[quote name='mykevermin']That's like saying all anti-abortion activists are just like al qaeda because you can define ties to those who bomb clinics and murder physicians. Even if we agreed politically (and we don't), I'd still tell you your political hyperbole needs a great deal of refinement. I'd expect this sort of over-the-top-just-for-entertainment WWE-style claim from Ann Coulter, who has to shock in order to sell a book. But not a genuine human being trying to make a point, and not a dollar..[/QUOTE]
OK, I'll bring it home. PETA is an "activist group" like Fred Phelps and his cul--er, "church" is.
So you're saying PETA does not have close ties to ALF, and ALF does not use 'terrorist' like tactics?
"In the past, PETA has handled the press for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)...The FBI considers ALF among America's most active and prolific terrorist groups, but PETA compares it to the Underground Railroad and the French Resistance. More than 20 years after its inception, PETA continues to hire convicted ALF militants and funds their legal defense. In at least one case, court records show that Ingrid Newkirk herself was involved in an ALF arson."
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21
That's a little different from one or two psychos who happen to have a membership in ProLife America throwing a bomb.
Or are you saying that PETA is exactly like the Atlanta Humane Society, or the ASPCA, Pawfect Match, or NSAL, organizations that shelter/foster animals, care for them, try to find them homes while education people about the importance of spaying/neutering (and while, you know, *not* throwing bombs or burning labs or equating chicken farms to Nazi concentration camps)?
Some prolife activists are fanatics and bombers. If an official prolife organization supported the bombers and their actions, yes, I would call them terroristic as well and I would avoid them and denounce their tactics. I'm against abortion, but I'm also against bombing clinics. I can't think of any legitimate prolife group who supports bombing clinics or murdering abortion doctors, and if I was aware of one, I would not support it.
My point is PETA, for the most part, are fanatics. If their fanaticism is only in belief and statement ("Cockroaches are equal to little boys"), that would be one thing, I'd shake my head at their wacky views and move on. When that fanaticism supports actions like killing many more animals than they save, or supporting/defending domestic terrorist groups, yes, I speak out against them.
PETA is their own hyperbole.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Regretfully, not every animal can be "saved," and not every animal should be saved. I like the premise of no-kill shelters immensely, but realistically, it can't and shouldn't be done in all cases. Bob Barker has the right idea for starters.[/QUOTE]
And someone trying to make a valid point should not resort to the "all or nothing" dichotomy argument.
Of course all animals cannot or should not be saved. I didn't even say that. I said putting them down is a last resort for most legitimate animal care/rights organizations. I'm not suggesting saving rabid dogs or pit bulls who have been trained for nothing but attacking and have a history of attacking innocent people, for instance. (However, even in many of those cases the animal can be trained away from some of that behavior, and if all else fails, the animal could be used for animal test of some sort or in very specific environments). However, PETA takes the opposite view, and kills far too many animals without giving them a chance and working with them or trying to find them a good home. Add to that the official platform of "no animal usage/animals are superior", combined with the hypocrisy of killing thousands while using animal-sourced products, and you get an organization to be avoided, not supported.
Regardless of where one stands on meat-eating/vegetarianism, I think most people would agree that animal torture (and that definition could be argued) is wrong, and it's sad that thousands or millions of unwanted animals are put to death each year, while recognizing that animals provide a quality addition to the lives of man, as pets/companions, assist animals, guard animals, work animals, etc. If one agrees with those statements, there are lots of organizations to support that are not as hypocritical/elitist/fanatical as PETA, and that actually have a net benefit to the animal population rather than a negative impact.
ing spay their pets.
:lol:
