I would like to see some evidence that PETA actually kills 80% of the animals they get.

Second, I do not think we should help generate animals that are used only for human entartainment or meat consumption.
Would many animals not exis at all, then?
Let it be, then.
Would you generate 10 children and see half of them die young just as you can not feed all of them?

Third, if animals kill each other or die of starving, this is called nature, I have not much against it.
But we should act respnsibily with the animals in our hands

Fourth, I do not see anything wrong in putting human health and security first and then human rights after

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Dessi

If you have some idea of how PETA can end or substantially reduce animal euthanasia in shelters, don't just shoot your mouth off for internet points. I promise you, PETA, the Humane Society, ASCPA, and every animal shelter in the country wants to hear your plan. What do you say? How do we end euthanasia in all shelters?

I always thought there should be tough breeding laws regarding cats and dogs. But I'm not sure there are many governments wanting to enforce and monitor such a program.... maybe they could give PETA volunteers some sort of power to monitor and ticket people who violate such laws.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

The fact is that if we released all the slaughter animals in the country (Go! Be FREEE!), we would have nothing in a few weeks but chaos and carcasses. A herd of cows on main street is a thing of the past. 20,000 chickens loosed in suburbia would cause traffic accidents, ruin lawns, and probably spread diseases. They certainly wouldn't survive for long, and cleaning up would be a messy business. And the only way to clean it up at all would be to put the survivors...right back in cages or kill them outright.

I'm thinking about volunteering some time down at the homeless shelter as that'ss something everybody should do. But wait! Reading your post, I just realized that if everyone helped the homeless, I would contribute to a traffic jam. Never mind, I can ride my bike. But wait! Since everyone's going to be down there, I'd just get in the way. Volunteering is so stupid. If we all did it, nothing would ever get done. Ha, how's that for irony. Sort of like how meat-eaters keep all those wonderful animals in pens and cages. Well, that settles it: I'll just stay at home, put on a Chuck Lorre sitcom and some animal's cooked body parts in my mouf.

Oh, and let's see what those crazy whackjobs at PeTA have to say...

Quote:

What will we do with all those chickens, cows, and pigs if everyone becomes a vegetarian?

It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will stop eating animals overnight. As the demand for meat decreases, the number of animals bred will decrease. Farmers will stop breeding so many animals and will turn to other types of agriculture. When there are fewer of these animals, they will be able to live more natural lives.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq/What-w...egetarian.aspx

Idiots. Clearly. One other thing. If we say it's all right to become the gay, then what do we do when everyone suddenly ventures from the dark side to the rainbow side? Gays can't reproduce! Human population = 0. This is such a great argument: fabricate a completely unrealistic scenario to prove your opponents are out of touch with reality.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

First, I would like to see some evidence that PETA actually kills 80% of the animals they get.

Apparently, it's much higher in some areas:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/241...rs-raise-issue

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...als-goes-wrong

http://www.wvec.com/my-city/norfolk/...125837098.html

Quote:

I think they're clearly not an animal welfare group. These are people who believe that these animals are better off being killed than they are being in a home," said Rick Berman of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit lobby group out of Washington.

Quote:

Second, I do not think we should help generate animals that are used only for human entartainment or meat consumption.

Where should those animals come from?

Quote:

Third, if animals kill each other or die of starving, this is called nature, I have not much against it.

Yes...but we're not talking about animals killing each other, or dying of starvation, are we? We're talking about animals being euthanized, and humans dying of malnutrition because we're trying to force veganism on the whole population.

Quote:

But we should act respnsibily with the animals in our hands

Agreed. But is setting them FREEE! really being responsible? Is killing them wholesale to prevent a life as someone's seeing eye dog or companion really the kinder solution?

Quote:

Fourth, I do not see anything wrong in putting human health and security first and then human rights after

I'm not sure how that fits here.... But much of human health and security is a direct result of animal use. From guard dogs to medical research, we have been interdependant on animals since before we left Africa.

[michael44]

Originally Posted by Caper

I always thought there should be tough breeding laws regarding cats and dogs. But I'm not sure there are many governments wanting to enforce and monitor such a program.... maybe they could give PETA volunteers some sort of power to monitor and ticket people who violate such laws.

Fact is, PETA employee/volunteers have done more to destroy animals rather than promote programs that would otherwise save them. Whats also disturbing, is that they've gained the support of various members of entertainment as well as a number of political figures. It is at those levels where laws may be passed without consideration towards the common wealth. Another words, PETA, given their current record of animal rights discord, has no business monitoring or ticketing people for violations that only they see fit.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Eh, not quite the same. Those mainstream orgs support "humane" slaughter, IIRC.

I already understand this.

[DragonLady]

Wow. Let's see if I can take this one point at a time....

Quote:

I'm thinking about volunteering some time down at the homeless shelter as that'ss something everybody should do.

That's commendable.

Quote:

But wait! Reading your post, I just realized that if everyone helped the homeless, I would contribute to a traffic jam.

Ughm.... I guess that depends? Do you mean if hundreds of would-be volunteers all converged on the same shelter it might be an issue? Yeah...maybe...but -for sake of an argument- 20,000 human volunteers on a single street corner is a bit different scene than 20,000 chickens, cows, or pigs, now isn't it? Especially since *most* of them would have enough sense to know where home is, and could come back later. And the rest, being suitably civilized, would find ways to spread out and make room....

Quote:

Never mind, I can ride my bike. But wait! Since everyone's going to be down there, I'd just get in the way.

See above.

Quote:

Volunteering is so stupid. If we all did it, nothing would ever get done.

??? So far, none of your post seems to have any but the vaguest connection to anything I've said about PETA, and this one just baffles me.

Quote:

Ha, how's that for irony. Sort of like how meat-eaters keep all those wonderful animals in pens and cages.

Irony? Where? I don't see it....

Yes; meat eaters keep animals in pens and cages. Where else should they be kept? Out here in Arizona, we have free range cattle. Do you know how many fatal traffic accidents they cause? Do you have any idea what a herd of sheep does to a pasture? How about what they would do to the city parks?

Quote:

Well, that settles it: I'll just stay at home, put on a Chuck Lorre sitcom and some animal's cooked body parts in my mouf.

Okay. Have fun.

Quote:

Idiots. Clearly. One other thing. If we say it's all right to become the gay, then what do we do when everyone suddenly ventures from the dark side to the rainbow side? Gays can't reproduce! Human population = 0. This is such a great argument: fabricate a completely unrealistic scenario to prove your opponents are out of touch with reality.

I'm sorry...maybe it's just too late for me. But can you connect the dots here and explain how and why being gay has anything whatsoever to do with PETA?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Third, if animals kill each other or die of starving, this is called nature, I have not much against it.
But we should act respnsibily with the animals in our hands

Humans are animals; they naturally evolved on Earth and everything they do and build is just as much a part of nature as a beaver dam, an anthill, and a bird using a rock to crack open a turtle shell. Even our foulest, most toxic, most pollutiing creations are made of materials that came naturally from the Earth and nowhere else. If we kill animals for food, that is natural. Raising them for food is natural, is solely a consequence of all the natural processes that led up to it.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I don't really know if the Humane Society or other shelters fare much better; however it's my understanding that only PETA actively fights no-kill shelters, decreeing instead that killing them is kinder than keeping them.

See here:

Originally Posted by PETA

Animals at "no-kill" shelters who have been deemed unadoptable may be "warehoused" in cages for years. They become withdrawn, severely depressed, or aggressive, and this further decreases their chances for adoption. Cageless facilities avoid the cruelty of constant confinement but unintentionally encourage fighting and the spread of disease among animals.

One PETA staffer who used to manage a "no-kill" shelter had a change of heart after seeing a pit bull who had lived in a cage for 12 years. He had gone mad from confinement and would spend the day slamming his body against the sides of his cage, becoming so enraged that the workers were afraid to handle him. After witnessing this miserable life, she realized that some fates truly are worse than death.

No-kill is not always humane. I definitely understand why no-kill shelters are preferable, but if you follow animal rights news, you see stories like this, this, this, this, and this every few months.

People's hearts are in the right place, but no-kill shelters routinely have to turn away animals (usually to be placed in euthanizing shelters). Otherwise, if they become overcrowded, animals are neglected, are understimulated, become sick, die.

Quote:

What I take offense at is PETA's general attitude that animals should not be used for medical procedures or research, raised for food, kept as pets, or used "as entertainment" in circuses and movies. In other words: many animals just plain shouldn't exist.

Not anymore offensive than killing mentally similar humans for food, experimentation, and sport.

One thing though: PETA does not object to people caring for pets. I don't know why the "PETA hates pets" myth persists, its like people just take random potshots at the group without bothering to research. In any case, PETA sponsors adopt-a-thons every year, has extensive sections on their site on animal care, has youtube videos on selecting toys for pets. You know what PETA"s 2012 ad campaign is this year? Uggie the Dog, encouraging people to adopt from shelters.

Long story short: PETA objects to certain words. Instead of "buying and owning a pet" (which they perceive as reducing animals to a status of property), they prefer "adopting and caring for a companion animal". They've consistently encouraged people to bring animals into loving homes for decades.

Quote:

The fact is that if we released all the slaughter animals in the country (Go! Be FREEE!), we would have nothing in a few weeks but chaos and carcasses. A herd of cows on main street is a thing of the past. 20,000 chickens loosed in suburbia would cause traffic accidents, ruin lawns, and probably spread diseases. They certainly wouldn't survive for long, and cleaning up would be a messy business. And the only way to clean it up at all would be to put the survivors...right back in cages or kill them outright.

Errrmm... what? Is that actually one of PETA's policies? Because I've been a member of PETA since around 2007, get their leaflets and things from time to time, follow them on Facebook, give them money every year. Maybe I missed the "let's let every caged animal into the streets" memo. Care to cite a source for your claim?

Quote:

Let's also remember the disgusting and offensive advertisements they've distributed. Holocaust on a plate, anyone? Dead women outside KFC? Really? They couldn't think up better campaigns than those? Maybe they didn't eat enough meat....

PETA has dozens of campaigns and hundreds of PSAs.

That said, even the more inflammatory campaigns put a huge amount of pressure on organizations. Following PETA's campaigns outside KFC restaurants, KFC severed contracts with poultry supplies which fail to meet animal welfare standards, favors supplies who use controlled-atmosphere killing, and introduced a vegan burger in its restaurants.

After PETA's undercover investigation into one of KFC's poultry suppliers, hidden cameras filmed workers throwing 114 chickens into walls, ripping their beaks off, tormenting the birds for laughs, resulting in several managers and employees being fired from the plant, and KFC severing all ties with the supplier.

Quote:

Right. It's fine for HER.... But you and your children...well....

I'd be more likely to criticize the PETA VP if she preferred animal-derived products with easily accessible vegan options are available. See this:

Originally Posted by Dessi

Pretty much every ethical vegan adopts a principle that we should avoid products where its practical to do so, and don't let the unreachable goal of perfection get you down. Adopting a vegan diet, avoiding hunting, not being involved with dog fighting, avoiding certain forms of clothing when we can, and other things are easy and practical. Avoiding medicine, no so much.

Picture it this way: human slavery still exists. This situation that vegans may depend on animal-derived medicine is exactly analogous to the fact that you own stuff made by slaves -- the fact the world operates this way is not an argument favor of continued animal experimentation (or human slavery for that matter), but an argument precisely against it.

You, yes you actually own products which is made by slaves, or made in countries that treat human beings badly. Is your situation so unique and different from PETA's VP that you get a free pass? If not, are you any more hypocritical than she is?

Quote:

Sorry...but I can't stand PETA. I'll happily watch all of you go broke trying to support it, though...in the high hopes that when you have no more money to give, just maybe, they will have no more money at all.

I don't think the group is terribly objectionable. In spite of their PR, they really do reduce a lot of suffering.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Apparently, it's much higher in some areas:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/241...rs-raise-issue

Wow..
Those are really disturbing numbers.
Apparently, PETA defends themselves by saying that there is no other way around.
I am just wondering if PETA is doing everything they could to prevent euthanizing animals.
Are the high percentages of animals euthanized due to PETA mishandling of the situation or because no person turns off to take care of the animals.
This issue should be investigated.

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Where should those animals come from?

No animal should be killed or harmed for human entertainment and most people (all people?) can live quite well without eating meat.

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Yes...but we're not talking about animals killing each other, or dying of starvation, are we? We're talking about animals being euthanized, and humans dying of malnutrition because we're trying to force veganism on the whole population.

Dying of malnutrition because of veganism?
Where did you read this one?
I mean, looking at the size of the waist of the average American today, I would surely recommend NOT to eat meat to US citizens.

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Agreed. But is setting them FREEE! really being responsible? Is killing them wholesale to prevent a life as someone's seeing eye dog or companion really the kinder solution?

I am not sure I understand this one.
Where would it be necessary to set them free if we do not put them in a cage first?

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I'm not sure how that fits here.... But much of human health and security is a direct result of animal use. From guard dogs to medical research, we have been interdependant on animals since before we left Africa.

There are cases in which human health and security need to kill some animal.
But what about experiment on animals for cosmetics production and testing?
For making clothes?
For "corrida"?
[..]

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Humans are animals; they naturally evolved on Earth and everything they do and build is just as much a part of nature as a beaver dam, an anthill, and a bird using a rock to crack open a turtle shell. Even our foulest, most toxic, most pollutiing creations are made of materials that came naturally from the Earth and nowhere else. If we kill animals for food, that is natural. Raising them for food is natural, is solely a consequence of all the natural processes that led up to it.

If you get cancer, it is natural to die.
It is unnatural to do chemiotherapy and maybe survive

If you get cancer, would you go get chemio or die the “natural” way?

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Agreed. But is setting them FREEE! really being responsible? Is killing them wholesale to prevent a life as someone's seeing eye dog or companion really the kinder solution?

I am not sure I understand this one.

No need to understand that one. PETA has never advocated a view that animals should be set free to run willy nilly, but boy is it fun and easy criticizing them for views they don't hold the first place.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Humans are animals; they naturally evolved on Earth and everything they do and build is just as much a part of nature as a beaver dam, an anthill, and a bird using a rock to crack open a turtle shell. Even our foulest, most toxic, most pollutiing creations are made of materials that came naturally from the Earth and nowhere else. If we kill animals for food, that is natural. Raising them for food is natural, is solely a consequence of all the natural processes that led up to it.

If you get cancer, it is natural to die.
It is unnatural to do chemiotherapy and maybe survive

If you get cancer, would you go get chemio or die the “natural” way?

You might like this:

Originally Posted by Dessi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dessi

Quote:

We do have canine teeth for a reason, ya know.....

I find it alarming that self-identified skeptics fall back on fallacious appeals to nature so readily.

Humans were actually DESIGNED to eat meat. You are criticizing humans for eating meat. How is what I said fallacious, exactly?

My mistake. Thought for a moment you were using the appeal to nature fallacy, when you're really using the other completely sound, persuasive appeal to nature instead. And if it weren't for those totally sound appeals to nature, we'd never that unnatural homosexual acts were immoral, or that natural medicines are superior in every way to modern medicine, or that survival of the fittest is a prescriptive a rule of nature and governing bodies alike.

I've been reading this forum for over 10 years, I've lost count how many times I've seen skeptics lay the smackdown on appeals to nature in virtually all instances where it occurs in arguments against gay rights, racial equality, abortion discussions, alternative medicine, libertarianism -- then turn around and chime in "oh, but humans killing animals natural". Textbook BS is still textbook BS, whether if favors one's argument or not.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

If you get cancer, it is natural to die.
It is unnatural to do chemiotherapy and maybe survive

If you get cancer, would you go get chemio or die the “natural” way?

It is not unnatural. Humans naturally exist, and chemotherapy is one result of a natural behavior that has evolved in humans over time - resistance to death. One might as well say that since it is natural for hawks to eat mice, that makes any mouse's attempt to escape or hide from hawks (or any other predator) to avoid being eaten "unnatural".

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by Dessi

See here:
No-kill is not always humane. I definitely understand why no-kill shelters are preferable, (snip)

Okay; there we agree. There are plenty of overcrowded shelters, and even overcrowded zoos. Plenty of people have a pet or two too many they don't want to see go to a shelter or be euthanized.

Quote:

People's hearts are in the right place, but no-kill shelters routinely have to turn away animals (usually to be placed in euthanizing shelters). Otherwise, if they become overcrowded, animals are neglected, are understimulated, become sick, die.

Yes; that is true. But it still doesn't justify euthanizing 80% or more of the animals they do choose to take in.

Quote:

Not anymore offensive than killing mentally similar humans for food, experimentation, and sport.

Huh? Who is suggesting we should do that?

Quote:

One thing though: PETA does not object to people caring for pets. I don't know why the "PETA hates pets" myth persists, its like people just take random potshots at the group without bothering to research. In any case, PETA sponsors adopt-a-thons every year, has extensive sections on their site on animal care, has youtube videos on selecting toys for pets. You know what PETA"s 2012 ad campaign is this year? Uggie the Dog, encouraging people to adopt from shelters.

Putting an end to animals as pets used to be one of the cornerstones of PETA's philosophy. I *suspect* they only changed their stance because most of the people who donate money to animal protection groups own pets, and are not going to give them up. Even now, they want us to adopt pets which have been spayed and neutered to "stop manufacturing" more. However, as far as I know, the Humane Society is pushing the same idea. If everyone spays or neuters every pet...there won't be any more pets.

Quote:

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
-- PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

Quote:

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

Quote:

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."
-- Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

Quote:

Long story short: PETA objects to certain words. Instead of "buying and owning a pet" (which they perceive as reducing animals to a status of property), they prefer "adopting and caring for a companion animal". They've consistently encouraged people to bring animals into loving homes for decades.

Then why do they kill so many?



[quote]Errrmm... what? Is that actually one of PETA's policies? Because I've been a member of PETA since around 2007, get their leaflets and things from time to time, follow them on Facebook, give them money every year. Maybe I missed the "let's let every caged animal into the streets" memo. Care to cite a source for your claim?[/QUOTE]

They have been accused of funding the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. Both have agendas that include 'freeing' animals from laboratories and farms. Never mind those animals will not survive, and never mind the damages they may do or the diseases they may spread.

I hate citing Wikipedia; I'll try to find another source, but I think it qualifies as *some* evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_...ent_of_Animals

Quote:

Outside the movement, the confrontational nature of PETA's campaigns has caused concern, as has the estimated 85% of animals it euthanizes.[7] PETA was further criticized in 2005 by United States Senator Jim Inhofe for having given grants several years earlier to Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activists, two groups that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified as agents of domestic terrorism.[8] PETA responded that it has no involvement in ALF or ELF actions and does not support violence, though Newkirk has elsewhere made clear that she supports the removal of animals from laboratories and other facilities, including as a result of illegal direct action.[9]

Quote:

PETA has dozens of campaigns and hundreds of PSAs.

And every one I've seen has been offensive or disgusting or both.

Quote:

That said, even the more inflammatory campaigns put a huge amount of pressure on organizations. (snip)

Maybe.... But are school milk cartons and dog shows really the best way to reach those organizations? Or are they just reaching school children and dog owners?

Quote:

After PETA's undercover investigation into one of KFC's poultry suppliers, hidden cameras filmed workers throwing 114 chickens into walls, ripping their beaks off, tormenting the birds for laughs, resulting in several managers and employees being fired from the plant, and KFC severing all ties with the supplier.

I am against animal cruelty, too. I believe there is a difference between animal use and animal abuse. Maybe if PETA stuck to performing legal undercover operations, more people like me would support them.

Quote:

I'd be more likely to criticize the PETA VP if she preferred animal-derived products with easily accessible vegan options are available. See this:

Sorry...but that doesn't work. She has made it clear we should stop manufacturing animals. Period. For any purpose. So she should show us all how well that works by refusing to take medications that require animals to manufacture.

Quote:

You, yes you actually own products which is made by slaves, or made in countries that treat human beings badly. Is your situation so unique and different from PETA's VP that you get a free pass? If not, are you any more hypocritical than she is?

I'm sure she also owns products made by slaves, or in countries where human beings are treated badly. When she gives hers up, I'll think about the example she is setting and consider whether I want to follow. But as to the subject at hand, I eat meat and wear leather...and I make no appologies. I do not believe animal use is the same animal abuse.

Quote:

I don't think the group is terribly objectionable. In spite of their PR, they really do reduce a lot of suffering.

What suffering have they reduced? So far, you've shown they may have caused an abusive poultry farmer to lose a KFC contract. Or do you also believe that euthanizing 80% or more of the animals they choose to take in is an act of kindness?

[thaiboxerken]

Dessi and John.. do you think it's wrong for humans to have non-human pets?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It is not unnatural. Humans naturally exist, and chemotherapy is one result of a natural behavior that has evolved in humans over time - resistance to death. [..]

I consider the behaviour of not provoking any unnecessary sufference to other living beings "natural" as well.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Dessi and John.. do you think it's wrong for humans to have non-human pets?

No. If the pets are properly treated

[DragonLady]

Whoops...double post.

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Here is another source for the information that PETA has supported the ALF and ELF.

http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21

Quote:

There’s more yet. After we noted that PETA’s Bruce Friedrich “stood up in front of a public audience and advocated people going out and blowing up restaurants and blowing up medical laboratories,” PETA’s rep retorted: “That’s not what he said. What Bruce said was that he wished some places would burn down, that are hideously abusing animals.” Just to keep the record clear, here are Friedrich’s actual words:

If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows … Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it. [click here to listen]

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/01/2339-peta-and-terrorism-the-real-deal/

[jj]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

I mean, looking at the size of the waist of the average American today, I would surely recommend NOT to eat meat to US citizens.

Really? Rather eat a ton of carbohydrates, which is where the american waistline comes from?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by jj

Really? Rather eat a ton of carbohydrates, which is where the american waistline comes from?

And Mc Donalds does not sell any meat

[jj]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

And Mc Donalds does not sell any meat

This excuses exactly what? Perhaps before you engage in kneejerk, cheap shot responses, do this:

1) figure out the caloric content of the meat
2) figure out the caloric content of the rest of that stuff

Then you can get back to me and say "whoops".

Bzzzt, and thank you for demonstrating a classic appeal to emotion via misinformation.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by jj

This excuses exactly what? Perhaps before you engage in kneejerk, cheap shot responses, do this:

1) figure out the caloric content of the meat
2) figure out the caloric content of the rest of that stuff

Then you can get back to me and say "whoops".

Bzzzt, and thank you for demonstrating a classic appeal to emotion via misinformation.

Which kind of food makes you fatter:
1) an hamburger with meat
2) a dish of lettuce without oil (well, little bit of oil)

I am not really interested in this kind of "trolling" conversation

[jj]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Which kind of food makes you fatter:
1) an hamburger with meat
2) a dish of lettuce without oil (well, little bit of oil)

I am not really interested in this kind of "trolling" conversation

Indeed, I would appreciate it if you were not trolling with your emotionally laden statements.

You have not responded in any substantive fashion to my comment, which had nothing to do with nutritionally empty lettuce, but rather carbohydrates (the main calories in plants) vs. protein and fats (the main calories in meat).

So would you like to address what I said, rather than your manufactured attempt at unethical shaming? Perhaps you could discuss the issues related to triglycerides vs. carbohydrate intake? Infant requirements for fat, in particular choloesterol (which they can not make fast enough to grow their brain)? The necessity for complete protein, which can be achieved with expensive vegan foods, with great difficulty.

Or just address where the caloric intake that creates the american expanded wasteline comes from, why don't you? Would you care to prove your implied assumption that meat is to blame? So, show us all, now, how much of that disgusting Big Mac (no, I'm not being sarcastic there, I despise them) is due to the meat, and how much due to the rest of that STUFF? Let's hear it, okay? How about some evidence for all of your insinuated claims?

And you have the appalling chutzpah to accuse me of "trolling". Shameful!

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Yes; that is true. But it still doesn't justify euthanizing 80% or more of the animals they do choose to take in.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is an appropriate number of animals to euthanize? And is there any particular reason you haven't shared your master plan to reduce or eliminate euthanasia in PETA's animal shelter? Any plan that doesn't catastrophically fail the same way the 6 or 8 no-kill shelters did?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dessi

Quote:

What I take offense at is PETA's general attitude that animals should not be used for medical procedures or research, raised for food, kept as pets, or used "as entertainment" in circuses and movies.

Not anymore offensive than killing mentally similar humans for food, experimentation, and sport.

Huh? Who is suggesting we should do that?

These guys. It's not clear how you can permit non-humans as involuntary lab specimens or slaughtered for food, but object to mentally similar humans being treated in the exact same way.

Quote:

Putting an end to animals as pets used to be one of the cornerstones of PETA's philosophy. I *suspect* they only changed their stance because most of the people who donate money to animal protection groups own pets, and are not going to give them up. Even now, they want us to adopt pets which have been spayed and neutered to "stop manufacturing" more. However, as far as I know, the Humane Society is pushing the same idea. If everyone spays or neuters every pet...there won't be any more pets.

Let me repeat myself: PETA objects to certain words. Instead of "buying and owning a pet" (which they perceive as reducing animals to a status of property), they prefer "adopting and caring for a companion animal". They've consistently encouraged people to bring animals into loving homes for decades.

There's no disagreement between you and PETA on the subject of people adopting and caring for animals. The only difference nomenclature.

In all of their literature, the word "pet" shows up scare quotes because PETA perceives it as pejorative, diminutive, and in their own words, a four-letter word:

Originally Posted by PETA

Pet names: good. The designation "pet": bad. The Journal of Animal Ethics has released a report from three top universities that confirms what PETA has been saying for three decades: The way people talk about animals directly affects how we think about and treat them. Researchers determined that words like "critter," "beast," and "pet" are derogatory and suggests using the much more respectful "companion."

The journal goes on to recommend dropping "owner" from our vernacular and instead calling ourselves "human carers" (we like “guardians” too).

They regard the very concept of owning an animal the same way you regard owning a human being. That's why, for literally decades, in all of their literature, PETA has advocated animal companionship, and contrasts it against for-profit breeding and pet trade.

Let's revisit those quotes:

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
-- PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

While totally ignoring the part stating that people should make a lifetime committment to their adopted companions, you chose to highlight the phrase "stop manufacturing 'pets'" without explaining what you think it means. Hint: "manufactured" or "mass produced" pets refer to breeding mills.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."
-- Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

Way to totally misrepresent Dr Katz -- do you even know why IDA was founded in the first place? It was started in 1983 by Elliot Katz, a veterinarian, in response to the conditions of animals raised in puppy mills and animal labs. Its purpose is to reshape the way people think about animals, treating them as companions instead of commodities we buy and sell.

IDA's view mirrors PETA: get away from the whole idea of "pet ownership", replace it with animal companionship.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

I'd love to see this quote in full context, maybe it says exactly what it looks like. Or maybe it'll bomb and totally misrepresent the authors like the last two quotes did.

I don't know how to make this more clear, but PETA does not hold the view you accuse them of holding. Why don't you stop copypasting from anti-PETA websites, and just read PETA's site and policies yourself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dessi

Long story short: PETA objects to certain words. Instead of "buying and owning a pet" (which they perceive as reducing animals to a status of property), they prefer "adopting and caring for a companion animal". They've consistently encouraged people to bring animals into loving homes for decades.

Then why do they kill so many?

Errrmmm, what? Unless you're being consciously obtuse, I have no idea what relationship your comment has to the text you appear to be replying to.

My comment on PETA's hangup over specific nomenclature, and their decades-long advocacy of animal companionship is 100% accurate. Is there actually some part of that statement that you disagree with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dessi

Quote:

The fact is that if we released all the slaughter animals in the country (Go! Be FREEE!), we would have nothing in a few weeks but chaos and carcasses. A herd of cows on main street is a thing of the past. 20,000 chickens loosed in suburbia would cause traffic accidents, ruin lawns, and probably spread diseases. They certainly wouldn't survive for long, and cleaning up would be a messy business. And the only way to clean it up at all would be to put the survivors...right back in cages or kill them outright.

Errrmm... what? Is that actually one of PETA's policies? Because I've been a member of PETA since around 2007, get their leaflets and things from time to time, follow them on Facebook, give them money every year. Maybe I missed the "let's let every caged animal into the streets" memo. Care to cite a source for your claim?[/

They have been accused of funding the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. Both have agendas that include 'freeing' animals from laboratories and farms. Never mind those animals will not survive, and never mind the damages they may do or the diseases they may spread.

In other words, when you criticized PETA's policy of releasing herds of cows and chickens into the streets, you weren't talking about a policy they actually hold or advocate. But really, a policy you've just made up on the spot and accuse them of holding. BS, of course, and I'm calling you on it.

If you ask me, a real live PETA activist, I hold the opinion that, in an ideal world, we would not release cows and chickens into the street, but raise them happily to their natural ends. That's pretty much the mainstream opinion in the animal rights community and PETA members.

Quote:

Maybe.... But are school milk cartons and dog shows really the best way to reach those organizations? Or are they just reaching school children and dog owners?

PETA reaches people through public service announcements in billboards, press releases, celebrity endorsements, protests, television and radio ads, Facebook, Twitter, mobile apps, bumper stickers, through the massive Care2 organization, and so on. Their reach is a little further than children and dog fanciers.

Quote:

I am against animal cruelty, too. I believe there is a difference between animal use and animal abuse.

Sorry...but that doesn't work. She has made it clear we should stop manufacturing animals. Period. For any purpose. So she should show us all how well that works by refusing to take medications that require animals to manufacture.

Originally Posted by Dessi

You, yes you actually own products which is made by slaves, or made in countries that treat human beings badly. Is your situation so unique and different from PETA's VP that you get a free pass? If not, are you any more hypocritical than she is?

I'm sure she also owns products made by slaves, or in countries where human beings are treated badly. When she gives hers up, I'll think about the example she is setting and consider whether I want to follow. But as to the subject at hand, I eat meat and wear leather...and I make no appologies. I do not believe animal use is the same animal abuse.

I notice that you didn't bother to respond to my question, whether you're really in a better position than PETA's VP. Do you not see how the two situations are similar?

Let me spell it out: PETA's VP has no rational alternative to synthetic insulin which may contain animal products, using those products is not a tacit endorsement of animal vivisection. Analogously, you don't have a rational alternatives any number of materials which may be produced in a manner that harms people or outright slavery, but depending on those products is not a tacit endorsement of human slavery.

Now, you indicated that suicide is an alternative to using animal-derived products, implying that PETA's VP must be a hypocrite or tacitly endorses vivisection, at least that's the only way your criticism makes sense. You have that alternative as well, and should you not take it, then you're either a hypocrite or tacitly endorse slavery -- at least according to your own argument.

There's just no way to get out of the logical knot: either you're both hypocrites who tacitly endorse the things you hate, or neither of you can be faulted for making choices where there's no rational alternative.

Quote:

What suffering have they reduced? So far, you've shown they may have caused an abusive poultry farmer to lose a KFC contract.

For a start, PETA's undercover investigations which lead to the rescue of hundreds of neglected cats at a "rescue sanctuary", brought a lawsuit on the US Department of Defense "wound lab leading to the first ban on shooting dogs and cats in military experiments, PETA and the ASPCA's pressure on GM to stop using live animals in crash tests lead to the development of crash test dummies and the end of live animal testing worldwide.

On the less morbid side of things, PETA volunteers rescued and cleaned dogs and cats who were victims of the BP oil spill in 2010, the animals were spayed, neutered, microchipped, and relocated to Virginia's to be placed in homes at the Virginia Beach Adopt-a-thon -- all out of PETAs pocketbook.

Following PETA's campaign, Lane Bryant confirms its shops won't sell fur.

PETA successfully lobbied retailer Cole Haan to eliminate exotic animal skins from its product lines.

Overstock.com followed suit, no longer sells shoes or luggage made from exotic animal skins. In a statement, CEO Patrick Byrne thanked PETA for "informing us of these issues and presenting us with evidence that factored into our decision." The move follows Overstock's boycott of fur and ivory goods.

In response to pressure from PETA, one of Britain's largest department stores, John Lewis, has pledged to no longer buy wool from Australian mulesed lambs.

Following PETA's seven month undercover investigation at US Global Exotics, a PETA investigator gathered evidence of animal cruelty, resulting in the largest seizure of animal seizure in history.

North Carolina research lab closed following 9 month PETA investigation revealing cruel treatment toward dogs, cats, and rabbits, a massive rescue effort coordinated by PETA and the US Humane Society worked to place around 200 animals in homes and rescue shelters.

---

I want to spend a few paragraphs on PETA's Iamscruelty.com. After publishing this undercover video documenting abuse at the Sinclair Iams facility, an IAMS representative went out to the site and, surprisingly enough, found "problems with the air temperature and ventilation in the cage rooms, a lack of resting boards for the dogs and inadequate socialization for the animals", which lead IAMs to sever its contract with Sinclair.

The undercover investigator who shot the video provided information to impact press, indicating that dogs in the opening scene of that video were anesthetized to forcefeed them vegetable oil as part of a metabolic study, had large chunks of tissue cut out of their thighs as part of a muscle biopsy, kept in wire cages so their fecal matter can drop to the floor as part of a nutritional study. The linked article states:

Quote:

Two of the dogs were later found dead in their cages. One of them had been suffering intensely for at least 11 days prior to her death. Her report read: "pyometra [infection of the uterus] possible, bloody discharge from vulva–foul odor present. Lethargic, not eating well, dehydrated."

Twenty-seven of the dogs subjected to the muscle biopsies were intentionally killed, even though Iams claimed that it would not conduct any experiment that resulted in the deaths or euthanasia of animals.

PETA initiated a lawsuit against IAMs for numerous breaches of its own animal cruelty policy, particularly the parts where IAMs claimed it would not euthanize animals or use lethal experimentation.

In a series of emails between PETA and IAMs, a number of researchers appear to confirm the complaint:

Quote:

Diane Hirakawa
Senior Vice President of Research and Development, Iams

In one experiment, she intentionally put 24 young dogs into kidney failure, removed their right kidneys, conducted numerous painful invasive procedures on the dogs over a matter of months, and then killed the surviving dogs.

White JV (University of Georgia), Hirakawa DA (The Iams Company), et al. Effect of dietary protein on functional, morphologic, and histologic changes of the kidney during compensatory renal growth in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1991 Aug;52(8):1357-65.

Dan Carey
Director of Technical Services, Iams

He once removed 31 dogs’ kidneys to increase their risk of renal damage, keeping the surviving dogs alive for 48 months to study them, then killed and dissected the dogs. In a private meeting, he referred to dogs as "specimens."

Finco DR (University of Georgia), Carey D (The Iams Company), et al. Effects of aging and dietary protein intake on uninephrectomized geriatric dogs. Am J Vet Res 1994 Sep;55(9):1282-90.

Gregory Sunvold
Director of Clinical Research and Intellectual Properties, Iams

In an Iams experiment, he surgically forced 28 cats into kidney failure. The cats either died during the experiment or were killed by Sunvold to study the effects of protein on their kidneys.

Finco DR, Sunvold G, et al. Influence of protein and energy in cats with renal failure. In: Reinhart GA, Carey DP, eds. Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition, Volume II: 1998 Iams Nutrition Symposium Proceedings. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press; 1998. p. 413-24.

Gregory A. Reinhart
Vice President, Strategic Research and Communications Research and Development Division, Iams

He chemically damaged 18 male beagle puppies’ kidneys, fed them experimental diets, inserted tubes into their penises, and then killed them.

Grauer GF (Colorado State University), Reinhart GA (The Iams Company), et al. Effects of dietary n-3 fatty acid supplementation versus thromboxane synthetase inhibition on gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicosis in healthy male dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996 Jun;57(6):948-56.

A.J. Lepine
Research and Development Division, Iams

He removed the ovaries and uteruses of 56 dogs to study the effects of beta carotene on their “reproductive performance.”

Weng BC (Washington State University), Lepine AJ (The Iams Company), et al. Beta-carotene uptake and changes in ovarian steroids and uterine proteins during the estrous cycle in the canine. J Anim Sci 2000;78:1284-90.

---

And a small list of headlines I collected from here last year:

Quote:

Fish Experiments Halted at Indiana High School
October 2011

USDA Cites University for Violations Following PETA Complaint

September 2011

Church & Dwight Pulls Coyote Fur Contest Item

September 2011

PETA convinced Church & Dwight to pull a parka made of real coyote fur that was being given away in its Arm & Hammer contest. READ MORE
Advertising Agency Erwin-Penland Signs PETA's Great Ape Humane Pledge
September 2011

Thanks to PETA's hard work and persistence, ad agency Erwin-Penland has signed the Great Ape Humane Pledge. READ MORE

CEO of Pest-Control Company Bans Drowning

September 2011

The California Department of Food and Agriculture Will Not Oppose PETA's Public Records Act Claim

August 2011

PETA is one step closer to stopping the board's false and misleading claims about the health and welfare of cows used by the California READ MORE
Red Tettemer + Partners Signs PETA's Great Ape Humane Pledge!

August 2011

Thanks to PETA's hard work and persistence, ad agency Red Tettemer + Partners has signed the Great Ape Humane Pledge. READ MORE
Preventative Installation Procedures Will Save Birds' Lives

August 2011

After receiving reports of trapped birds who were dying in residential gutters, PETA acted quickly to ensure that preventative installation measures would READ MORE

PETA Successfully Lobbies Congress to Put Limitations on EPA's Spending

August 2011

House Report language for 2012 tells the EPA that they must stop what they are doing and change their approach before they can start again. READ MORE

---

Sorry, don't mean to post a wall of text, but basically, PETA does a lot great work. They cooperate with police in undercover investigations, help promote and enforce stronger anti-cruelty laws, provide free spay and neuter services, they have a ton of useful info for vegans and vegetarians. That's why I keep donating to PETA.