P.E.T.A.

PETA consists out of *******. They are actually spending more money to close Seaworld down, than Seaworld is spending to save marine mammals.
 
I refuse to click on the link (or any link sponsored by them) for the simple reason that increased clicks increases their ranking in search engines.
 
bongorob said:
I just found this.

13 Times Zoos Were Bad for Animals | Features | PETA

I noticed that comments are closed, they must be scared of someone posting the truth.
Click to expand...

I love how they COMPLETELY screwed up the San Diego Zoo story. They managed to "conveniently" neglect mentioning the fact that those elephants were going to die. Also, how can any sort of "animal rights" organization have a 97% euthanization rate? Surely there are more than 3% of the animals they take in that are adoptable.
 
Arizona Docent said:
I refuse to click on the link (or any link sponsored by them) for the simple reason that increased clicks increases their ranking in search engines.
Click to expand...

same here!

btw, have zoo-haters ever mentioned a solution for the then free zoo animals, if all of a sudden everyone in the world says "YES, we don't want zoos anymore. Free all animals NOW!" ???
 
dunstbunny said:
same here!

btw, have zoo-haters ever mentioned a solution for the then free zoo animals, if all of a sudden everyone in the world says "YES, we don't want zoos anymore. Free all animals NOW!" ???
Click to expand...

Yes, they have. Kind of. I've prompted several ones to do just that. The standard answer, originally used in regard to the California Condor, is: "Let them die out in peace". That usually includes putting them into yet to-be-built "sanctuaries" (financed by ???-most likely the zoos), prohibiting any reproduction and waiting for them to die a natural death. And if the latter might take too long, like in the case of larger parrots or tortoises, there's still the option "sudden death due to husbandry issues" or PETA's euthanasia "treatment" (without giving @Elephas Maximus the chance to claim the remains). The zoo grounds are supposed to be turned into parks or meeting places-or just to fall apart and decay, allowing "natural" wildlife to claim them.
 
Peta

It is time to show via media exactly what CULLING looks like!
Millennials would be engaged with mission if real data is given.
We are loosing the argument with PETA because zoos and other entities do not frame the situation honestly and openly.
Kill the referenced elephants in Swaziland or import them to certain zoos?
I never see this argument made.
 
I'm convinced that PETA is secretly run by people who really, really hate animals. They want to discredit anyone who cares about animals, so they create this insane organization so terms like "animal rights" and "animal welfare" will be associated with crazies and won't be taken seriously no matter what. IT'S THE TRUTH. KNOW IT.

In all seriousness, if PETA actually gave a crap they'd spend more of their money on animal sanctuaries and rescue and the like. But even if they had all the money in the world I doubt they'd build sanctuaries because in their logic, animals are better off dead than being cared for by humans, even if they have the best of care and living conditions. Oy. Pets are bad in their eyes, the dog a perversion of nature, but haven't they ever heard of a mutualistic relationship? They have pretty screwy views on animal freedom and rights, not much logic to it.
 
Zoos are rarely on their radar now, zoos have no cash. Dolphinariums, maybe.

If you wonder what PETA wants, ask them to support something which helps animals but costs money and is not glamorous. PETA attacks a dolphinarium? Perfect, just tell them that the dolphinarium supports a program to keep wild porpoises from entangling in nets, would they pay for boat patrols? PETA attacks a fish restaurant? Perfect, tell them that the restaurant also supports homeless cats in the neighborhood, would they pay for health checks of these cats?
 
The whole bases of the P**a argument is NO animal should be kept by any human unless the animal seeks it first. Not for food leisure or work. And still the press ask for quotes from them and take them seriously.:rolleyes:
 
Ya know what, if PETA actually cared about animals, they wouldnt spend their time making flash games about a bloddy, skinned tanuki attacking mario, wearing a bloddy tanuki skin, because Mario touching a leaf with a tail that gives him a magical tanuki suit that allows him to fly is TOTALLY endorsing the skinning of tanukis, totally. And That, my fellow ZooChatters, is the logic of PETA
 
AverageWalrus said:
Ya know what, if PETA actually cared about animals, they wouldnt spend their time making flash games about a bloddy, skinned tanuki attacking mario, wearing a bloddy tanuki skin, because Mario touching a leaf with a tail that gives him a magical tanuki suit that allows him to fly is TOTALLY endorsing the skinning of tanukis, totally. And That, my fellow ZooChatters, is the logic of PETA
Click to expand...

... Yeah, they've always been pretty nuts, but I don't even get that one. Just acting crazy for attention, perhaps, but I still maintain that it's all a conspiracy. They get so much attention and support, and they have all of these celebrity ads and endorsements, so I doubt they're hurting for cash. I bet they could do a lot of good if they wanted to, but they just focus on shock value tactics. Picking the latest hot topic, dolphins. Lots of argument on whether dolphins should be kept in captivity, but no dolphin sanctuary currently exists. (whereas sanctuaries exist for just about every other animal kept in captivity) This year we've heard talk of a dolphin sanctuary potentially being created, but it's not PETA talking about it, it's an aquarium.
 
dean said:
The whole bases of the P**a argument is NO animal should be kept by any human unless the animal seeks it first. Not for food leisure or work. And still the press ask for quotes from them and take them seriously.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Personally I've been wondering about PETA's opinion on an animal seeking out human interaction. Since the animal is truly choosing it, is it okay to interact with this animal, or is it still wrong because we should know better or something? Maybe this is just the hippie side of my brain talking, but I generally don't view humans as separate from nature. We're as much a product of it as anything else, just as subject to the rules, even if we like to think we've conquered that. One of my issues with PETA is that they do exactly that. They don't do it in the same way as mainstream western society, but they still do it. In their view, animals should have freedom and the ability to make their own choices, yet we can't allow the animal to be with us even if it chooses to for whatever reason. But if we're on equal grounds with the other animals, why CAN'T we interact with them, in safe, ethical manners? It again falls victim to the whole "humans are superior" thing, even if it comes to a different conclusion. (mainstream society says we are superior, so we must rule and fight nature; PETA says we are superior, so we have a responsibility to avoid nature) If an animal chooses to live alongside us, maybe even work with us to the point where it becomes dependent on us, is it really much different than a clownfish becoming dependent on the anemone for protection? I dunno, my thoughts are a little scattered but I hope you get what I'm saying.

On a side note, someone should tell PETA that scientists believe that cats and dogs basically domesticated themselves. Yeah, you really think some caveman took a bunch of wolf pups and said "We're going to selectively breed these things for decades, centuries, until we get an animal suited to live and work with us!"?
 
hmmm, so it comes down to all endangered animals are meant by nature as a phase-out model, like the dinosaurs, and humans should quietly let them phase out?
What a nonsense!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top