PeTA and killing healthy feral cats

This is a good article by my friend Colin Wright about PeTA and their promoting of killing healthy feral cats:
"On the subject of whether PETA is justified in their stance that all and feral cats should be rounded up and killed instead of using TNR (Trep-Neuter-Return) and all pitbulls should be killed:
I'm 41 years old and have been rescuing nonhuman animals for over 30 years now. For the past 3 years I've been "officially" rescuing, socializing, and re-homing stray and feral cats (I've been Vegan for a year btw). I currently have 15 in my rescue (my 2-room apt.) and my family has 6 more in the other section of our house (15 rooms in a broken down 130-year-old home in Ct.).
I don't hate any one person or any group of people. I try not to hate at all. I focus on love, kindness, compassion, and justice for all sentient beings.


However, there are some things I dislike very much about PETA.
PETA kills 85% of the HEALTHY animals that are surrendered to them (not euthanizes, that is a term that means killing only in the circumstances of catastrophic illness or injury). PETA's stance on pitbulls (as advanced by Ingrid Newkirk herself) is that they should all be killed, simply because they are "dangerous." Despite the fact that smaller dogs account for a larger protion of the attacks on humans each year.


Newkirk also believes that all healthy feral and stray cats should be rounded up and killed, "to prevent their future suffering."


In my work, I've had to release some cats back to where I trapped them. Believe me, it was not my first choice. If I could have found homes for every single animal, I would have gladly done whatever I could to see them safe and sound indoors for the rest of their lives. However, there are just not enough safe homes for animals around here as we would want. Not every cat, even with socialization (and I'm an expert on that) will tolerate staying inside for the rest of their lives, especially when they've lived most of it outside. It's a hell of a job trying to get most feral cats to even tolerate being touched, let alone being kept indoors 24/7.
Still, I managed to get at least 45 kittens and quite a few adult cats adopted out in the time I was most active in rescue. I TNRed many, MANY more.
Would it be better to put all the stray cats in homes? Of course. Are there some strays that will die a painful, slow or pointless death? That would be yes as well. But the truth is, many of those cats can live perfectly long, healthy lives if they are taken care of in feral colonies by responsible loving people. We need many, many more of those people.
Killing healthy animals by the thousands is not only not going to help this problem, but it will actually make it worse. Taking strays and feral cats out of their neighborhoods and killing them actually increases the number of cats in those neighborhoods, since the ones left behind will ramp up their reproductive cyles to fill the niche left by the missing cats. TNR actually halts that process and decreases the number of cats overall. I've personally seen this happen many times.
And killing them is incredibly immoral. Killing healthy animals is not the answer, no matter how you dress it up as "humane" or "painless." The truth is, nonhuman animals have a fundamental right to live out their lives free from the threat of being killed simply because we don't want to be responsible for their suffering. Guess what? We ARE responsible. We got them into this mess, and killing them is NOT the way to get them out. It makes MUCH more sense to give them moral justice and be compassionate at the same time.
True compassion means choosing to let healthy animals live their lives and face their end on their own terms, not arbitrarily choosing to end the lives of some because we can't find a better solution than to just destroy what we can't save. Justice is not always about reducing suffering. There IS a moral reason to allow nonhumans to remain outdoors, IF your only other option was to just kill them outright.


Newkirk and PETA also regularly praise the people who institutionally exploit animals so they can sell flesh, dairy, eggs and honey for their "Happy Meat" and "Humane Slaughter" programs.
All of the big "Animal Organizations" are corrupt and useless when it really comes to helping animals in any significant way. If you want to understand why, I have some info here:
http://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/welfare-watch-observing-the-moral-confusion-in-animal-welfare-and-single-issue-campaigns


We don't need PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, and all these huge, bloated, "Animal Charities" to save all the homeless cats and dogs, completely put an end to domestication, and help all the animals of the world. What we need is for me and you and everyone else to go Vegan, rescue/volunteer/adopt/foster/spay/neuter and educate others about these issues.
If you're not Vegan already, please go Vegan. It's easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If your animal companion is not Vegan, please check out the links in the post below and then make them Vegan (if possible and practical):
http://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/the-issue-of-domestication-and-companion-animals


The above is an article by Colin Wright.

But I became a vegan because of ALF, Peta, Gary Yourofski, Whale wars, Sharkwater, Blackfish etc

"Some need scientific, others religious, some in your face graphic, others warm and fuzzy. ALF, Peta, Gary Yourofski, Whale wars, Sharkwater, Blackfish etc have all contributed"

Answer by Colin Wright: The problem is, you see something good they've contributed, but ignore all the bad they have contributed as well.

PETA makes more people feel good about "humanely" exploiting animals than they make Vegan.

ALF has made more non-Vegans afraid of "Vegans" than they've ever made Vegans, and the nonhumans have paid the price.

Gary Yourofsky keeps saying over and over that he wants non-Vegans to be raped and killed. And that's Veganism?

Whale Wars, Blackfish and other cetacean issues reinforce the idea that it's intellect, not sentience, that determines moral worth.

Gary Francione is the only one out of that whole list who advocates for a sane, rational clear moral baseline, and not a speciesist message or moral confusion."

More to learn:

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

PeTA kills healthy and adoptable animals

PETA transfers healthy and adoptable animals to a shelter that kills 82% of the animals: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552518/Animal-house-horrors-Investigation-reveals-PETA-killed-nearly-2-000-shelter-animals-2013-alone.html
rt.com/usa/peta-shelters-animals-killing-975/
(I am not support CCF just because they are mentioned in these articles. Facts are facts. I don't agree with all statements made in the article.)

That of course is morally acceptable. An "animal rights"-organization would take care of the animals with their budget, not send them to a shelter to be killed.

That would be like a human rights organization sending healthy and adoptable children to be killed because that there are millions of children on the street that are suffering and starving.

------

Just because that the facts were gathered by an immoral organization doesn't mean that the facts are wrong.
In this video posted in 2010, Newkirk admits that PETA kills healthy/adoptable animals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aStxlShqH5c

------

A person wrote:
" I provided the financials for you to do the math and let us know how they can support and care for 4 million dogs and cats each year. I'll help you out by saying it costs a minimum of $100.00 per animal to spay/neuter and vaccinate. Then we need shelter, food, employees and money for whatever other medical the animals will need each and every year and then we need money to do it all over again for the next 4 million. Let us know when you have the budget for us to look at."

Say we have an organization for homeless people. Supposedly they should exist to care for the homeless. But this organization selectively kills a great amount of homeless people.

Then some supporters of this organization come and say: There are tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets. What do you propose they should do? How can they take care of all these homeless people with their budget?

I didn’t say they should take care of all homeless people. I only said that they shouldn’t exploit, harm and kill the homeless people that they are supposed to help. Killing is never right. They have the budget to rescue each animal that they now kill (except for some exceptions that are terminally ill and want to die). This is what they should do.

Now PeTA are only promoting speciesism and the notion that animals don’t have any interest in a continued existence and can be used for our purposes. I don’t demand that PeTA should help every single animal. I demand that they should opt out of all animal exploitation, opt out of promoting “happy exploitation” and cooperating with industry to promote “animal welfare reform” =”animal exploitation reform”; and to cooperate with Whole Foods to promote “happy meat” and other “happy exploitation”.
More to learn: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism/

-------
More moral problems with PeTA:
I absolutely agree with GF that the animal welfare groups are hindering progress. They often endorse humane meat (which as you said we all agree is wrong), and have huge conflicts of interest. You don't really have to look too hard to find them. This website details all these conflicts of interest, I hope you have a read. http://www.humanemyth.org/magicalthinking.htm

Let me give you a few example:

1) HSUS director sends pigs "raised like children" to slaughter. http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1413.htm

2) Letter from 17 Animal Advocacy Organizations Endorsing Whole Foods' "Animal Compassionate" Standards http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1009.htm

3) Peta have sexist campaigns, and kill shelter animals after a year: http://rt.com/usa/peta-shelters-animals-killing-975/

No moral difference between seal slaughter and other slaughter

PETA has a campaign against seal slaughter.

My comments:
Everyone on this thread agrees with that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm on animals.

We have no nutritional need for animal foods. The production of meat, milk, dairy products, honey, leather, eggs all involves exploitation. The animals used for eggs and dairy products are killed when their production declines. Cows, chickens and other animals regularly get their families destroyed. Cow mothers get their babies ripped away from them within the first week of them being born. I went vegan when I realized all of this, since I didn’t want to be a part of paying for animal exploitation.

There is no moral difference between the seal slaughter on the picture, compared to the breeding and slaughter of cows, chickens and other animals used for meat, dairy products, eggs, etc. If animals matter morally, we can't justify any kind of exploitation of them to satisfy our palate pleasure, convenience, etcetera.

PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens

PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens because that it is supposedly more "humane". I claim that promoting the gassing of chickens makes the public more comfortable about exploiting animals.
I don't want the public to exploit animals. Thus I am opposed to PETA promoting the gassing of chickens.

If the industry made a reform to change itself, which they would do without the involvment "animal rights"-organizations in order to increase their production efficiency, I wouldn't oppose this.
I am not opposing the reform I am opposing a supposedly "animal rights"-organization promoting the reform.

Obviously I would act exactly the same in an identical situation during the slavery era a couple of hundreds of years ago. I would advocate abolition and not reform.

"PETA explicitly recognizes that gassing chickens is an economically efficient thing to do. The symbiotic relationship between large animal groups and institutional exploiters is clear when we see that groups like PETA and institutional exploiters are involved in a drama whereby animal advocates target an economically vulnerable practice; industry puts up a token fight; the reform, or some modification of the reform, is eventually accepted because it does not harm, and usually helps, industry; the animal groups declare victory; the animal exploiters bask in the praise that industry gets from animal advocates. Only the animals lose."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ingrid-newkirk-on-principled-veganism-screw-the-principle/#.U1K7JVfzISM

'Djurorganisationen' PETA dödar friska djur

Debatt med en person som försvarar att PETA dödar djur på sina djurhem.

Anders
PeTA har alla pengar som de behöver för att kunna ge alla dessa djur hem. Istället slösar de pengar på enorma mängder sexism och många andra destruktiva kampanjer.

En person skrev detta:
Jeff Melton wrote: Some vegans say that PETA has done a mixture of both good and bad things in their work as an animal advocacy organization, and so they have neutral or mixed feelings toward them. But whether a neutral attitude toward an entity that does both good and bad things is appropriate depends on how bad the bad things are. If they're sufficiently bad then a neutral attitude isn't really appropriate. So if someone helps old ladies across the street, donates to charities, volunteers at the soup kitchen...but they rape their mom, then no one would take a neutral attitude toward that person; their bad action has "crossed the line," so to speak.

And such is the case with PETA. Yeah, you can find promotion of veganism (mixed with a hell of a lot of welfarism and promotion of less-than-veganism) on their Website, yeah they've made some good videos, yeah Ingrid Newkirk has written that there's no such thing as humanely raised and slaughtered meat, but...in addition to their sexist advertising and their welfarist campaigns and positions, PETA has killed healthy, adoptable animals, lots of them. It's not just inconsistent with their name (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), it's absolutely inexcusable, and anyone associated with PETA who has been involved with this ought to go to jail just as Michael Vick did. It's puzzling why they would do this. Part of the answer can be found here: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=12153

Warning: This article contains pics of some of the healthy, adoptable animals PETA has killed. In addition, it contains a postcard from Ingrid Newkirk to Nathan Winograd (a leader of the no-kill shelter movement) stating that PETA does not believe that nonhuman animals have a right to life! This stunning admission ironically puts PETA, thought to be an animal rights organization, squarely on the opposite side of the "right to life" issue from the majority of Americans, at least insofar as animals considered "pets" are concerned.
All in all, the attitude PETA takes toward animals can only be described as speciesist. Not speciesist in the same way that most people are, as they don't make the same illogical distinction between "food" animals and "pets," but speciesist nonetheless. How else can we explain things like their giving an award to Temple Grandin for designing "more humane" slaughterhouses or their campaign to get KFC Canada to switch from suppliers that slit chickens' throats to suppliers that gas chickens to death instead, and their praise for KFC when they did so? Can you imagine a supposed human rights organization giving an award to Himmler for coming up with the bright idea of gassing Jews and other Holocaust victims instead of shooting them? And can you imagine our reaction if an organization supposedly devoted to the welfare of children advocated rounding up homeless children and "euthanizing" them? Because that's what PETA advocates, and engages in, for stray cats:
http://www.alleycat.org/page.aspx?pid=897

In short, the bad so far outweighs the good in PETA's case that not only does PETA not deserve either financial or rhetorical support from any genuine animal rights advocate, but our movement (and animals) would be far better off if they ceased to exist altogether.


Anders:

Att döda hundar och katter på djurhem är lika moraliskt fel som att döda barn på barnhem. Ja, i fattiga områden så finns det många barn som skulle behöva plats på ett barnhem, men det rättfärdigar inte att vi dödar de hälsosamma barn som redan har plats på ett barnhem.

HG:
"Att döda hundar och katter på djurhem är lika moraliskt fel som att döda barn på barnhem. "

En rättvis jämförelse är väl snarare om man hade synen på mänskliga barn att det är ok att anlägga avelsstationer där man producerar så många barn man kan. Såna finns ju inte.

Anders:
Huruvida avelsstationer finns eller inte har inga moraliska implikationer om huruvida vi ska döda hälsosamma barn som finns på barnhem.

Varför skulle detta ha någon moralisk betydelse i den frågeställningen. Det förstår jag inte.

HG:
"Varför skulle detta ha någon moralisk betydelse i den frågeställningen. Det förstår jag inte."

Det skulle innebära att vi hade en annan syn på människobarn än den vi har nu. I ett samhälle där barn betraktas som slit- och slängvaror och svälter, fryser ihjäl, drabbas av hemlöshetsrelaterade sjukdomar och skjuts av myndighetspersoner så skulle jag ha förståelse för om det fanns barnhem som gav vissa barn en överdos med smärtstillande.

Anders:"Det skulle innebära att vi hade en annan syn på människobarn än den vi har nu. I ett samhälle där barn betraktas som slit- och slängvaror och svälter, fryser ihjäl, ....."

I Afrika och Asien så är det miljontals människor som svälter, som är hemlösa, som fryser ihjäl, etc. Västvärlden betraktar dem som slit- och slängvaror och vi exploaterar dessa samhällen och dessa barn. Klädfabriker i Bangladesh, etc.
Ska vi uppmuntra barnhemmen i dessa samhällen att döda barnen som de har tagit in med en överdos med smärtstillande, så att man kan hjälpa fler barn ut från misären i klädfabrikerna, etc?

HG:
Inte västvärlden, utan vissa cyniska företagare. jag tycker inte de hemlösa "sällskaps"djurens situation kan jämföras med barns helt enkelt. Det är lätt att ha en åsikt när man ser bilder som ett köttlobbyföretag tagit på nån av Petas djurhem där man ser djur som avlivats, men jag tror inte man har samma åsikt om man ser bilder på svältdöda och ihjälfrusna katter.

Anders:Vi är alla ansvariga för våra handlingar. De allra flesta människor betalar dessa företagare; och de flesta personers konsumerism förvärrrar problemet i stor skala.

Jag ser ingen moraliskt relevant skillnad.
Jag skulle kunna säga: "Det är lätt att ha en åsikt när man ser bilder tagna på ett barnhem som dödar barnen som de tar hand om. Men om man ser alla barn som svälter och blir utnyttjade i Afrika och Asien, så tror jag inte man står för den åsikten längre."

Svar från vegan på frågan: Är det etiskt att äta kött som odlas i laboratorie?

Först och främst rekommenderar jag denna artikel:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-fordomer-vi-djurplageri-men.html

Engelska först, sedan följer en del tankar på svenska (kompletterande).
ADVENTURES IN NOT PROMOTING VEGANISM

For anyone who thinks that this is a great idea, please consider:

1. The cells to grow this must come from living animals. The article says that the developer "has taken cells from the necks of cows and grown very tiny quantities in petri dishes, repeating the procedure 'thousands of times' to generate enough for a hamburger patty."

2. Assuming that this could ever become commercially viable, and assuming that any significant number of meat eaters will actually choose to consume this--two very big assumptions--there will still be animals needed to produce dairy, eggs, and other animal foods and clothing;

3. We have PETA saying: "In vitro meat provides a way for people to be able to eat ethically, while still kind of getting that meat fix." ethical? "meat fix"?

4. We have PETA, which apparently cannot afford to find homes for 95% of the animals it takes in at its facility, offering $1 million to the developer of in vitro chicken.

How about those dogs and cats who are being killed today?

Whenever I think that the animal movement cannot become more absurd, I am shown to be wrong.
Citat: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

---Shawn Fosnight: Which of my points do you disagree with? And do you think that there is a snowball's chance in hell that this will be commercially viable for cat food at any point in the near future? And do you see that they have to get the cells from animals? How does that make it vegan? What will happen to those donor animals? Will they be people's "pets"?

-------------

Det finns flera etiska problem:

Djur utnyttjas i forskningsprocessen.
” Dr. Post and his team developed the cultured meat by using myosatellite stem cells and medical techniques for growing tissues and organs, a field known as tissue engineering. The process still uses fetal calf serum in which to grow the cells, but eventually that will be replaced with a non-animal material.” [Not 1]
Stamceller från djur används i en process som heter ‘tissue engineering’. Själva forskningsprocessen i sig själv förevigar vårt samhälles mentalitet att djur är resurser (och alltså inte individer med ett moraliskt värde), och att vi t.ex. kan föda upp och utnyttja djur för att forska fram produkter/utsätta djur för annat onödigt lidande när vi tror att det gagnar oss.

Stamceller kommer kontinuerligt att behöva extraheras från djur, både under forskning och under den fortsatta produktionen (se problemet som jag beskrev i föregående inlägg) . Stamceller används också till annan forskning, och även här behövs det kontinuerligt nya stamceller för att kunna fortsätta forskningen.

Vi kan inte rättfärdiga att utnyttja icke-mänskliga djur för att nå ett mål med “färre utnyttjade djur”. På samma sätt som vi inte kan rättfärdiga att utnyttja en människa för att nå ett mål om ”färre utnyttjade människor”.

Fler etiska problem beskrivs i denna artikeln:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/livevegan/the-case-against-test-tube-meat-by-jeff-perz/10150284881108860
Not 1.Citat från: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/13/In-Vitro-meat-325000-lab-grown-hamburger-tastes-reasonably-good/1881368462399/

--
Grump Old Vegan wrote:

I’ve seen an astonishing number of comments by vegans supporting ‘Schmeat’, speculating that ‘billions of lives will be saved’ by this technology which ‘harmlessly and painlessly’ extracts stem cells from animals. Firstly, at the moment they can only ‘grow’ something that looks like a hamburger (or a cow pat depending on your point of view) so saving billions of animals will only be a possibility when T-bone steaks, pork chops and chicken legs can also be grown. I won’t be holding my breath. Secondly, the fact that animals will still be exploited seems to have gone out of the window because ‘less harm is good’, accompanied by the usual comments that ‘the world won’t become vegan overnight’ and ‘we have to start somewhere’.

What is the point of adopting the moral philosophy of veganism if you aren’t going to advocate it and instead give approval to activities which involve animal exploitation? Whatever is wrong with being unequivocal in opposing the consumption of animal products, even in a bastardised form such as ‘Schmeat’? I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that I won’t support anything which involves the exploitation of one single animal.

PETA endorses Burger King's "Veggie" burger, which contains milk, eggs and animal exploitation

Hello Jill,
“Thank you for your post and for the links that you shared. I would be happy to share some links with you, too! Best wishes,”
Thanks! Best wishes to you also!

I understand that you sincerely believe in PETA and their methods.

I don’t have the time to comment everything you write at the moment, but I would like to comment your statement:

“Because of PETA, even Burger King now has a "BK Veggie" burger!.”
It contains eggs and milk.
PETA promotes Burger King and their animal exploitation-burger under their section ‘Eating Vegan at Fast Food Chain Restaurants ‘ and they are celebrating and promoting Burger King for what certainly is animal exploitation.

So PETA’s supporters will believe that they are helping the animals by [lacto-ovo]-“vegetarianism”, which is a label that makes people feel good about exploiting animals, skipping the meat, but still exploiting animals by consuming milk and eggs. Calling milk and eggs and label it vegetarian or veggie is certainly normalizing the animal exploitation - labelling it as being the same as "veggies" [vegetables].

Some other problems with PETA:
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.
[Quote and references: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UaTzk5xc18E ]

PETA's and 'animal welfare-organizations undercover investigations are problematic

PETA does not advocate veganism as a moral baseline and also their undercovercover investigations are problematic:
"Using the Land-o-Lakes investigation as an example, we see that PETA’s blog report on the investigation emphasizes how important it is for Land-o-Lakes to “buy milk only from farms that meet our 12-point animal welfare plan, which would prevent much of the suffering we documented at this farm.” PETA’s 12-point animal welfare plan reads like an industry consultant’s quality control recommendations and refers to industry’s own standards and literature (e.g. Elanco Body Scoring Chart for Dairy Cattle and the American Veterinary Medical Association’s AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia). [1]
Does PETA suggest that people go vegan? No. The blog report states “For those of you who can’t stomach the thought of eating butter after watching that video, take a minute to tell Land-o-Lakes to implement our 12-point animal welfare plan. Then check out one of the many vegan butter alternatives that are widely available.”"

http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/petas-undercover-investigations-another-example-of-the-welfarist-business-cycle/

Learn more about the correct abolitionist approach here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
PETA's approach is counterproductive and supports 'happy exploitaiton'.

------
When animal organizations do undercover investigations, claim to have uncovered "animal cruelty," and celebrate when individual employees plead "GUILTY!," they imply to the public (99% of which consumes animal products), that there is animal use that is "cruel" and animal use that is not "cruel." They imply to the public that justice has been served when justice will never be served for animals until they are no longer exploited and killed.

Simply put, we must shift the paradigm from the idea there are individual acts of "animal cruelty" in the animal use industries that exploit and kill 110 billion animals per year to the idea the animal use industries themselves must end by removing the demand for animal products by creating vegans. The animal use industries are a monstrous conglomeration of billions of individual acts of "animal cruelty." And the problem is not the supply; the problem is the demand.
http://www.farmedanimalfriends.org/blog.html

Friendly no kill-shelters, vs PETA's killing of dogs and cats

I think it is sad that PETA tries to defend their position of kill-shelters by attacking the concept of no kill-shelters. They are posing a false dilemma. We can develop friendly no kill shelters where the animals get company by other animals and where they get much attention and love, and where they have good living conditions. Violence is never the solution. We don't have the right to use violence towards other beings.  [See the links at the bottom of this article: www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-violence/ ]

With their budget, they could save and treat the animals that they kill. But instead they choose to focus their energy on sexist campaigns, on "happy exploitation"-campaigns, on counterproductive "single issue"-campaigns, on killing dogs and cats, etc.

I am sure that PETA-people are doing the best according to their understanding and they do some good things -just like all people. Having said this, I think it is important that we don't link to them and endorse them, because that will confuse people, increase the popularity of PETA's counter productive campaigns and may result in that they get more donations. One article about PETA's counter productive, "happy exploitation"-campaigns: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/

Counter productive Animal welfare legislation-reform vs. Animal rights

My response to a person:
The notion of "Animal welfare" in legislation is very old [1] and has been used as a regulationist approach. So it is not an use of erroneous language, it is merely a use of how the term always has been defined. It is sad they have stolen the term "Animal welfare" and redefined it. But lets stick to the terminology used.

"by his band of follower who repeat everything that he says verbatim and without thinking."
This is ignoring the fact that many, many people who found Gary Franciones teachings were endorsing "Animal welfare" reform and changed their approach because of the arguments. Your judgment is simply wrong. We shouldn't judge people. I write more about this in this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/hatred-violence-and-judging-peoples.html

It maybe true for some people that they blindly believe without analyzing the arguments. However, this is not encouraged. Gary Francione encourages people to educate themselves. Many people that stick to the 'Abolitionist approach' are surely thinking for themselves.
I e.g. liked PETA and other such organizations advozating for "Animal welfare" reform for a while in the beginning of being a vegan until I understood how their work (at large, I am not talking about every single action) is counterproductive and doesn't benefit the animals.
Some more good articles that show how counterproductive "Animal welfare" reform is:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-very-new-approach-or-just-more-new-welfarism/#.UXeGqMrSlI0
http://gentleworld.org/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform/

Note 1. See. e.g. this "Animal welfare"-legislation from 1966.

PETA, HSUS, Mercy for Animals, Farm sanctuary supports "happy exploitation" of animals

A portion of a comment that someone posted yesterday:

"I am saddened at the amount of infighting going on within the world of animal rights and welfare groups."

My reply:

It's *not* a matter of "infighting." It's *not* a matter of there being one "world" where substantive agreement is possible and should be pursued.

It's a matter of there being a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict.

I could explain (and have elsewhere explained) why this is the case but let's keep it really simple and just use pictures.

The next time that you are at Whole Foods and see them selling the bodies of dead animals with their "Animal Welfare Ratings"--which is the sort of thing that just about *every* large animal group has explicitly supported--if you think that disagreeing with that is a matter of "infighting," you are confused and have not yet grasped the simple idea that X and not-X cannot both be true at the same time.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583377438348681&set=a.393908680628892.94280.156275557725540&type=1

To those who support welfare reform and who claim it does not send the wrong message:

Here is a picture of Whole Foods advertising organic chicken with a Global Animal Partnership Animal Welfare Rating of 2.

And guess who is on the Board of Directors of the Global Animal Partnership that labels "happy" meat?

Answer: Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States

http://www.globalanimalpartnership.org/about-us/who-we-are/

If you doubt that this sort of thing sends a very loud, clear, and deliberate message to the public that it is morally acceptable to continue to consume animals, you are wrong.

--

 

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights As to the support of this sort of thing, please see: http://bit.ly/eli95N

John Mackey
Chief Executive Officer
Whole Foods Market
500 Bowie Street
Austin, TX 78703

January 24, 2005

Dear John,

The undersigned animal welfare, animal protection and animal rights organizations would like to express their appreciation and support for the pioneering initiative being taken by Whole
Foods Market in setting Farm Animal Compassionate Standards. We hope and expect that these standards will improve the lives of millions of animals.

Animal Rights International (ARI)
Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)
Animal Place
Animal Protection Institute (API)
Association of Vets for Animal Rights (AVAR)
Bay Area Vegetarians
Christian Vegetarian Association
Compassion Over Killing (COK)
Doris Day Animal League
East Bay Animal Advocates
Farm Sanctuary
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA)
Mercy for Animals
Northwest In Defense of Animals
Vegan Outreach
Viva!USA

Sincerely,

Peter Singer
President, Animal Rights International

PETA dödar adopterbara djur; alla djur har rätt att leva oavsett om de är sjuka, nej till dödshjälp

Jag tänker så här: De flesta individer månar mycker mer om sina liv än om tillfälligt lidande, eller fysiska begränsningar under hela livet. De allra flesta djur som är skadade fortsätter att hålla sig i liv. De vill inte dö. Om de ville dö skulle de enkelt kunna sluta att äta.
Jag hävdar att vi inte har rätt att bestämma över någons liv, att vi inte har rätten att avgöra att en individ (oavsett art) hellre vill dö än att leva med lidande. Jag skulle definitivt fortsatt vilja leva trots enormt lidande, eftersom jag tror att jag (och alla andra är här) är här för att sprida ett budskap av kärlek, barmhärtighet och icke-våld till alla individer -människor och andra djur, och göra detta till en mer kärleksfull och fredfull värld. Livet är så oerhört viktigt trots att man lider. Livet i sig själv, och att uppfylla det syfte vi har, är mycket mer viktigt än tillfälligt lidande orsakat t.ex. av en skada.

Vill även ge en rekommendation: World Peace Diet av Will Tuttle är en jättefin bok som jag rekommenderar till alla (den finns på Spotify).

PETA erkände själva i artikeln ovan att de dödar djur bara för att de är 'elderly' och enligt PETA "icke-adopterbara".
Jag vet dock många veganer som är villiga att adoptera gamla djur och självklart är det inte etiskt att döda ett djur även om ingen vill adoptera henne. PETA har ju helt klart budgeten. Men de investerar dessa pengar till att promota "happy exploitation", "humana slakthus", etc [se referenser i inlägget nedan]

De dödar även friska djur enligt f.d. anställda (inkluderar flera citat här):
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/peta-promotes-happy-exploitation-and.html

Mer om mina tankar:
Vilket resonemang är farligt? Varför?

Jag skrev inte att alla djur vill leva till varje pris trots intensivt lidande.

Jag tycker det är farligt att vi med våra begränsade kunskap ska avgöra om ett djur vill leva eller inte. Därför är jag emot dödshjälp för djur och även andra människor (om en människa vill ta livet av sig själv är det hennes val; men hennes syfte är att sprida kärlek och barmhärtighet till andra individer (inklusive inspirera dessa till att bli veganer), det hjälper ingen att döda sig själv).

"Att ett djur slutar äta är ett tydligt tecken (åtminstone för oss människor) att lidandet är oerhört stort men man ska akta sig för att se det som någon "avgörande punkt" för om en individ vill dö eller inte."
Ja, precis. Hur kan vi veta om ett djur vill leva eller inte?
De allra flesta djuren som PETA tar in vill troligen fortsätta leva. Ett djur som vill dö överlever inte länge.
Dödshjälp hjälper ingen.

----

Adina,
Jag ser det som så att få leva och inspirera andra till att leva mer kärleksfulla liv (inklusive att bli veganer) är vårt syfte, snarare än att undvika intensivt lidande (t.ex. i livets slutskede). Det reflekterar också den syn som jag har på dödshjälp.
Eftersom jag inte tror att det bästa för en individ är att jag tar hennes liv (oavsett hur mycket fysiskt och/eller psykologiskt lidande som hon är utsatt för) – trots att hon ber mig om att göra detta – så är jag emot dödshjälp. Jag tror inte att vårt syfte är att använda våld och döda någon annan individ oavsett omständigheter. Jag är emot att använda våld (finns bra artiklar om detta synsätt här: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-commentary-on-violence/#.UWAm4cpEBKY ; och även vad Jainism undervisar om ’Ahimsa’: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/Ahimsa.pdf)

Why PETA's sexism-campaigns for 'animal rights' are morally wrong

Well written about why sexist campaign, such as PETA's, ALWAYS are bad:
First, these campaigns commodify a traditionally disempowered group (women) as a supposed means to the end of helping another disempowered group (nonhumans). But what sense does it make to say that we should treat one group instrumentally in order to help another group? It does not make any sense whatsoever. Indeed, by encouraging the public to see women as objects, PETA merely ensures that people will continue to see nonhumans as objects. As long as we continue to treat women like meat, we will continue to treat nonhumans as meat.

It is imperative that we object to the instrumental treatment of any group. Devaluing and commodifying one group for the supposed benefit of another is immoral and self-defeating.
Second, by coupling sexual imagery with images of violence toward nonhumans, these campaigns attempt to eroticize animal exploitation. We live in a culture in which violence, and particularly violence against women, is eroticized in a variety of ways. Perpetuating this, and extending it to the exploitation of nonhumans, is deeply troubling.

Third, these campaigns have everything to do with promoting PETA and nothing to do with the exploitation of nonhuman animals. PETA started its naked fur campaign in the early 1990s. The fur industry is stronger than ever. There has been a dramatic increase in the past decade in the number of stores carrying fur and the number of designers using fur combined with a significant drop in the average age of fur buyers. A 2004 Gallup poll “found that 63 percent of respondents pronounced the buying and wearing of clothing made with animal fur ‘morally acceptable.’” Although good results for nonhumans would not justify sexism, sexism has not produced any good results for nonhumans.
Read more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-state-of-the-movement/#.UVsfN1ev_gM


-------More about PETA, written 09.04.2013:
PETA supports "happy exploitation", which hurts and kills animals:
"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.”"
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UWRbA8pEDFc

PETA has sexist campaigns, which hurts women:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/why-petas-sexism-campaigns-for-animal.html

PETA admits that it kills "unadoptable" and "elderly" animals at their "shelter"; and it is never justifiable to kill another individual and to use violence.

------------Quote from Gary Francione's Abolitionist Approach-page:

A portion of an email I received this morning from someone in the U.S.:

"I am not clear as to why you object to animal campaigns using naked women as the women who participate do so voluntarily. So what's the harm? If a woman chooses to participate, that's feminism in my books!"

My reply:

"You have raised an important issue. I have four comments.

First, as a purely practical matter, I do not think that those campaigns do any good whatsoever. That is, I would rather doubt that anyone has had a revolution of the heart and gone vegan in response to one of these sexist campaigns.

Second, the problem of animal exploitation is the problem of commodification. That is, we treat nonhuman animals a things, as existing only as resources, only as means to our ends. That is what we seek to change. But how can we do that as long as we are perpetuating the commodification of women by focusing on their appearance or their ability to provide sexual services as the primary aspect of who they are as persons?

To put this another way, as long as we are thinking of women primarily as sexual objects, we are going to continue to think about animals as objects to use. We need to reject the commodification of *any* persons, human or nonhuman. It makes no sense to say that we reject the commodification of animals but we embrace the commodification of women. It makes no sense to expect progress in eradicating the commodification of animals as long as we are perpetuating the commodification women and making that commodification a part of our campaigns.

Third, choice in a patriarchal society is a tricky concept. Can women freely choose to participate in their own commodification by reinforcing the idea that the primary value of women is their appearance and "sexiness"? Yes, of course they can. Is a choice to reinforce such notions an expression of feminism? That's a different question and I think that the answer is "no."

Although I believe that women should be free to self-commodify, I do not regard the choice per se as facilitating feminism. That is, although I think that a woman should be free to work in a strip club if that is what she wants to do, I do not think that working in a strip club does anything to promote gender equality and to eradicate the pernicious idea that the primary value of women is as providers of sexual services. The fact that women choose to participate in activities that perpetuate their commodification does not mean it is not exploitation.

Fourth, a serious social movement does not employ sexism. For example, Martin Luther King significantly advanced the cause of justice through intellect, tenacity, dignity and courage and without ever "going naked" to win civil rights or engaging in any of the exploitative antics that have become common in the animal movement. And I suggest that he would have made much, much less progress had he done so. If Gandhi used sexism rather than justice and nonviolence, the British would still be in India."

Quote Gary Francione:

An email I got:

"I was at AR 2013 and heard you say that we should not use sexism to promote animal rights. But if helps animals, what's wrong with it?"

My reply: "We are never going to turn people vegan by supposedly promoting animal rights messages through sexism. That may entertain some people and get media coverage for the groups that promote it but I have never known it to effect any change. And that sort of approach continues the objectification of women, which is inherently wrong and perpetuates tremendous harm. Please think about what I am saying here."

PETA promotes 'happy exploitation' and kill animals at animal shelters

More about PETA:
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.)

• Sue Stricker That is an extremely disturbing fact, considering what they claim to be booooooo

  Sunday at 11:55pm via mobile · Like · 1
• 

  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??

  Sunday at 11:55pm · Like · 1
• 

  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.

  Yesterday at 12:05am · Like · 6
• 

  Mary E Drayer This doesn't have anything to do with CCF or the meat industry.

  Yesterday at 12:09am · Like · 1
• 

  Luis David Rojas We'll all go vegan one day... when it's too late.

  Yesterday at 12:13am · Like · 4
• 

  Goth Victorian

  Yesterday at 12:23am · Like
• 

  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."

  Yesterday at 1:33am · Edited · Like · 5
• 

  Vanessa Garic PETA is horrible and that spokesperson is a liar!!!!

  Yesterday at 12:27am via mobile · Like
• 

  Vanessa Garic I agree Gary That this is sad on many levels!

  Yesterday at 12:27am via mobile · Like · 2
• 

  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.

  Yesterday at 12:40am via mobile · Like · 2
• 

  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
  

  On Killing Animals | The Point Magazine

  www.thepointmag.com
  

  A Journal of Ideas

  Yesterday at 12:43am · Like · 10
• 

  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.

  Yesterday at 12:43am via mobile · Like · 1
• 

  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

This is PETA : Nathan J Winograd

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.

3 hours ago · Like · 2

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.

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,

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