PETA Kills Animals

[DarkPhantom13]

Titles says it all. Check out the link.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Another Year, Another Horrendous PETA Slaughter of Homeless Pets.

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade's worth of evidence showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to "put down" 25,840 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding them "forever homes."
PETA's "Animal Record" report for 2010, which the animal rights group itself filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that PETA employees killed 94 percent of the dogs and cats in their care last year. During all of 2010, PETA found adoptive homes for just 44 pets.
Just 44 dogs and cats—out of the 2,345 PETA took in. Those numbers are abysmal, and they and offer little hope for homeless animals to escape perishing on PETA's version of "death row."
The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA's Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget
Why would PETA, an "animal rights" group, secretly kill animals at its headquarters? From a cost-saving standpoint, PETA's hypocrisy isn't difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs—and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated—requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.
PETA has a $33 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh-and-blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all "unethical."
The bottom line is that PETA's leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the six pets, on average, that they kill every single day.
Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program. Now the death toll of animals in PETA's care has reached 25,840, including 2,200 pets in 2010 alone.
PETA has ceased being an animal charity. It's behaving more like a slaughterhouse.

 

[Rukas]

Wow that's terrible.

 

[Jokerman]

They also killed Michael Jackson.

 

[vg4030]

WOW I didnt know this, I looked up their site and they have some pretty interesting information there:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

btw.. How come this hasnt created more interest!???

 

[S O F I]

I want Casey to reply in this fucking thread!

 

[_carmi]

wow... why am I only half surprised? these organizations always have some shady business.

 

[PuffnScruff]

WOW I didnt know this, I looked up their site and they have some pretty interesting information there:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

btw.. How come this hasnt created more interest!???

It's one of those things that has been known for awhile but has only really gained traction in recent years. At the same time, about as many people care what PETA does to animals as many people care what PETA claims to do as an orgainzation. For the most part the general population could care less about PETA one way or the other.

 

[Synful*Luv]

That's awful. I'm not a fan of PETA personally... but I would really hope that after all of their bully antics when it comes to their wanting to control how others eat and dress (regardless of it being a good cause or not)... there's some sort of explanation for this.

I read through the .pdf file and it has a list of tons of animals that they seemed to be also preparing for adoption for spaying/neutering them.. why would they turn around and then do something like this? Makes absolutely no sense.. but i'm really hoping there's some sort of explanation still.

 

[tHuG $TyLe]

Wait an organisation contradicts it's policy?

Wow. I. am. In. Shock. Right. Now.

 

[Casey]

I want Casey to reply in this fucking thread!

Damn, let a brotha live.

Look, I'll say this much. That website is nothing more than the equivalent of a message board troll. It's designed to play on the hidden guilt of many meat-eaters to allow them to have some sort of refutable defense mechanism against their own wrongdoings. How many animals are killed EVERY DAY to satisfy the hungers of meat-eaters? I'll tell you - more than a thousand times more than have been listed as being "killed" by PETA. And the vast majority are just slaughtered in factories after being kept in disgusting conditions and fed a balance of hormones and processed corn of no nutritional value for their whole lives.

If you fell for this website, you're naive as fuck. I would bet most of the people reposting it around the internet are dumb, fat, balding meat-eaters sick of feeling like they're being victimized for their dietary choices. Well, in most cases their parents dietary choices since most people never both to question the diet their parents raised them on - they aren't smart enough. So they see a website like this, scratch their bald heads, think "hey now i have a comeback for those pesky vegetarians calling me a murderer" and click "copy" and "paste". You're seriously going to believe that PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS secretly actually don't give a fuck about anything they say and just kill a bunch of animals for the sake of it? Does that sound likely?

If you SERIOUSLY think you're getting a BALANCED view of what PETA does from www.petakillsanimals.com, you're frankly, a complete idiot. It's like thinking you're getting a balanced perspective of the Christian view of homosexuality from visiting the Westboro Baptist Church (aka www.godhatesfags.com). It's deliberately misleading and disingenuous, leaving out 90% of the truth in order to shock people for their stupid propaganda. Like I said - preying on the overly defensive carnivores who can't reconcile their "love" of animals that are considered to be pets with their love of consuming cooked rotting flesh and carcasses on a daily basis.

For a start - people don't just call up PETA and say "hey come take my dog away cos it pissed on my rug" and the show up and take 'em. PETA take a very SMALL minority of the animals that people call them about. in 90% of cases, PETA offer education, pamphlets and advice on the best thing that person can do if they feel they can no longer take care of their pet - where to advertise that they have pets that need a good home, local advertising, internet forums and mailing lists that get spread out to the right people, and that kind of thing.

PETA will take the animal if it's the only recourse, and in most cases, that means animals that are suffering so badly that putting them down is the only humane option. That's why it's misleading to compare with the other place they mentioned - that other place will take animals for much simpler reasons. And they want to mention money? Listen - you can have all the money in the world and it's still better to ease the suffering of these animals. They say they could spend the money "investing in the lives" of animals. That's a meaningless sentence. It's simply not possible to just throw money at suffering animals that have been abused or sick to the point where there's no cure.

and I had to laugh at this:

PETA has a $33 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh-and-blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all "unethical."

Yes, all those things ARE unethical. Education is the start. Their purpose is to teach people. Where else is that money going to go? Oh wait, I know, let's make up a meaningless phrase. We'll "invest in the lives of animals" instead. Let's buy terminally ill and dying animals a freaking gold water bowl and some medicines that can quite probably extend their life but without easing any of their suffering.

Plus, attempting to rehome animals is only a small percent of what PETA actually do. So again, you have to keep things in perspective. Look at all the other things they do. All positive. The INTENT is always good. The activism is needed. The education is necessary. If you look at all the animals that have been indirectly saved by people turning vegetarian because of PETA education/activism, it's hundreds of millions.

All that said - is PETA perfect? No. They've made mistakes and they've taken steps to correct them. Nobody is perfect. I recognise flaws in everything and everyone I love and support. That's the human angle. That's the right perspective.

Websites like this help nobody. They just cause the already defensive meat-eaters to have some more ammo. But that ammo is blank. It's meaningless. A smart debater knows this and can rebuke it. I barely felt this topic was worth my time because I smelled the BS as soon as I saw it. If I wasn't urged for a rebuttal I wouldn't have given one. It's not worth my attention. I support PETA because I KNOW what they do and what they're about. So I can see when defensive carnists are lying or misleading people. Which is exactly what's happened here.

Saying "PETA kills animals" is a pointless phrase without all the proper context. You can twist any good situation to be bad by leaving out facts and contexts. And vice versa.

Might as well say "War is bad because soldiers kill people". Well, yes they do. Does that mean you wouldn't support the Allies in the war against Nazis? Would you say it's wrong for a cop to kill a suicide bomber before he blows up a crowded city street? C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

 

[Jokerman]

It's mostly true but the group that put this website together are ultra-conservative nutjobs who make Fox news look fair and balanced.

 

[Ristol]

I was waiting for that one, Casey. Agree with every word.

 

[vg4030]

I found this quite interesting:
... Also from the website..

PETA's Lame Response
We'll say this much for PETA's leaders: they've got an answer for everything. If you write to PETA and ask them about our "PETA Kills Animals" website, they'll send back a form letter including some of the lame excuses below:

"Thank you for contacting PETA about the 'PETA Kills Animals' billboard and the accompanying promotions for it … PETA can't afford billboards in Times Square, so we're grateful for the opportunity that this one provides to discuss
the animal overpopulation crisis."

PETA's lying. The organization has erected not one but two Times Square billboards (one in 1997 and another in 2003), both featuring silicone beauty Pamela Anderson. Click here and here to see PETA's own promotional materials about these advertisements. And PETA's annual budget is over $25 million. That's about seven times what the Center for Consumer Freedom spends.

"We do not run a traditional shelter. In fact, we refer every healthy, cute, young animal we can to shelters."

Uh oh. There they go again. In 2003 PETA reported transferring exactly one animal to another shelter. In 2002 PETA transferred just two animals. Click here to see the documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia. Since 1998, PETA has transferred a total of 130 animals to other shelters, and 21 of them were chickens. By comparison, it killed over 10,000 animals.

"[M]ost of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option."

PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it takes in, and finds adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA, whose shelter is located less than 4 miles from PETA's headquarters, found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals in 2003. It’s rather hard to believe that the animals entrusted to PETA are any more likely to be “broken beings.” Dana Cheek, the former (and most recent) director of the Norfolk SPCA, wrote to us recently:

I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home." Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home … PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming. If only the celebrity "deep-pocket" donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk.​

PETA talks a good game about caring for animals, but seems uninterested in saving the only creatures it actually has contact with. If PETA were sincere, it could use its incredible wealth to buy a huge plot of land where its thousands of victims could live out their natural lives. Instead, these animals meet PETA's hypocrisy head-on, in the form of "tough love."

The part about putting 85% of animals to sleep compared to the Humane Society's 27% was odd, and it its true somethings not right with PETA

 

[Duke]

Damn, let a brotha live.

Look, I'll say this much. That website is nothing more than the equivalent of a message board troll. It's designed to play on the hidden guilt of many meat-eaters to allow them to have some sort of refutable defense mechanism against their own wrongdoings. How many animals are killed EVERY DAY to satisfy the hungers of meat-eaters? I'll tell you - more than a thousand times more than have been listed as being "killed" by PETA. And the vast majority are just slaughtered in factories after being kept in disgusting conditions and fed a balance of hormones and processed corn of no nutritional value for their whole lives.

If you fell for this website, you're naive as fuck. I would bet most of the people reposting it around the internet are dumb, fat, balding meat-eaters sick of feeling like they're being victimized for their dietary choices. Well, in most cases their parents dietary choices since most people never both to question the diet their parents raised them on - they aren't smart enough. So they see a website like this, scratch their bald heads, think "hey now i have a comeback for those pesky vegetarians calling me a murderer" and click "copy" and "paste". You're seriously going to believe that PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS secretly actually don't give a fuck about anything they say and just kill a bunch of animals for the sake of it? Does that sound likely?

If you SERIOUSLY think you're getting a BALANCED view of what PETA does from www.petakillsanimals.com, you're frankly, a complete idiot. It's like thinking you're getting a balanced perspective of the Christian view of homosexuality from visiting the Westboro Baptist Church (aka www.godhatesfags.com). It's deliberately misleading and disingenuous, leaving out 90% of the truth in order to shock people for their stupid propaganda. Like I said - preying on the overly defensive carnivores who can't reconcile their "love" of animals that are considered to be pets with their love of consuming cooked rotting flesh and carcasses on a daily basis.

For a start - people don't just call up PETA and say "hey come take my dog away cos it pissed on my rug" and the show up and take 'em. PETA take a very SMALL minority of the animals that people call them about. in 90% of cases, PETA offer education, pamphlets and advice on the best thing that person can do if they feel they can no longer take care of their pet - where to advertise that they have pets that need a good home, local advertising, internet forums and mailing lists that get spread out to the right people, and that kind of thing.

PETA will take the animal if it's the only recourse, and in most cases, that means animals that are suffering so badly that putting them down is the only humane option. That's why it's misleading to compare with the other place they mentioned - that other place will take animals for much simpler reasons. And they want to mention money? Listen - you can have all the money in the world and it's still better to ease the suffering of these animals. They say they could spend the money "investing in the lives" of animals. That's a meaningless sentence. It's simply not possible to just throw money at suffering animals that have been abused or sick to the point where there's no cure.

and I had to laugh at this:



Yes, all those things ARE unethical. Education is the start. Their purpose is to teach people. Where else is that money going to go? Oh wait, I know, let's make up a meaningless phrase. We'll "invest in the lives of animals" instead. Let's buy terminally ill and dying animals a freaking gold water bowl and some medicines that can quite probably extend their life but without easing any of their suffering.

Plus, attempting to rehome animals is only a small percent of what PETA actually do. So again, you have to keep things in perspective. Look at all the other things they do. All positive. The INTENT is always good. The activism is needed. The education is necessary. If you look at all the animals that have been indirectly saved by people turning vegetarian because of PETA education/activism, it's hundreds of millions.

All that said - is PETA perfect? No. They've made mistakes and they've taken steps to correct them. Nobody is perfect. I recognise flaws in everything and everyone I love and support. That's the human angle. That's the right perspective.

Websites like this help nobody. They just cause the already defensive meat-eaters to have some more ammo. But that ammo is blank. It's meaningless. A smart debater knows this and can rebuke it. I barely felt this topic was worth my time because I smelled the BS as soon as I saw it. If I wasn't urged for a rebuttal I wouldn't have given one. It's not worth my attention. I support PETA because I KNOW what they do and what they're about. So I can see when defensive carnists are lying or misleading people. Which is exactly what's happened here.

Saying "PETA kills animals" is a pointless phrase without all the proper context. You can twist any good situation to be bad by leaving out facts and contexts. And vice versa.

Might as well say "War is bad because soldiers kill people". Well, yes they do. Does that mean you wouldn't support the Allies in the war against Nazis? Would you say it's wrong for a cop to kill a suicide bomber before he blows up a crowded city street? C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

Welcome, people, to the valley of fallacies!

 

[Ristol]

Welcome, people, to the valley of fallacies!

Explain.

 

[Duke]

Explain.

Christ, is that neccessary?

I'm saying this from an objective standpoint. I'm not even commenting on his actual statements, but the argumentation there is just laughable.

 

[Casey]

No, if you're going to argue that my reasoning is incorrect you must explain yourself. There IS hidden psychological guilt amongst defensive meat eaters. Most won't admit it because they haven't thought about it. It's subconscious. It's like the phenomenon of "white guilt" in regards to slavery. Do some research.

 

[vg4030]

I dont think this is a question of defensive meat eaters arguing why eating meat is OK.

Its the hypocrisy of PETA they are calling out.

 

[Jokerman]

^ masta247 liked that.

 

[masta247]

^ I often accidentally click 'like' with this board. But in this case I agree so I didn't "unlike" the post, lol.