I’m saying that they don’t bring in enough money to truly be a no kill org. Essentially they are saying one thing and not doing it themselves.
As far as the org, it’s my belief that it started out with people who genuinely cared for animal welfare and wanted to do something about it. Over time the psychos edged out the good folk and now we get idiots breaking into university primate labs and releasing monkeys on the street.
Euthanasia as in animals, no matter the quality of life, adoptability, and years left, are put down by the thousands because they’re inconvenient to keep alive and get adopted while PETA preaches that killing animals is wrong. Also, did you read the bit about them kidnapping animals from kids and old people?
Plus they’re cowards without the courage of their convictions. When I was growing up their protests included throwing red paint on people in fur but they wouldn’t do it to someone in biker leathers. One got them shunned and laughed at, the other would get them killed like the animals they stole.
TL;DR their whole schtick is to either destroy others’ property or steal loved members of families who have fur while killing many more animals than they save.
The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You’re trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
TL;DR: Domesticated animals deserve death. More specifically, because they letting them live is “inhumane” because they won’t thrive without human influence—which they’re strictly against.
If you had not plugged your metaphorical ears and doubled down on an ad hominem, you would have seen that some of those receipts are self-reported filings from PETA themselves to the government.
I would link the definition of “ad hominem” for you, but let’s be real: you’re not going to read that either.
It’s an ad hominem to assert that I hold an unethical belief and then use said assertion to bolster your point.
I said PETA are psychopaths for needlessly killing animals, yet you assume that I’m not equally against killing animals for personal pleasure and consumerism.
My friend, did you not see that they are employing “The Socratic Method”? Whoever calls Socratic method first wins, those are the rules, just like calling “shotgun” to claim the front car seat.
I’ve recently learned the /s sarcasm tag is a reddit thing. What’s the term for this though and is it allowed on Lemmy? “BrO, I aM uSiNg ThE sOcRaTic MeThOd. AnSwEr My QuEsTiOn, bRo.” It is a lot more tedious to type.
Edit: in all seriousness, this thread sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole about the misuse of the socratic method. I landed on the page linked below from the University of Chicago on how they employ a modern version of the method, it articulated some of the issues I have with “AnSwEr mY QueSTiOn, bRO” bros. Key passages:
The Socratic Method is not used at UChicago to intimidate, nor to “break down” new law students, but instead for the very reason Socrates developed it: to develop critical thinking skills in students and enable them to approach the law as intellectuals.
And emphasis is mine;
The day of the relentless Socratic professor who ended every sentence with a question mark is over. University of Chicago professors who rely on the Socratic Method today use participatory learning and discussions with a few students on whom they call (in some classrooms, randomly) to explore very difficult legal concepts and principles. The effort is a cooperative one in which the teacher and students work to understand an issue more completely.
This is older news. The company is competing with PETA in most animals killed.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-faces-federal-probe-employee-backlash-over-animal-tests-2022-12-05/
What’s the story on PETA killing animals?
High ideals but no means. They become hoarders and run out of money. Also it’s an org that long ago stopped being healthy.
They are out of money?
How did they stop bring healthy, in your opinion?
I’m saying that they don’t bring in enough money to truly be a no kill org. Essentially they are saying one thing and not doing it themselves.
As far as the org, it’s my belief that it started out with people who genuinely cared for animal welfare and wanted to do something about it. Over time the psychos edged out the good folk and now we get idiots breaking into university primate labs and releasing monkeys on the street.
Are they still doing that? I haven’t heard about anything recently.
My understanding is they have been following the laws while other more extreme groups are now doing the extreme work.
My understanding could very well be wrong though.
Frankly I’ve not paid attention over recent years so we may both be wrong here.
They have shelters that euthanized a high number of animals. They have also stolen animals from owners including homeless people and children.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
Euthanasia as in mercy killing?
Your beef with PETA is that they euthanize sick animals when shelters can’t afford to?
Euthanasia as in animals, no matter the quality of life, adoptability, and years left, are put down by the thousands because they’re inconvenient to keep alive and get adopted while PETA preaches that killing animals is wrong. Also, did you read the bit about them kidnapping animals from kids and old people?
Plus they’re cowards without the courage of their convictions. When I was growing up their protests included throwing red paint on people in fur but they wouldn’t do it to someone in biker leathers. One got them shunned and laughed at, the other would get them killed like the animals they stole.
TL;DR their whole schtick is to either destroy others’ property or steal loved members of families who have fur while killing many more animals than they save.
How many family pets have they kidnapped in total?
How many are you comfortable with?
I am just asking the total number that you are aware of?
Is it just 1? Is it 5? Is it 8 million?
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for just asking an honest question 🤷♂️
Consider that any number more than “zero” pets kidnapped and killed by a private entity is too many.
So is the number 1 time, 5 times? What is the situation?
It’s not mercy killing when the animals weren’t suffering and weren’t voluntarily given up. It’s murder for the sake of their agenda.
So PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
>you think euthanizing sick animals is bad?
>PETA euthanizes healthy animals as well
>you think PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
There isn’t a single thing I can say to convince someone who isn’t arguing in good faith.
Am I arguing or using the Socratic method?
Have you always felt the Socratic method is bad faith, or just when you already have a strong opinion?
The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You’re trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
So, in fact, you’re doing neither.
Aww shit, we got one of those master debaters.
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
You are arguing in bad faith
Asking for clarification is bad faith?
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
12 year old article, here’s newsweeks factcheck from a few years ago.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-thousands-animals-1565532
https://petakillsanimals.com/
TL;DR: Domesticated animals deserve death. More specifically, because they letting them live is “inhumane” because they won’t thrive without human influence—which they’re strictly against.
IMO: These people are fucking psychopaths.
Have you stopped eating cows, chickens and pigs? If not, you, like PETA, believes they deserve death.
But do you have a non biased source not funded by the meat industry?
The website has receipts. Feel free to actually read them.
So… No, you don’t.
And like PETA, you also believe certain animals are deserving of death.
I don’t know, man, I think you might be a future member.
If you had not plugged your metaphorical ears and doubled down on an ad hominem, you would have seen that some of those receipts are self-reported filings from PETA themselves to the government.
I would link the definition of “ad hominem” for you, but let’s be real: you’re not going to read that either.
It is an ad hominem to point out that like PETA, you are responsible for the death of animals?
It’s an ad hominem to assert that I hold an unethical belief and then use said assertion to bolster your point.
I said PETA are psychopaths for needlessly killing animals, yet you assume that I’m not equally against killing animals for personal pleasure and consumerism.
My friend, did you not see that they are employing “The Socratic Method”? Whoever calls Socratic method first wins, those are the rules, just like calling “shotgun” to claim the front car seat.
I’ve recently learned the /s sarcasm tag is a reddit thing. What’s the term for this though and is it allowed on Lemmy? “BrO, I aM uSiNg ThE sOcRaTic MeThOd. AnSwEr My QuEsTiOn, bRo.” It is a lot more tedious to type.
Edit: in all seriousness, this thread sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole about the misuse of the socratic method. I landed on the page linked below from the University of Chicago on how they employ a modern version of the method, it articulated some of the issues I have with “AnSwEr mY QueSTiOn, bRO” bros. Key passages:
And emphasis is mine;
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/socratic-method
Great job falling for animal industry propaganda
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PETA_Kills_Animals