PETA gives awards to various vendors of “happy” meat and animal products;
PETA, along with other animal groups, has enthusiastically endorsed the Whole Foods “Animal Compassionate” program/label;
PETA gave an award in 2004 to Temple Grandin, the designer of “happy” slaughter houses and what Grandin calls the “stairway to heaven” system of slaughter;
PETA announces and then calls off boycotts of institutional animal users such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King and praises those companies for their supposed concern for animal welfare;
PETA praises McDonald’s as “actually ‘leading the way’ in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry.”
To say that this does not constitute support for “happy” or “humane” exploitation is simply not correct.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UVHlTFcWngM
Interesting essay:
http://www.thepointmag.com/2012/philosophy/killing-animals
Animal shelters:
What some different people write
(I don't agree on killing any kind of being regardless of his/her health. We have no right to decide on the life of others, and if others want to live or not, regardless of how sick they are.)
Danielle Bate how can it actually be that only 19 animals are adopted out though??? That ratio is just not right, 1600 euthanized and 19 adopted...so that many of them could not be adopted out??
Mary E Drayer Stanko, PETA also kills healthy dogs and cats, and they have been doing so for years. In addition, they oppose lifesaving TNR programs for feral cats, instead advocating for them to be killed. I think PETA has done and continues to do some good work, but this is beyond the pale. And so is the video. It was hard to concentrate on the issue of homeless cats and dogs with porn on the other side of the screen. Porn may get attention, as Bruce says, but this kind of attention trivializes *all* animal issues and turns animal advocacy into a big joke. Not to mention how bad it makes women look.
- Mary E Drayer Stanko, that I disagree with an organization's policies or campaigns does not mean I think they are twisted and creepy. I never said that. In fact, I said they did some good work. I don't have an issue with euthanasia for truly ill and suffering animals. But PETA also kills healthy animals, including feral cats. I worked there briefly in the early 90s and learned firsthand that they kill healthy animals. It's common knowledge to anyone who has ever worked there. Last year, PETA fought against legislation in my state that would have clarified the legality of TNR programs, programs that work to reduce the homeless cat population through high-volume spay/neuter. If you want, I will send you a copy of the letter PETA sent the mayor of my city discouraging him from implementing a TNR program and
- nstead suggesting trap and remove, "even if a quick and painless end is the best that can be offered."
Adam Hevenor I don't see the controversy. I think the PETA spokesperson explained the entire situation very clearly to the "News Woman" or whatever you call her. If people are bringing in animals to PETA to be euthanized because the animals are sick/old/dying, then I think PETA should probably euthanize them, regardless of how bad this might make them look.
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights If people want to have a serious discussion about this issue, that's great. But if we're just going to hear that anyone who questions PETA is supporting the Center for Consumer Freedom or that PETA has to kill these animals because they are all in agony and require euthanasia as the only morally acceptable solution, that's not great. This RT clip also raises legitimate questions about PETA's sexism. If you don't think that there are some important moral issues here, I disagree. In any event, this has been an issue with PETA since the early 1990s. I suggest you read this essay that I wrote and that was published recently: http://www.thepointmag.com/2012/philosophy/killing-animals
- Vanessa Garic They kill healthy animals! Mary Drayer even worked for them and explains above. They are evil in my opinion. Read Gary's link above as well.
- Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights I am going to close the thread. I am not going to have people lecturing us all that this is a CCF conspiracy. Once again, some "animal people" demonstrate that a serious discussion is not possible. I am shutting the thread. No more comments.
------
A comment I wrote in a thread about approaches in fighting for the animals:
No one is perfect. We all hopefully are trying our best to act in a loving and compassionate way and to educate in a good way, but it doesn't mean that all ways are equally good, some are even counter-productive.
It is nothing wrong to be clear about that all animal exploitation is wrong, and that one is participating in animal exploitation by not doing this.
I don't understand why some people in this thread are talking about bullying, since Abolitionist approach has nothing to do with bullying.
Abolitionist approach is a wonderful website encouraging many people to become vegans.
There is nothing wrong to show that there are counter-productive methods and ways, since there really are such a ways. And there are very many good arguments about this.
See e.g. this debate: Erik Marcus Debates Professor Francione on Abolition vs. Animal Welfare [ http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/audio/#.UVHxhFcWngM ]
And if we really want to know why there are concerns about single issue-campaigns, we can study this, before rejecting those whom are criticizing these campaigns and whom instead think we should dedicate all our efforts for vegan campaigns without a confusing message: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/commentary-16-responding-to-questions/#.UVHzsFcWngM
We are trying to fight the same fight for the animals but some people are sometimes/many times using methods that are not helping and that are counter-productive. There is no hate, only a willingness to help, to correct.
I would also like to recommend this wonderful and peaceful book: http://www.worldpeacediet.org/
Peace and love, Anders
-----
PeTA is murdering innocent animals. That´s a fact. Supporting PeTA you´re supporting a slaughterhouse.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=12153
www.nathanwinograd.comA supermarket dumpster full of garbage bags. When police officers looked inside, they found the animals below—animals killed by PETA. PETA described these animals as “adorable” and “perfect.” A veterinarian would describe them as “healthy” and “adoptable.”
-----------
So PETA uses a far-right-wing meat eater to argue against "ag gag" laws so that the public can rely on animal groups to expose cruelty on factory farms and ensure that the laws are upheld.
As if that makes one single bit of difference. Once again, an animal organization promotes the idea that the problem is abusive use and not all use. Once again, an animal organization makes the public feel better about consuming animal products that are "humanely" produced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lt08xO5euoA
Quote Gary Francione
------------------
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Nia Duke:
I am becoming increasing annoyed with this nonsense that anyone who is
critical of PETA's kill policy is immediately accused of being in
collusion with CCF, a pro-tobacco, pro-meat, right-wing lobbying group.
The kill figures that CCF produces are from PETA's own reports to the
Virginia authorities. So the fact that someone cites the CCF reports for
those figures (although they should go directly to the reports) does
not mean a damn thing.
The issue is *not* CCF. The issue is whether an animal organization that calls itself an "animal rights" organization should be killing healthy animals and engaging in a campaign to oppose no-kill and TNR.
And I am not defending Winograd. I do not even know him. Believe it or not, there were people talking about no-kill before Winograd arrived on the scene. And there are people talking about no-kill now who are not involved with Winograd. Derailing every discussion about no-kill with criticisms of Winograd is problematic in my view.
And I don't find it just a bit odd that "animal people" are so eager to defend the killing of animals, opposition to no-kill, and opposition to TNR. Frankly, I think anyone who supports PETA's actions and policies in this regard need to think more carefully about what animal personhood means. Unlike Winograd, I am not questioning the sincerity of the people at PETA. I do, however, believe very sincerely that they are very wrong on these issues, as well as on their promotion of sexism, Whole Foods "Animal Compassion" nonsense, Temple Grandin, etc.
The issue is *not* CCF. The issue is whether an animal organization that calls itself an "animal rights" organization should be killing healthy animals and engaging in a campaign to oppose no-kill and TNR.
And I am not defending Winograd. I do not even know him. Believe it or not, there were people talking about no-kill before Winograd arrived on the scene. And there are people talking about no-kill now who are not involved with Winograd. Derailing every discussion about no-kill with criticisms of Winograd is problematic in my view.
And I don't find it just a bit odd that "animal people" are so eager to defend the killing of animals, opposition to no-kill, and opposition to TNR. Frankly, I think anyone who supports PETA's actions and policies in this regard need to think more carefully about what animal personhood means. Unlike Winograd, I am not questioning the sincerity of the people at PETA. I do, however, believe very sincerely that they are very wrong on these issues, as well as on their promotion of sexism, Whole Foods "Animal Compassion" nonsense, Temple Grandin, etc.
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Note
to the several posters whose comments I deleted: If people want to
defend PETA's killing animals, that's great. Do it on a page that does
not find that to be unequivocally morally wrong. And spare me the BS
that PETA isn't a "shelter." It's taking animals in. Period. Call it
what you want.
In any event, the idea that there is an "animal movement" with hundreds of millions of dollars that whinges on and on about "saving animals" but that lets hundreds of thousands of shelter animals be killed every year is nothing short of obscene. I do not believe in the idea that if we kill an animal, we eliminate the chance of a bad adoption. That is, to me, the antithesis of animal rights and like it or not, it's my page. So if you want to defend killing, go to a page where it's welcomed because it isn't here.
And, for the last time, I am *not* questioning the sincerity of the PETA people or anyone else. I just believe that PETA is wrong here, just as I believe they are wrong in promoting sexism/misogyny, giving awards to Whole Foods and Temple Grandin, and engaging in joint campaigns with fast food chains to supposedly make exploitation more "humane."
Let's be clear, when PETA praises McDonald’s as "'leading the way' in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry” what sort of message do you think that that says to the public? Do you have *****any***** doubt that it encourages the public to feel more comfortable about consuming animals?
These are rhetorical questions. If you have any doubt, then you have drunk the kool-aid and I won't bother to interrupt your trip.
In any event, the idea that there is an "animal movement" with hundreds of millions of dollars that whinges on and on about "saving animals" but that lets hundreds of thousands of shelter animals be killed every year is nothing short of obscene. I do not believe in the idea that if we kill an animal, we eliminate the chance of a bad adoption. That is, to me, the antithesis of animal rights and like it or not, it's my page. So if you want to defend killing, go to a page where it's welcomed because it isn't here.
And, for the last time, I am *not* questioning the sincerity of the PETA people or anyone else. I just believe that PETA is wrong here, just as I believe they are wrong in promoting sexism/misogyny, giving awards to Whole Foods and Temple Grandin, and engaging in joint campaigns with fast food chains to supposedly make exploitation more "humane."
Let's be clear, when PETA praises McDonald’s as "'leading the way' in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry” what sort of message do you think that that says to the public? Do you have *****any***** doubt that it encourages the public to feel more comfortable about consuming animals?
These are rhetorical questions. If you have any doubt, then you have drunk the kool-aid and I won't bother to interrupt your trip.
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Virginia Roulakis Faubel:
Hospice? End of life euthanasia? What are you talking about? Do you buy
into this nonsense that these are all terminally ill animals? If so,
you are misguided, Virginia. First, there are people on this page who
have worked at PETA and who attest that it's not just terminally ill
animals who are killed. Second, the killing of healthy animals has been a
PETA issue for a long while now. It's not a recent thing. Do some
research. You'll learn about Aspen Hill, where healthy rabbits and
roosters were killed in the early 1990s. This "we're only killing
animals who can't be saved" line is a crock.
Linda McKenzie Gary,
you say that you believe that Ingrid Newkirk and PETA are sincere in
believing that the animals they take in, and those in other shelters,
are better off dead and I have no reason to doubt you on that. Can
anyone explain to me how *anyone* can think that not just terminally ill
animals, but healthy, adoptable animals are better off dead? I've just
read--can't remember where now--that the justification is that it
prevents the possibility of a bad adoption. But if we took that attitude
regarding humans, we might as well all commit suicide now, given that a
barrel of roses is hardly likely for any of us as our future and the
present isn't all that crash hot for some of either Nevertheless, most of us prefer to go on living.
So I see that a simple answer is "speciesism", but I still have trouble getting my head around it.
Linda,
So I see that a simple answer is "speciesism", but I still have trouble getting my head around it.
Linda,
I
can definitely sympathise with the view that life is so full of
suffering that it is better not to procreate. But despite the huge doses
of suffering, nearly all living beings find life worth living enough to
want to go on living and to desperately resist anything that puts an
end to their lives. So the notion of sparing animals all suffering by
killing them may be well intentioned but is disturbing, to say the
least.
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights I
support TNR. Period. I have myself participated in TNR programs and I
have seem how TNR works. If any of you has a problem with TNR, it's your
problem. And frankly, the sycophantic way that some people defend PETA
irrespective of what they do--whether it's killing 95% of the animals it
takes in, opposing TNR, trivializing an important issue of social
justice by constantly using sexist and misogynistic imagery, or giving
awards to "happy" meat peddlers like Whole Foods or to slaughterhouse
queen Temple Grandin--makes me completely disgusted.
15 hours ago · Unlike · 13
----
Quote I like: "I believe one of the key concepts is whether we think death is a harm to nonhuman animals (ie, is it better for a stray animal to be killed than risk suffering and/or homelessness).
Professor Francione's work (as opposed to Singer's work for example) is based on the idea that death is a harm to nonhuman animals. Each nonhuman animal values her/his life, and we have no right to take her/his life from her/him. With that said, due to the inherent problems of domestication, if nonhuman animals have been born (which in the case of stray cats, they have), we have a moral obligation to adopt/foster them, spay/neuter them to discontinue the perpetuation of domestication and its inherent problems, and by all means not kill them.
To me, the idea of killing homeless animals is speciesist under the guise of "caring" and irresponsible because it denies the fact that humans are the ones who domesticated them in the first place. We wouldn't dream, at least I hope we wouldn't dream, of killing homeless children who are here by no fault of their own. So, to the extent we would consider killing homeless animals, we are speciesist and irresponsible."
Quote: Sarah Woodcock
https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach?fref=ts
----
Quote I like: "I believe one of the key concepts is whether we think death is a harm to nonhuman animals (ie, is it better for a stray animal to be killed than risk suffering and/or homelessness).
Professor Francione's work (as opposed to Singer's work for example) is based on the idea that death is a harm to nonhuman animals. Each nonhuman animal values her/his life, and we have no right to take her/his life from her/him. With that said, due to the inherent problems of domestication, if nonhuman animals have been born (which in the case of stray cats, they have), we have a moral obligation to adopt/foster them, spay/neuter them to discontinue the perpetuation of domestication and its inherent problems, and by all means not kill them.
To me, the idea of killing homeless animals is speciesist under the guise of "caring" and irresponsible because it denies the fact that humans are the ones who domesticated them in the first place. We wouldn't dream, at least I hope we wouldn't dream, of killing homeless children who are here by no fault of their own. So, to the extent we would consider killing homeless animals, we are speciesist and irresponsible."
Quote: Sarah Woodcock
https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach?fref=ts
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar