use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
~69 users here now
This subreddit is archived and no longer accepting submissions.
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. reddit learns what you like as you vote on existing links or submit your own!
Peta Kills Animals (i.imgur.com)
submitted 1 year ago by bossbreadmaker
[–]juggler9000 280 points281 points282 points 1 year ago
Much of that info comes straight from www.petakillsanimals.com, a group backed by the "Center for Consumer Choice," a lobby group founded by Phillip Morris and funded largely by large meat producers and food companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
I am not a huge fan of PETA, but this is a pretty blatant piece of corporate propaganda. I wonder how many animals were killed by funders of CCF , such as Wendy's, Tyson, Monsanto, and Standard Meat Company.
[–][deleted] 1 year ago*
[deleted]
[–]distertastin 18 points19 points20 points 1 year ago
7) Money spent on advertisements... what do you think the ads are for? It's of course with the objective of protecting and helping animals. This is just re-framing a figure so it makes their 'point'.
[–]waaaghbosss 3 points4 points5 points 12 months ago
I've seen what ads Peta puts out there. It in now way helps animals, if anything it damages legitimate animal organizations because the ad's are so fucking retarded that they would sour an average persons feelings towards animal non-profits.
The Holocaust on your plate? Fuck Peta.
[–]dnalloheoj 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
10) Spokespeople are hypocritical. (How do I know the pictures weren't taken years before their relationship with peta?)
Not to mention the pictures they used are clearly not these people in their daily lives. Pretty sure if I was paid thousands of dollars to sit on a leather couch (Or given a free car with leather interior) I'd do it no matter what my personal ethics are.
Although, FWIW, pretty positive all those pictures are from after they became PETA supporters. But with that being said, I really don't feel like when the photos were taken should matter too much. It's not like you just wake up one day and suddenly realize that you hate animal testing/products. Chances are if they're really against something, they've been against it for more than a couple months.
[–][deleted] 1 year ago
[–]cause4concern 2 points3 points4 points 12 months ago
Humanely euthanize? Even if they take in a higher number of "unadoptable" animals, 99% is flat-out ridiculous. No person with half a brain can tell me that 99% of the animals they rescue are unadoptable. I work at a shelter, and I've seen some of the worst of the worst . This just doesn't register.
[–]waaaghbosss 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
97% of the cash they rake in doesnt go towards helping animals, and 100% of the cash they rake in could have gone to a real organization that actually does help animals such as the humane society. Peta is a stunt.
[–]discobanditt 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago
Standing round of applause for someone who looks at statistics critically.
[–]crabs_q 28 points29 points30 points 1 year ago
At least THOSE animals were killed to make delicious food.
[–]juggler9000 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Makes you wonder if they actually don't like PETA because those animals were not eaten after they were killed.
[–]arisaka_bayonet 476 points477 points478 points 1 year ago
The most baffling thing about this infographic is always the fact that the person making it thought "she was sterilized!!!" was somehow relevant or incriminating.
[–]problematic4tw 179 points180 points181 points 1 year ago
Yeah, they would have been better off mentioning that the Vice President, Mary Beth Sweetland, has diabetes and uses insulin that was animal tested.
"I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
[–]ligerzero942 22 points23 points24 points 1 year ago*
To be fair, her insulin would be tested on animals whether or not he uses it.
Apparently PETA's VP is a woman.
[–]Soapy9 45 points46 points47 points 1 year ago
Animals would still be killed, whether or not he ate them.
[–]Weequay2 22 points23 points24 points 1 year ago*
There are other things to eat besides animals, but there aren't any alternatives to insulin AFAIK
EDIT: an alternative that doesn't involve dying ಠ_ಠ
...That's an alternative to pretty much anything.
[–]Verzingetorix 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
Transgenic E. coli is used to produce synthetic human insulin. You don't have to kill the bacteria to get it since it is excreted because the bacteria has no use for it.
I thought it was common knowledge from where the insulin used by diabetics came from.
[–]SteveStSteve 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
wrong. insulin isn't an infringement on peta's morals besides the testing that was mentioned. it isn't made from pig pancreas like it used to, there's an artificial alternative that's used now
[–]DoWhile 18 points19 points20 points 1 year ago
but there aren't any alternatives to insulin AFAIK
Sure there is, it's called dying.
[–]raouldukeesq 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
I am pretty sure it is ethical to kill animals in a life or death situation.
[–]secretcurse 16 points17 points18 points 1 year ago
Not according to Peta's philosophy, though. The guy is a raging hypocrite. When it helps him, it's necessary so he can continue fighting for animals. When it's anyone else, it's unacceptable.
[–]sprankton 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
I need animal protein to have the strength to fight for animals. Pass the bacon.
[–]fatmanwithalittleboy 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
life feeds on life...
[–]IonBeam2 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
The difference is that eating meat increases the demand for slaughtered animals.
[–]pimpernel666 75 points76 points77 points 1 year ago
Agreed. Ad hominem Foul. 20 yards.
[–]curien 51 points52 points53 points 1 year ago
It's not even ad hominem; it's just a complete non sequitur.
[–]pimpernel666 27 points28 points29 points 1 year ago
Agreed. Non Sequitur Foul. Four wastebaskets and a can of shoe polish.
[–]jellyfilledjosh 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago
Agreed. I'd say it's rather shallow and pedantic.
[–]Quipster99 2 points3 points4 points 12 months ago
Hmm, quite.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I hand you a cheeseburger.
[–]MeloJelo[] 15 points16 points17 points 1 year ago
Exactly--the fact that she was sterilized in no way relates to the argument that PETA is a hypocritical organization.
[–]jkruisb2 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago
Goes to character, Your Honor.
[–]JEveryman 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
I'll allow it.
[–]Anticlimax1471 35 points36 points37 points 1 year ago
This is the part where the article lost me. OPPOSED TO GIVING BIRTH!!!!!! Or, doesn't want to have children, maybe? Are men who have vasectomies opposed to giving birth? This is more sensationalised than PETA itself.
[–]newtotheinterpoops 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
The connotation is definitely overly dramatic, but the basic statement is right.
SHE MAY BE the most feared woman in America, this grandmotherly 55-year-old with the light accent who was born in England, raised in India and had herself sterilized at 22 because she believes it more ethical to adopt an existing child than create a new one.
[–]Tmdean 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago
What a monster!!
[–]distertastin 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Really? It lost me at point number 2, and it's obvious bias was clear throughout the rest of the moronic 'info' graphic. They simply re-frame issues and actions of PETA to make them seem villainous.
[–]spiralpattern 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago*
Came here to say this. I understand why someone would make a point about a PETA-related person using fur in their clothing line or wearing leather, because that directly relates to and opposes the stated mission of PETA. But her choice to have a hysterectomy has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.
Besides which, I'm guessing that the reason they included this was to try and say, "Look! Every little thing she believes, she takes to the absolute and most permanent extreme!" But how can you call the celebrities listed above hypocrites for not embodying every single principle of the organization, then turn around and call the woman who runs it a zealot for holding strong beliefs? I have a problem with PETA and how they run things. I have a problem with that woman killing animals, and I have a problem with how they fund their shit. But I also have a giant problem with the manner in which this information is presented to me.
[–]nutritiousbananas 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
Semi-irrelevant but I wanted to point out that usually when women are sterilized, a tubal ligation (where they sever or cauterize the fallopian tubes, which connect the ovary and the uterus) is performed rather than a hysterectomy (where they remove the ovaries and uterus). A hysto usually results in fucked hormones and early menopause, so they're generally performed only when medically necessary, rather than for a voluntary purposes such as sterilization.
Not trying to be a dick, just sharing information! <3 Totally agreed otherwise -- her personal choice has zip to do with PETA and its practices.
[–]spiralpattern 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
Haha no worries! That's really interesting; I had no idea.
[–]IonBeam2 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
Came in here to say this. Why is this even a bad thing?
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago
I hate PETA, but that reminded me that I'm on the same side as people who think women are born to be breeders. That's the worst thing about politics: the people it makes you agree with.
[–]simpiligno 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago
What you just said makes no sense.
I can agree with someone on one issue without taking on their entire value set.
[–]KaiserNiko 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
To some people, yes. Surely you've heard of "YOU voted for so-and-so? So you think that ______?!?!"
[–]FuckLamps 19 points20 points21 points 1 year ago
Technically, women are born to be breeders. How can you even dispute reproduction?
[–]saracuda 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
'Probably meant to say "[...] people who think women are only born to be breeders." which you could argue is technically true for every living species on the planet, but I wouldn't get into arguing semantics over this...
[–]nermid 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I believe in microreproduction, but so-called macroreproduction has never been observed, and it completely false.
/s
[–]N_J_M 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago*
herp, technically men AND women are 'born' to be 'breeders'. altogether though, we should not say "born to be" because it sounds like that is our purpose, which it might be to you, but it isn't for me considering there are more important things than "breeding". lets try to keep the sexism minimum BRO
[–]foulflaneur 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Women are not born to be anything. Your premise that people are born to be something is false. But what he meant is that certain people might think women are born to be JUST breeders and therefore have less of a role in society.
[–]jooes 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
That whole thing there is probably one of the most sane things I've ever heard... But not the way it's written. She said that she was sterilized because if she ever did decide to have kids, she would just adopt because there are millions of kids out there who need homes.
It's basically the same thing as adopting a dog or something, really.
[–]BendOver4Rover 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
But think about it. There are plenty of kids who already exist and need a home. Is it not selfish to propagate under these conditions? What are you sacrificing when you adopt instead of choosing to create another child? The ability to say your kid inherited your eyes or your quirks? Is that not narcissistic?
[–]Crawlerado[] 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
I read it as a light at the end of the tunnel knowing she'll never procreate her bat-shit-nutty-ness.
[–]Muffinviking 59 points60 points61 points 1 year ago
Hmm...Impounded 2,366, 2,301 killed and 8 adopted. That means 57 escaped? XD
[–]YUGAY_AGAIN 17 points18 points19 points 1 year ago
or became the sellout workers killing the others... o is this the holocaust thread?
[–]clgoh 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
Maybe they died before getting killed.
[–]schplat 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Or are alive, but not adopted out, rather sitting in cages/kennels somewhere.
[–]davideo71 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Some of those turned out to be stuffed animals to begin with.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Hi my name is Sisyphus.
[–]MsMedic 146 points147 points148 points 1 year ago
This is a Repost
I'll also repost what I said about this the first time I saw it.
This infographic is like a bad political attack add. Especially twords the end about her being sterilized. That's nobodies buisness really, and it's not some huge frightening negative. What does that have to do with peta? "Oh she's sterile she doesn't know HOW TO LOVE" Come now. I believe there's more than enough starving, abused, parentless, and poverty stricken children in this world. Theres nothing wrong with deciding to not create more of them.
I don't like peta, but this info graphic isn't much better.
[–]spiralgalaxy 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
gaaaaaaah - nobody's.
[–]servohahn 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
Also "add." Which we all know is short for addvertisement.
[–]Alyeska2112 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
"Twords"?
"I'll take Twords for $300, Trebek. Just like I took your mother lastnight."
"That's "T words", and no you didn't."
[–]arrowheadt 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Haha and he even pasted it from before with a chance to correct such blatant errors.
[–]jonmlm 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
If only I had the time to make an infographic about the Center for Consumer Freedom.
[–]sandarpants 48 points49 points50 points 1 year ago
I wonder how many of the animals deemed "unadoptable" were on the verge of death. Or had rabies. Or so mistreated that they feared all humans and were a threat to everyone. Sometimes it's cruel to keep an animal alive and miserable than put it down and give it some peace.
[–]tcsac 16 points17 points18 points 1 year ago
Nearly 0. I'm in dog rescue, PETA is well known to put down perfectly healthy animals because they believe a pet is a "slave" and that it's better for an animal to be dead than be a "slave". The lady running the show is a nutjob. For instance:
This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.
[–]sandarpants 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
If that were true, and if it really were a well known fact, I don't think people would give their unwanted animals to PeTA shelters. There are probably some instances where radicals working at the shelters would put animals down, but I don't believe that it's a widespread practice. Even if the lady who runs PeTA is a nutjob, the people that work in the shelters are probably perfectly sane, animal loving people who wouldn't put a healthy animal down just because of their boss' corrupt as fuck morals.
[–]jomo1 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
PETA is well known to put down perfectly healthy animals because they believe a pet is a "slave" and that it's better for an animal to be dead than be a "slave".
Sounds like received wisdom to me, and also seems hard to believe considering that the biased infographic originally posted only shows PETA putting <3000 to sleep annually.
In other words, citation please.
[–]SheeEttin 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
Where the hell is she getting this picture from? My cats have a litterbox, they can go any time they want. We take the dog for walks fairly regularly, sure, so I guess that's restrictive... But if she indicates she needs to go out, we take her out.
Seriously, not all pet owners are abusers. All the animals in my house are happy.
[–]weezer3989 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
[puts on PETA hat, turns off sanity] But you raised them in this captive environment to love their captors, it's on;y just too free them from this tyrannical world that you've taught them to enjoy[/removes PETA hat, sanity restored]
[–]spittycat 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
When I come home from work, I look my cat in the eye. And I DEMAND her love. She rubs up against my leg in an obvious display of fear and submission. But after an eternity of days passes, she gives up any hope of escape. Finally one day she snuggles under the covers with me and starts kneading my soft belly. Purrrrr. And at that moment I know her spirit has finally broken.
[–]arcticfox 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Nearly 0. I'm in dog rescue, PETA is well known to put down perfectly healthy animals because they believe a pet is a "slave" and that it's better for an animal to be dead than be a "slave".
I've been in cat rescue since the 90s, and all I can say is you are completely 100% wrong.
[–]pajam 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
This I don't get. Animals that live in homes live so much longer and are healthier than those in the wild. They have companionship and are safe. Do I have my pet rabbit in a cage? No. Do I feed him delicious organic vegetables and hay? Yes. Does he socialize with us and interact with us? Yes. Do we treat his illnesses and wounds? Yes. Does he only get to eat and drink when I say so? Not really since we constantly have hay and water available. Does he only go to the bathroom when I say? No; he has a litter box and always hops in his cage when he needs to take a piss, etc.
What about this is slavery to the animal? That he can't run around out in a predator filled world where he would be in constant fear and paranoia and get much worse weather, food and shelter? In my home he gets constant healthy food, attention, love, and companionship in a social setting, free roam of the whole home (not stuck in a cage), good temperatures and shelter from the elements. I do feel bad he doesn't get to fuck some female bunnies. That's the only negative side to him living in my home.
[–]arcticfox 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I wonder how many of the animals deemed "unadoptable" were on the verge of death.
Virtually all of them. What the infographic conveniently leaves out is that PETA will take animals that no-kill organizations will not accept. No-kill organizations won't accept them because the animals are so bad off that they will have to be euthanized, and that violates their stated policies.
[–]skintigh 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
All of them. This has been posted before, and only counts several abused and mutilated animals that regular, non-PETA owned, no-kill facilities refused to take.
[–]EatMoreFiber 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
Exactly. PETA exhausts every option to place animals in shelters; only the worst of the worst end up in PETA's direct care, and unfortunately many of them do end up being destroyed.
[–]problematic4tw 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
So 97% of these animals that end up in their care are on the verge of death, had rabies, or were a threat to everyone?
Local shelters have a pretty astounding success rate in comparison. Wonder why that is?
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 1 year ago
Because PETA does not operate a shelter. They operate a euthanasia service for shelters. So the shocking part is that 3% of the animals they take in are ones sent for euthanasia, and PETA discovers they do not in fact need to be euthanised and finds them homes or transfers them to a rescue organization.
Perfectly said. Took me a couple thousand words spread over 4 or 5 comments and I still wasn't getting the point across very well. Thank you.
[–]EatMoreFiber 13 points14 points15 points 1 year ago
I don't know the exact number, but yes - as I understand it (not affiliated with nor a member of), PETA only directly "adopts" animals that they absolutely cannot place into a traditional shelter. Could be a healthy animal with a temper, or one with a communicable disease, whatever - they only take the worst of the worst themselves, so understandably there would be a higher "fail" rate.
[–]PersonOfInternets 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Oh my god. I say that to everyone who seems crabby. I feel connected to you. (((((eatmorefiber)))))
[–]Leshow 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
peta exhausts every option only saves 8 out of over 2300 exhausts every option.. mfw
peta exhausts every option
only saves 8 out of over 2300
exhausts every option..
mfw
[–]EatMoreFiber 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
The salvage yard by my house took in 2300 cars last year - but they were the ones that didn't run and were rejected by all the mechanics and dealerships in town. Ten or so were actually able to be restored and were sold, but most were scraped. OMFG 97% of the cars at the scrap yard were crushed into a cube! Get the pitchforks!
The salvage yard by my house took in 2300 cars last year - but they were the ones that didn't run and were rejected by all the mechanics and dealerships in town. Ten or so were actually able to be restored and were sold, but most were scraped.
OMFG 97% of the cars at the scrap yard were crushed into a cube! Get the pitchforks!
Does that analogy help?
[–]itsonlyinternet 107 points108 points109 points 1 year ago*
I find it interesting that you can put pretty much any information on one of these info graphics, and people will bandwagon on, without even considering what the info says. This poster is full of information that is widely publicized by PETA themselves. BFD. They're not ashamed of any of this. Yeah, they support "whale boat attackers," guess what? Those "attackers" have been effective in reducing whaling. Yeah their spokespeople are somewhat hypocritical, they're celebrities. Who should they choose, some granola-eater that nobody has heard of? Yes, they've protested those organizations, and rightly so in many cases, they perform testing on, or mistreat animals. Being opposed to giving birth is an intelligent and personal response to a world that is vastly overpopulated. So what? I'm not a PETA supporter, but this poster is shit. I love how one of their sources is their own website. (edit - grammar)
[–]RoniRoo 66 points67 points68 points 1 year ago
Furthermore, her personal opinions on giving birth and the choices she has made regarding her own body don't really belong in an info-graphic about PETA's actions and policies.
[–]AustinYQM 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
Yeah, I would of pointed out that she routinely attacks pharmacies for animal testing but is herself on insulin a medicine we never would of discovered if not for animal testing.
[–]Rolmeister 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
From what I understand it's the VP, not actually Newkirk.
[–]Kuskesmed 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
would of discovered
FTFY: would have discovered
[–]roadbuzz 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago
Furthermore, the poster has some misinformation.
I've wondered why Peta should protest World of Warcraft. After a 30 second google search, I found out that they weren't protesting WoW, but rather in WoW against real life seal slaughter in Canada. And that in a very ingenious way.
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 1 year ago
Thank fuck this is the top comment, very biased and "sensationalist" poster itself.
I don't support PETA either, but I do support ethically killing "putting down" animals that would otherwise not be able to live a healthy, happy life that is abuse free. I am not against pet ownership as this is a great way to let animals live that type of life.
[–]Arxl 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
We all hate PETA here but their "Putting Down" is full of shit. They have put down cats for cracked paws(which are treatable) and other completely avoidable/treatable causes.
[–]jomo1 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
We all hate PETA here
I dont hate them at all.
I dont think that most other redditors would hate them either, if they took the time to find out what they actually do, instead of just believing every bit of negative propaganda they heard somewhere.
I guess it's easier though to just pretend they are secretly trying to kidnap everyone's pets and send them off to live in the forest or some other such nonsense.
[–]Doormatty 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Do you have any citations for that? I'm honestly curious.
[–]yrogerg123 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I'm still waiting on a legit source for whether the information in the graphic is actually true. It reads like an attack ad.
[–]IIoWoII 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Why would I care more about a whale than a cow? Why don't they just go after endangered fish fishers in the Northsea or something...
[–]itsonlyinternet 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Why would I care more about a whale than a cow?
For starters, read thisAnd yes, overfishing is an issue that needs to be addressed as well.
[–]Bandoman 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
I don't give a shit about any of that - it's the fact that PETA kills the vast majority of animals they "save" that gets to me.
[–]jonmlm 39 points40 points41 points 1 year ago
They're not a shelter, they take in animals that no shelter will take and make a really hard decision to put those animals down. No one at PETA is happy about killing these animals. If there's evidence showing otherwise I'd love to see it.
This is CCF propaganda to take the heat off of McDonalds, KFC and their other clients. If they weren't fucking with multi-billion dollar corporations no one would care.
[–]Bandoman 13 points14 points15 points 1 year ago
OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess it's better to put an animal down humanely rather than allow it to continue to suffer.
[–]Teabagius 16 points17 points18 points 1 year ago*
This. This shit right here is why PETA has to put down so many animals. Because assholes let this shit happen to their animals. How can people turn a blind eye to the cruelty that others, their neighbors, are allowing and causing to animals and then shake their finger at PETA. PETA should be commended for ending these poor, abused animals suffering, not condemned.
Edit: Link NSFL
[–]chickadeedoo 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
that makes me want to go hold my rescued pup until i fall asleep. i gagged at those images.....fuck i hate people
[–]Teabagius 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
Please do that. And tell everyone how important it is that they are aware that this type of thing goes on. Call you representatives and tell them that you want stricter criminal penalties for people that abuse and neglect animals.
[–]tBanzai 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
How about a NSFL tag?
[–]project_twenty5oh1 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
This is SFL. You should see this. You need to see this. You should know, so you can tell others. This is different than "little girl dies in car wreck," this is more often than not "look what your fellow man is willing to allow to happen/make happen to defenseless animals."
[–]fotorobot 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
or they take in animals from shelters that are known to put animals down in a way that PETA considers inhumane.
[–]cause4concern 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
Umm.. 99%? Really? 99% of the animals they take in are un-adoptable? Doubtful. I work in a shelter that often gets rejects from other shelters. Maybe 10% of those are "un-adoptable." I'll give them the benefit of the doubt by saying they might take in more "un-adoptable" animals than we do, but 99%? Not a chance.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago*
Yes, they are a shelter. A shelter with no room for animals, but a shelter nevertheless. PETA operates one of the main state-registered shelters in Norfolk, Virginia, where these numbers originate. Other Virginia shelters outside of SE Virginia do not have kill rates nearly as high as PETA's, which one would expect if PETA's Norfolk operate really did act as a "gravity well" for the sickest strays in the region. In other states with no PETA shelter there are not kill rates as high as PETA's, disproving the idea that people across SE Virginia and Northeast NC are taking very sick strays to PETA to kill. The fact is PETA's state-registered shelter is designed to eliminate animals, not place them in homes. But it's still performs the shelter-like role of processing spare/stray animals and is registered as a shelter.
thank you for pointing this out. people instinctively hate peta, without knowing anything about the organisation.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
It's all the cognitive dissonance that PETA stirs up. Then again, PETA doesn't make it difficult to hate them by sometimes going over the top in their zeal.
[–]itsonlyinternet 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
Shelters kill more than 4 million animals per year, PETA's numbers are significantly lower. But nobody demonizes shelters for doing what is (unfortunately) necessary.
[–]waiv 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
Shelters usually don't have kill rates of 95%.
[–]Lovvi 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
What really gets me is that 1% of the budget is being used to help animals (I don't really know if it's true or not).
[–]Teabagius 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Their budget goes towards education. The more people that you educate on the suffering of animals, the less animals you have to rescue. Have you every heard the saying "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."?
There are thousands of rescues and shelter all over the country that save animals. This is not what PETA does. Like has already been said above, PETA takes the animals that no other shelters will and they have to put most of them down because they are so ravaged by disease, damaged or otherwise sick that they have to be put down.
[–]s73v3r 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Their budget goes towards education.
It really should go toward helping animals, though. It's like the Susan G. Komen foundation. Everyone gives to them thinking they're helping cure breast cancer, when in reality all they are is an "awareness" organization that does almost nothing to help with breast cancer research.
I understand your point, but their are other organizations that do that. Awareness is an important way of fighting problems. One of the most effective tools in fighting AIDS in Africa has proven to be billboards that simply state. "Wearing a condom during sexual contact can prevent the spread of AIDS."
[–]Nixhatter 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
There are tons of websites about how to properly treat your animal well. PETA.org is NOT one of them. They spend too much money on awareness, and not enough on actually making a difference. 1 TV ad, could usually feed a dog for a year, or maybe it's vaccinations! Use more of the money towards the animals, and see how many more get adopted.
[–]fluffybunnies -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
Yeah, they support "whale boat attackers," guess what? Those "attackers" have been effective in reducing whaling.
"As of 2009, Paul Watson has said that the organization has sunk ten whaling ships while also destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment" Sea Shepard
well i guess executing people for smoking pot sounds harsh, but guess what? this "solution" has been effective in reducing pot-smokers.
[–]itsonlyinternet 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
That's one slippery-ass slope you got here.
[–]lennka 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
slippery ass-slope
Couldn't resist :P
[–]thefuckisback 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
infograph! everything must absolutely be true!
[–]PhilxBefore 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Infographics are only good when the sources it cites are genuine.
[–]leafkin 25 points26 points27 points 1 year ago
No doubt PETA has gone bat shit. But I think you can make the argument that the humane euthanization of animals who's quality of life would be severely crippled by keeping them alive could be considered ethical treatment.
There are so many solid arguments against PETA, but this one just seems to fall flat a bit.
[–]MutaschioedGentleman 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
Would it be ethical to kill humans in the same manner?
[–]thenuge26 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
Lots of people have DNR orders.
Pretty similar.
[–]gid13 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
If they can communicate, leave the choice to them. If they can't communicate, then yes, I think so. At least, if I was suffering and couldn't make the choice to die, I would much rather people killed me. Hell, I'm afraid enough of the prospect of living in silent suffering that I'd be a-ok with people killing me when I can't communicate JUST IN CASE I might be suffering.
[–]SicSemperHumanus 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Would you extend the same rights to the suicidal?
[–]SheeEttin 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Yes. I would also provide them mental health counseling.
[–]gid13 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Absolutely. If you can't choose to end your life, whose life is it?
[–]dalittle 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
it would be ethical to allow them to have the choice to live or not, but people are able to make decisions like that compared to animals.
[–]mr_shush 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Agreed. I don't like PETA and believe they care more for self-aggrandizement than they do for helping animals in need, but this poster has such questionable sources that it only serves to make them look more sympathetic.
[–]the_the_ 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
I heard that PETA kills so many animals because they're basically sent all of the animals that other shelters would put to sleep anyways. I don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds plausible.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Before we jump to conclusions lets check our facts....after I read this thread I emailed PETA directly and this is the response I got...
Dear Vanessa,
Thank you for contacting PETA about this infographic. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
The information that you received was originally produced by groups that represent big-business animal exploiters and passed on by those who have an axe to grind with PETA for one reason or another. These companies are worried about the strides that PETA has made in exposing cruelty to animals, educating caring consumers, and compelling companies to take animal welfare seriously. Since they can’t argue with us about the facts of their cruelty, they contribute vast amounts of money to fund misleading ads and campaigns in a sad attempt to discredit PETA. To learn more about one such group, please see the following websites:
· http://www.ConsumerDeception.com · http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/irs-complaint-against-center-for-consumer-freedom-tax-exempt · http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=8984 · http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18berman.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1310490040-rGzoElznpxXMPZtmzw6L2g
For our response to the claims about PETA, please see the following:
Regarding points 2 through 5, PETA does not run a traditional adoption facility (we refer most adoptable to well-known shelters), but we have managed to place hundreds of animals in loving, lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept—such as those who are injured, elderly, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable—we are a “shelter of last resort,” offering a peaceful death, free of charge, to those who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.
Although some of the animals we take in are lost companion animals or adoptable strays, many of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option. PETA receives calls every week from people who do not have the inclination or money to provide their animals with adequate veterinary care. Many of these people request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain during transport or surgery. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad. Many of the animals we take in are brought to us because they have been rejected by other facilities.
Regarding point 10 on the list, before founding PETA in 1980, Ingrid E. Newkirk worked in animal shelters, where she witnessed workers as they abused animals and used extremely cruel killing methods. Rather than turning a blind eye and allowing these animals to suffer at the hands of others, she chose to come to work early and take the animals into a quiet area one by one in order to euthanize them properly, holding them gently while they slipped away—giving them, perhaps, the first loving touch and kind words that they had ever received. Newkirk has shared this memory in interviews as one of the things that inspired her to advocate for an end to gas and decompression chambers—which she dismantled in the main Washington, D.C., pound—and other traumatic and painful methods of killing used in some animal shelters and pounds.
Regarding point 6, PETA does put a good deal of time, money, and work into our efforts to directly rescue and protect homeless, neglected, and abused animals. PETA works to end the need to euthanize homeless animals by educating the public and operating three mobile spay-and-neuter clinics, which provide free and low-cost surgeries. Since starting our first mobile clinic in 2001, we have sterilized more than 70,000 animals, including 10,500 in 2010 alone. In addition to our mobile clinics, PETA staff members in our home region of southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina deliver free food, doghouses, and bedding to chained dogs who would otherwise go without any of these necessities.
Because we cannot go directly to all of the factory farms, laboratories, puppy mills, and circus boxcars where billions of animals face appalling conditions, we have to use our funds to fight for them in other ways. PETA’s unique ad campaigns reach people who might otherwise never think about animal rights. Our shocking undercover investigations reveal the truth about animal-abusing industries in the U.S. and around the world and force those industries to adopt reforms that lead to less animal suffering. Our free vegetarian/vegan starter kits teach people how to make simple lifestyle changes that can save 100 animals every year. PETA works in many ways because animals suffer in many ways.
Everything we do is public and open to scrutiny. Like all businesses, our charity must spend money on office space, computers, transportation, etc., but we strive to use our funds in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible—a commitment illustrated by the fact that, in our most recently reported fiscal year (2010), almost 85 percent of our operating expenses went directly to our programs fighting animal exploitation. That is a terrific percentage—and one of the highest of all animal protection organizations.
Regarding point 8, PETA, the largest animal rights organization in the world, is an activist organization that works to educate the public about the horrors of animal suffering through entirely peaceful means; unlike our opponents, we do not commit acts of violence against anyone—human or nonhuman. We are not affiliated with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or any other liberationist underground groups that take direct action by liberating animals and so on. To read more about the origins of the ALF in the U.S., we recommend PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk’s book Free the Animals.
The case involving Rodney Coronado dates back to the early 1990s. Coronado, a Native American member of the Yaqui nation, had already been helping Native Americans and animals for many years by the time he was charged with burning down an empty Michigan State University laboratory, where animals were often taken and infected with painful diseases. American criminal law is based on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty, and we felt that Mr. Coronado deserved to be defended and continue being a productive member of society. Naturally, we alerted our members to our efforts to help him. As recent DNA tests have indisputably shown, people can be accused—and even convicted—of crimes that they did not commit. We hate to see decent people targeted in witch hunts, and we are dedicated to speaking out for those who speak out for animals.
Regarding point 9, we often work with celebrities on issues that they feel comfortable supporting, whether it’s promoting spaying and neutering or speaking out against products that are tested on animals. These celebrities might not be totally vegan in every aspect, but their contribution to any of our campaigns is valued, and we commend them for taking a step in the right direction. For example, Jenna Jameson is a vegetarian and promotes pleather, and Charlize Theron and Eva Mendes refuse to wear real fur. Other stars are committed to helping animals however they can. For example, when Pamela Anderson auctioned off her old car, acquired before she rejected leather, she donated the proceeds to PETA. Alicia Silverstone wasn’t a vegetarian when we first started working with her. Now, she’s a strict vegan and talks about her vegan diet and animal rights in just about every interview that she does. Making the transition to a cruelty-free lifestyle is a gradual process, and we’re happy to work with celebrities on even the most introductory levels. We hope, as you do, that they’ll eventually make the transition to an even more animal-friendly lifestyle.
We won’t let underhanded tactics stop us from helping all animals, and we hope you won’t be deterred, either. We encourage you to visit http://www.PETA.org/about/default.aspx to learn more about PETA. There you will find our mission statement, annual review, financial reports, and history, as well as information about the many lifesaving victories we have won for animals with the support of our members.
We hope that this information addresses your concerns. Thanks again for writing and for giving us this opportunity to address these issues.
Sincerely,
The PETA Staff http://www.PETA.org
[–]DemonstrativePronoun 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Anyone else read that as "Penta Kill Animals"?
[–]electricdynamite 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
too much LoL lately...
[–]fuzzynyanko 2 points3 points4 points 12 months ago
I was in a grocery store, and meats were on sale. Right after I chucked some meat into the shopping cart, I saw someone with a PETA shirt. I was like "oh crap." It was a sigh of relief that it was the "People Eat Tasty Animals" one
[–]bearskinz 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
this the most limp dick argument i've ever read.
[–]jomo1 19 points20 points21 points 1 year ago
This is a bunch of straw men fallacies.
PETA doesnt want all animals to "live free". Most members of PETA have pets, they are not trying to "free" your pets.
The "kill rate" is nonsense also. PETA doesnt have unlimited resources available to feed and house every stray dog and cat on the planet. PETA shelters generally only take animals that other shelters will not accept, because of disease, aggressiveness, etc. Since they dont have unlimited funds to house sick or aggressive animals forever, they put them to sleep. PETA actually opposes the 'no kill' animal welfare groups, as they obviously understand that spending all their money keeping a few sick animals alive to live out their final days/months in pain doesnt promote general animal welfare at all.
They don't have "longstanding ties to terrorist organizations". I do find it interesting that this argument is so common on reddit, where people are often quick to condemn the US government for labeling groups they oppose as "terrorists", however.
As to some of their spokespeople being "hypocritical", that is nonsense. PETA runs many various ad campaigns to bring attention to the issues they support. Some of the spokespeople are vegans or vegetarians, and sometimes they are not. Regardless though, the fact that some of those spokespeople use leather doesnt make them hypocritical, since not everyone associated with PETA claims to be a strict vegan. ( I do agree that Kimora Lee is an idiot though, and I do not agree with PETA supporting her)
To summarize, this is just another ridiculous attack on a group that is trying to do what they can to improve the lives of animals. The giant multinational corporations that own most factory farms certainly appreciate your support.
[–]brningpyre 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
Check PETA's platform and you'll see that they are very much against pet ownership. The PETA members with pets who still donate to PETA are simply mistaken/stupid.
[–]johnbentley 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Checking PETA's platform we find they are against an industrial practice and other attitudes, so they allege, behind the concept of a "pet".
They are not opposed to humans looking after animals in a domestic setting:
We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes .... What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.
[–]jomo1 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
citation please
[–]Damasticator 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Their stance
"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
-Ingrid Newkirk, The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
They sidestep the question by saying that they are completely against pet ownership, but they realize that it's a reality.
[–]imasunbear 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal."
http://i.imgur.com/Q5MY1.jpg
[–]dotpkmdot 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
What pops into mind when someone refers to animal companions... link
[–]ForTheBacon 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Right here: http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx They want to end the "ownership" of animals by spaying, neutering, and letting it phase out.
[–]JohnnySLC 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago*
Peta on Pets
"This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering"
But also,
"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and 'set them free.'"
Like Bob Barker, they are for the spaying and neutering of pets. Also against caged birds, chained dogs, and other practices common to pet ownership. Link
Edit: Learned to use proper formatting for quotes.
[–]laureena 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
PETA on pets.
It seems like they are more against the institutions of pet ownership (i.e. puppy mills), not against having pets themselves.
[–]mr_shush 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
While I don't know much about PETA's ties to ELF, there is little doubt that ELF is a domestic terrorist organization. Their own website takes credit for an arson on Michigan State University's campus in 1999 (http://www.earthliberationfront.org/elffaqs.html) where, ironically, their actions also destroyed another researcher's work into computer models to replace animal testing.
[–]PersonOfInternets 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Top comment in my book.
[–]Synthetic_Shepherd 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago*
People have already addressed most of the issues brought up here pretty well, but I thought I would consolidate everyone's responses and look at every single issue blow by blow.
Issue 1: PETA uses sensationalism to get attention - First of all, this graphic uses EXTREME sensationalism to get attention. I'm not going to say that PETA doesn't use ads that could be considered "sensationalist" to a degree, but I've never seen any that were misleading (like some of the info in this graphic). For example This is the first ad that pops up when I google image search "offensive PETA ad". Is it a little extreme? Maybe. But it really should be a parents responsibility to not let their child become morbidly obese, and a vegan diet would likely result in some weight loss.
Issue 2: PETA kills several thousand animals a year - This link (posted originally by Teabagius) basically explains why PETA euthanizes animals, and why this is the most humane thing to do in most situations.
Issue 3: PETA spends more money on public awareness (ads) then on actually helping animals - You cannot fix a problem simply by treating its symptoms. There are plenty of organizations that take in abandoned animals. PETA is the only organization I can think of that is dedicated to educating the public on these issues. This is directly from PETA's "about PETA" page on their website. "PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns." As you can see, only one of their goals (animal rescue), involves directly helping individual animals, but all of these things could arguably help more animals in the long run. (Not saying they definitely will, but PETA clearly believes so and that is what they're trying to do)
Issue 4: PETA has given money to people and groups that engage in direct and destructive practices – In my opinion this is the only viable complaint on the list, and it is also seems to be true. If you’ve ever watched Whale Wars, you’ll know that the “whale boat attackers” is likely the group Sea Shepherd, and PETA has also given money to the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, who engage in similar (and sometimes more extreme) direct actions. Whether you support direct action like this or not is up to you, but it is important to note that humans are never the target of their attacks. Here is a link to the ALF Wikipedia page that explains their reasons for using direct action.
Issue 5: PETA has protested a number of people and organizations, including NASA, P. Diddy, and Sea World – That is because these people/organizations were abusing animals. Obviously an organization for the ethical treatment of animals is going to oppose organizations that do not treat animals ethically.
Issue 6: PETA spokespeople are often hypocritical – Jomo1 sums this up quite well, saying “PETA runs many various ad campaigns to bring attention to the issues they support. Some of the spokespeople are vegans or vegetarians, and sometimes they are not. Regardless though, the fact that some of those spokespeople use leather doesnt make them hypocritical, since not everyone associated with PETA claims to be a strict vegan.”
And finally… Issue 7: PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk was sterilized at 22 and opposes giving birth – Personally, I would say with the human population exponentially increasing towards the limit of Earth’s carrying capacity that this is a noble sacrifice to make.
Edit: Updated Issue 4
[–]electric23sand 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago
hypocritical or making tough choices?
[–]Teabagius 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago
Tough choices. http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/03/30/why-we-euthanize.aspx
[–]fnfal 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
My view on PETA before reading this : Eh
My view on PETA after reading this: WHA-.... Eh
[–]gonz0 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
How do we feel about the ASPCA?
I think it's interesting that a majority of popular opinion on Reddit isn't supportive to Peta. Peta should be preaching to the choir with the demographic and interests of the Reddit userbase. Yet, Peta is so far off the deep end that reasonable, sympathetic and thoughtful people are against much of what they do. It really is a shame they are so extreme that much of the population looks at them as more of cult than an organization to stop the abuse of animals.
[–]sammichmaker 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Eh, everyone is a bit hypocritical. PETA has just always been one of those groups I can't tolerate when it comes to their hypocrisy. I've been a part of so many animal shelters that were harassed by these people, and then seeing in a news headline that they were caught dumping dead dogs in dumpsters in neighboring areas just made me sick.
[–]SolidBooty 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I never knew the actual statistics of PETA, but I've had personal experiences (not directly) with PETA.
My Stepgrandmother was raised on a farm, and her dog had puppies (naturally). My Stepgrandmother is an amazing caretaker and raised those puppies, and occasionally would sell them to loving owners. PETA heard about this and that she was making money. They hired an author of the Toronto star (Canadian Newspaper) to slander her "business" by saying the conditions in her house were not up to par, but they were, this and that, basically the whole 9 yards. Her house was vandalised by animal lovers who read the paper, she was taken to court for god knows how long (5 years, maybe more?). My father, married to my stepmother stepped in and took this to an a.m. radio station in Canada I think, I can't remember what it is but it's one of the biggest talk shows and through the live broadcast while I listened I heard other people sharing similar stories. Corrupt company. Evil, evil people.
Sorry if there's any gaps, this happened maybe when I was 14? I'm 21 almost 22 now, so my memory isn't perfectly clear but I remember all the stress and grief my family went through because of it. And feel so bad for anyone else who went through it.
[–]Matster2010 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I thought this title said "Peter Kills Animals" and I was really hoping this was a post about Ender's Game.
wahhhh
[–]lsrst 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Guys, you don't need to support any organisation. Just eat less meat. Everybody wins. :))))
[–]eboyd92 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
PETA has a decent cause, but the way they go about everything just annoys me to no end.
[–]Shnazzyone 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
PETA can fuck right off. We already have an organization that does what they do sensibly and effectively, it's called the ASPCA. Their legitimate and have done 1000 times the good peta has ever done.
[–]cybermiester 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
two thoughts:
why protest World of Warcraft? do pixels feel pain?
the founder of PETA sterilised herself? that's one thing she did that I agree with anyways...
[–]amosh 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
1) PETA and it's supporters can hardly be called rational people. Their entire organization is based on pure emotion and misinformation.
2) The founder is a tool and a joke, she takes medicines that were only made possible through animal testing. When she was confronted with this, she said something similar to, "I can take these because my work is so valuable I can do more good alive".
[–]TankSpank 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Am I the only person who saw this and googled WTF Peta had to protest with WoW?
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/04/06/help-battle-seal-slaughterers-in-world-of-warcraft.aspx
I dont...get it...
[–]Sirtet 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
P.E.T.A..
People.
Even.
Taste.
Awesome.
[–]br549xt93 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
I have a strong dislike for PETA. They are a cult.
[–]sparkysarah 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
What does her reproductive choice have to do with PETA? Throwing her personal decision in the graphic nullified all the good points.
[–]imkaneforever 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
How many PETA members does it take to change a lightbulb? None, PETA can't change anything.
[–]El_Tormentito 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
Frontpage this, guys. This organization doesn't have any brains behind it.
[–]radical_chic 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
I recommend the documentary Your Mommy Kills Animals. It looks at the differences between the animal rights and animal welfare movements.
[–]cheestaysfly 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
Thank god that bitch can't breed!
[–]scoooot 1 point2 points3 points 12 months ago
Veterinarians put down sick pets. No one claims they're hypocrites for supposedly caring for animals and also killing them.
Animal shelters kill unadoptable pets. Cash-strapped animal shelters do so unhumanely. Peta provides a free service to these shelters, putting them down humanely.
Peta is not an animal shelter. They are an advocacy organization, which is the real motive behind this. Some people do not agree with Peta's ideology, which is fine. Bullshit is not fine.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
Two very common myths here. First, that PETA is, or operates, an animal shelter. This is not the case. PETA takes in animals specifically for euthanasia, either on behalf of shelters that still perform euthanasia using inhumane methods in order to euthenise them humanely, or on behalf of rescue organizations that have obtained animals that need to be euthanised due to terminal disease. The latter animals mainly come from puppy mill busts, where many litters of puppies infected with parvo have to be put down.
Second, is that PETA has ties to terrorist organizations. The FBI spent 6 years investing PETA. They found no ties to any terrorist organizations or activities. Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine commission an 8000 page report on the FBIs investigations into PETA and other groups (greenpeace, quakers, the Thomas Merton Center). Their conclusion was that there was no basis for the investigations, and that FBI agents made false or misleading statements to congress and the public in order to justify their investigations which had been undertaken entirely due to dislike of the groups political views.
http://abcnews.go.com/News/Blotter/fbi-spied-peta-greenpeace-anti-war-activists/story?id=11682844&page=1 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/20/internal-report-raps-fbis-probes-advocacy-groups/ http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/4667-feds-slammed-for-spying-on-anti-war-groups-lying http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1009r.pdf
[–]PaperboyShawn 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
The best part was that the founder sterilized herself at age 22. Having her NOT reproduce is a very good thing.
[–]literroy 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago
Useless and irrelevant ad hominem attack FTW
[–]ilagitamus 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Also Mary Beth Sweetland, a vice president of PETA, is a diabetic. And requires insulin, which was developed through testing on dogs, to stay alive, while PETA protests the use of animals for medical testing....
Anyone on the fence or who likes Penn and Teller, watch these: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMbLu_HEA3o Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dz1wMFsao&feature=related Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drbpxgulRfo&feature=related
[–]PersonOfInternets 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Is her policy to stop animal testing, or develop a memory-erasing drug that will make us forget anything we have learned from animal testing in the past?
[–]coyoterunner 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
If her policy had been implemented in the past she'd be dead, and if her policy is implemented now people who have diseases that could be cured in the future will die. Advocating for a stop in animal testing is advocating for the death of humans with both preventable and unprevantable diseases. She is a hypocrite.
[–]MonsterAddict 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
PETA didn't kill the animals. The shelters did. PETA helped these animals. These animals were homeless. No reliable source of food or water. No shelter when it's cold and rainy. These animals PETA helped impound had a warm place to sleep and eat for the final days of their lives.
Thanks for posting. I donated ten bucks to PETA when I was 20. They have flooded my mailbox with propaganda ever since, sometimes 2 or 3 letters/flyers per day. All I can think is that I donated ten bucks and they have literally spent thousands on postage and used up soooo many trees over the last 11 years to send me junk mail. The organization is a propagandist joke.
[–]gullale 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I see your arguments, but all I can think is: 2,366 - 2,301 - 8 != 0. WTF happened to the other 57?
Plus 8 out of 2,301 is .3%. There's all kinds of math fail here.
[–]JenniferLopez 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago*
Let's all agree though, that they are not KILLING animals- they are euthanizing them. Just like you wouldn't say the Humane Society "kills" animals, you say they euthanize them.
-Bottom line, they are euthanizing the animals, not beating them to death with a bruised penis.
[–]p4lm3r 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Have never craved a hamburger as much in my life... with bacon.
[–]kfury 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
PETA isn't a pet shelter, guys. They only take possession of an animal if they're too far gone to be taken in by a shelter.
I really dislike PETA, their tactics, their messaging (Don't eat fish because they're "sea kittens"?!) but this 'infographic' is just as bad, misrepresenting data in order to elicit a response.
[–]ForTheBacon 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this. I was aware this was happening but always good to have more evidence to show people.
[–]Gnu32 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I don't like PETA, but isn't killing animals a good thing? 5 per day? If that's true, these guys are heroes. They're ending suffering for loads of animals. Isn't that what 'ethical treatment' should entail?
Downvoted.
I also oppose her giving birth.
[–]AxelsBishop 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Are they against WoW because of all the virtual rabbits I've killed?
[–]fattony1349 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
If anyone here does not watch "Penn & Teller's Bullshit," I strongly recommend that show. Every episode focuses on a particular organization or idea that they deem to be "bullshit," and they present a quality argument supporting their opinion. Their episode on PETA is one of my all time favorites.
Penn & Teller
[–]commodoreperry 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
That show sucks. BS libertarian propaganda marketed as truth and aimed at every intellectually lazy hipster who wants to be critical of the world without putting any actual work into developing their own critical thinking skills.
Not saying you're one of those people, fattony, just making an unfair generalization about the audience of a show I despise. I have plenty of friends who think it's lovely, though.
I dunno. There's a lot that's libertarian propaganda, but there's also a lot that is pretty common sense. Like when they've gone after Astrology, Homeopathy, and the whole Anti-Vaccination craze.
[–]TripperDay 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I'm sure the PeTA episode was awesome because there's so much great evidence that PeTA is bunch of idiots, but like everyone else, they have biases. The way they bitched about global warming was pretty sad. I'm not a climatologist or mathematician, but I'm familiar with some of the concepts used and watching Penn Gillette deny global warming was like watching a creationist deny evolution.
[–]jomo1 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
there's so much great evidence that PeTA is bunch of idiots
I hear this a lot, yet no one ever seems to be able to provide a citation, other than bogus infographics like the OP linked to...
but like everyone else, they have biases.
At least P&T will readily acknowledge their biases. Hell, usually within the first 2 minutes of the show, they've come out saying that X is bullshit, which kinda tells you which side they're on.
Still, they do try to give their guests enough rope to hang themselves, though.
[–]tcox72 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I will say this - Animal rights is a rich man's burden. The money given to PETA could be used to feed poor children or building schools in third world countries and not being spent trying to make chickens have more fulfilled lives or cows have their feelings considered. I have no sympathy what they are trying to accomplish is not right or wrong, it simply is.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]juggler9000 280 points281 points282 points ago
[–][deleted] ago*
[–]distertastin 18 points19 points20 points ago
[–]waaaghbosss 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]dnalloheoj 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]cause4concern 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]waaaghbosss 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]discobanditt 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]crabs_q 28 points29 points30 points ago
[–]juggler9000 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]arisaka_bayonet 476 points477 points478 points ago
[–]problematic4tw 179 points180 points181 points ago
[–]ligerzero942 22 points23 points24 points ago*
[–]Soapy9 45 points46 points47 points ago
[–]Weequay2 22 points23 points24 points ago*
[–]Verzingetorix 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]SteveStSteve 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]DoWhile 18 points19 points20 points ago
[–]raouldukeesq 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]secretcurse 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]sprankton 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]fatmanwithalittleboy 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]IonBeam2 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]pimpernel666 75 points76 points77 points ago
[–]curien 51 points52 points53 points ago
[–]pimpernel666 27 points28 points29 points ago
[–]jellyfilledjosh 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]Quipster99 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]MeloJelo[
] 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]jkruisb2 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]JEveryman 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]Anticlimax1471 35 points36 points37 points ago
[–]newtotheinterpoops 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Tmdean 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]distertastin 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]spiralpattern 7 points8 points9 points ago*
[–]nutritiousbananas 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]spiralpattern 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]IonBeam2 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]simpiligno 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]KaiserNiko 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]FuckLamps 19 points20 points21 points ago
[–]saracuda 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]nermid 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]N_J_M 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]foulflaneur 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]jooes 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]BendOver4Rover 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Crawlerado[
] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Muffinviking 59 points60 points61 points ago
[–]YUGAY_AGAIN 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]clgoh 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]schplat 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]davideo71 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]MsMedic 146 points147 points148 points ago
[–]spiralgalaxy 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]servohahn 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Alyeska2112 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]arrowheadt 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jonmlm 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]sandarpants 48 points49 points50 points ago
[–]tcsac 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]sandarpants 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]jomo1 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]SheeEttin 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]weezer3989 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]spittycat 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]arcticfox 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]pajam 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]arcticfox 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]skintigh 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]EatMoreFiber 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]problematic4tw 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points ago
[–]EatMoreFiber 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]EatMoreFiber 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]PersonOfInternets 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Leshow 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]EatMoreFiber 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]itsonlyinternet 107 points108 points109 points ago*
[–]RoniRoo 66 points67 points68 points ago
[–]AustinYQM 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]Rolmeister 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–][deleted] ago*
[–]Kuskesmed 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]roadbuzz 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points ago
[–]Arxl 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]jomo1 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Doormatty 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]yrogerg123 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]IIoWoII 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]itsonlyinternet 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Bandoman 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]jonmlm 39 points40 points41 points ago
[–]Bandoman 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]Teabagius 16 points17 points18 points ago*
[–]chickadeedoo 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Teabagius 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]tBanzai 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]project_twenty5oh1 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]fotorobot 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]cause4concern 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]itsonlyinternet 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]waiv 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Lovvi 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Teabagius 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]s73v3r 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Teabagius 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Nixhatter 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]fluffybunnies -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]itsonlyinternet 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]lennka 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]thefuckisback 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]PhilxBefore 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]leafkin 25 points26 points27 points ago
[–]MutaschioedGentleman 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]thenuge26 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]gid13 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]SicSemperHumanus 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SheeEttin 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]gid13 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]dalittle 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]mr_shush 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]the_the_ 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]DemonstrativePronoun 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]electricdynamite 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]fuzzynyanko 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]bearskinz 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]jomo1 19 points20 points21 points ago
[–]brningpyre 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]johnbentley 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jomo1 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Damasticator 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]imasunbear 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]dotpkmdot 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ForTheBacon 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]JohnnySLC 3 points4 points5 points ago*
[–]laureena 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]mr_shush 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]PersonOfInternets 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Synthetic_Shepherd 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]electric23sand 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Teabagius 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]fnfal 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]gonz0 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]sammichmaker 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SolidBooty 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Matster2010 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lsrst 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]eboyd92 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Shnazzyone 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]cybermiester 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]amosh 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TankSpank 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Sirtet 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]br549xt93 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]sparkysarah 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]imkaneforever 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]El_Tormentito 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]radical_chic 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]cheestaysfly 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]scoooot 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]PaperboyShawn 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]literroy 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]ilagitamus 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]PersonOfInternets 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]coyoterunner 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]MonsterAddict 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]gullale 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]JenniferLopez 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]p4lm3r 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]kfury 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ForTheBacon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Gnu32 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]AxelsBishop 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]fattony1349 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]commodoreperry 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]s73v3r 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TripperDay 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jomo1 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]s73v3r 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]tcox72 0 points1 point2 points ago