Peta Kills

1272310532217.jpg (370 KB)

  • Leave A Comment

    Leave a comment ?

    29 Responses to Peta Kills

    1. PETA is so incompetent that it would be funny if they were so dangerous. A few years ago they burned down a building here at the University of Washington, but they got the wrong building and ended up destroying a bunch of research on poplar trees.

      Reply

    2. Not to mention, PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland depends on insulin, which was tested on animals.

      Reply

    3. PETA: Making vegetarians look like crazy nutjobs since 1980 (the date is not quite right, in the beginning they actually went after some awful stuff, but quickly devolved into OMGWTFNUTS)

      Reply

    4. lol… There is a lot of irrelevant and flawed premises in this poster. However no less than what Peta spreads in their ridiculous political campaign material. So I guess it’s all good.

      Moving on…

      Reply

      • What’s flawed? I know next to nothing about PeTA.

        Reply

        • Predominantly the idea that because they put down animals, they aren’t so purist as they claim. Those animal shelters that “refuse” to kill un-adopted animals don’t have the balls to admit that they are hypocrits. The fact is, a lot more pet-species animals are born every year than there exist homes that decide they want to adopt a pet during said year. supply exceeds demand, and thus some of the animals are not going to be adopted, and thus must be cared for indefinitely or be put down. The “no kill” clinics just push that burden onto the clinics which can acknowledge reality and make the hard choices.

          Reply

          • Dagnabbit! You just said, in one paragraph what took me 6 and a half… I seriously need to learn sum brevity…

            Reply

          • The Humane Societies don’t have a no kill rule, yet they manage to adopt out much more than 3% of their intake (and keep tabs on those that are adopted). Plus most of the Humane Societies in the US will spay/neuter at a reduced price if you can’t afford it.

            Reply

        • Well let’s take Ingrid Newkirks choice to get sterilized. What bearing does this have on anything? I can think of many good reasons to take that position, and hers were quite valid. She did not feel it would be ethical to give birth to a child when there were so many that need adoption. Fair enough. In this poster, this position is being used ad hominem, to imply she is a horrible woman who cares nothing for animals.

          And then we have the premise that all PETA members believe that no animal use is ethical. I find it extremely hard to believe that every single PETA member would be that myopic. I’m sure there are lots of people who share Ingrids view in that respect, but there are probably a lot of PETA members who also believe that eating a cheeseburger, or wearing fur or leather, is not unethical if the livestock was treated humanely.

          However let a PETA member wear anything from an animal, and suddenly they are hypocrites. This is another Ad Hominem attack based on a flawed presumption.

          Last, and certainly not least, is the whole euthanizing of animals thing. How many people actually adopt abused/stray animals? Of the purported 2300+ animals PETA impounded, do you think soo many would have been killed if they were actually adoptable? People only want the brightest, happiest, cutest, cleanest animals. Few want the abused, emaciated cat, or the pitbull with battle scars.

          In these instances, euthanasia is the most humane route, since keeping animals in a pound is, in fact, borderline inhumane, in and of itself. Not to mention expensive. And compounding the problem is that people just do not spay/neuter their animals, so there is an abundance of new pups, kittens, etc. being born. Few will adopt a possibly damaged pet from a pound when they can get a perfectly good pup from the family down the street.

          So while the percentage of euthanized animals is very high, it is pet owners themselves that are the primary cause. That and PETA is wasting millions on fanatics, and the animal rights equivalent of “abstinence campaigns” when, for the the vast majority of their target audience, they should be giving out condoms and free blood tests instead.

          The poster ostensibly spouts facts, but uses a very subtle appeal to emotion, as opposed to actually addressing the reality of those facts, to get people to side with their anti-PETA agenda.

          The unfortunate other side of the coin however, is that I’ve found a lot of PETA members to be completely irrational pro-animal fanatics. I could write paragraphs more about the illogical nature of some of their positions, but I’ll not bore you with all that…

          Reply

          • Ok on your first two points. But, I think you’d be surprised how many people adopt from the Humane Society precisely because they’ve been abused and/or neglected. Every animal (except one)I have adopted has come from the Humane Society or ASPCA. Any animal they get in, they evaluate it medically, emotionally and psychiatric-ally (or whatever they call it for animals). If it is determined to be too far gone, aggressive or in any way un-adoptable, they euthanize. For the rest they will give them the medical care they need (including spay/neuter), any training needed, try to bring them back emotionally. Animal lovers are suckers for the underdog, literally.

            Reply

            • I think you are in the minority Nyokki. Unfortunately I’ve known a lot of people who are animal lovers because they are kawaii, not because they are the underdog. They are like vegetarians who can’t eat meat because they can’t get the picture of Bambi out of their heads. But they’ll eat fish, not problem. Unless they’ve seen Nemo. Then they go completely vegan. :/

              I’ll grant you that PETA could probably pour more cash into evaluation and rehab. Or even free spaying and neutering. But have you looked at the statistics? The vast majority of pet owners do not adopt pets. They get them for free, or close to it. Because more are being born every minute.

              Only 10% of every animal that ever enters a shelter has been neutered. And that’s just counting those that enter the shelters. We have no real idea how many strays are out there, reproducing. There is almost no incentive for someone to risk getting a pound pup.

              In total, only 10 to 20 percent of the populace get their pets from shelters. And out of them, 20% of folks who leave animals at a shelter got them from a shelter to begin with. Which means that 20% of the animals that get adopted end up back at the shelter. The numbers are all whacked.

              I almost can’t blame PETA for their ridiculous euthanization statistics.

              Reply

            • Ok, fine, but I don’t have to like it.

              Reply

            • “I think you are in the minority Nyokki”

              …and I think you’d be very surprised if you checked up on your assumptions…

              Reply

            • My argument is based on statistics, not assumptions. Do the research. Petas numbers may be horrifying, but the overall statistics tell the whole story. Go to any animal control, humane society or ASPCA website and look at the numbers yourself. The numbers speak for themselves.

              I realize I can be overly clinical about emotional topics, and for that I apologize. However the sad truth is that it seems that many people appear more concerned about the negative emotions they will feel from the thought of killing of so many poor defenseless animals, than the actual well being, or preventing the suffering of these animals.

              Reply

            • You do not have to apologize for being rational in an argument, regardless of subject matter.

              Reply

            • Thanks, I’ll try to remember that… 😀

              Reply

    5. I think Reboot and the creator of the infographic must have both seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode about PETA. That is my favorite episode. Everyone go watch it NOW!

      Reply

    6. One thing, though: the creator of this totally unzips his/her fly with that bit @ the end about Newkirk’s “sterilization”…wtf does that have to do with animals? Are you trying to paint her as some anti-life zombie? At least she’s not getting abortions.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment



    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas