PETA: People Executing Terrified Animals

peta_killers_APeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals kills animals. Tens of thousands of them. By their own admissions.

PETA is not an animal rights organization, nor are they an animal protection organization. PETA is an anti-animal suffering organization.

Ingrid Newkirk, who runs the operation, believes that eliminating the possibility of animal suffering is more important than the rights of animals to live.

To that end, PETA opposes TNR (trap-neuter-release of feral cats), opposes no-kill shelters, kills thousands of dogs and cats in their own facilities, favors BSL (breed-specific legislation aimed at banning breeds such as pit bulls, and passing legislation to exterminate them).

Many take exception to my criticism of PETA, pointing to the good work PETA has done, and is doing, in fighting against fur, factory farms, sealing, bullfighting, etc.

My response is simple. PETA murders animals and there are many organizations doing good work which do not murder animals.

PETA rakes in millions of dollars each year, and spends NONE of it trying to find homes for the dogs and cats that come into their facilities.

Instead, they kill them.

I have no use for PETA and consider them an enemy of animal rights.

I admonish my comrades not to give a dime to PETA!

 

 

Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty.

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “PETA: People Executing Terrified Animals

  1. Geoff makes a good point about the free pass which Roland gives to his fellow liberal Democrats who describe themselves as “socialists.” I haven’t seen an article on this blog “Bernie Sanders promotes animal killing.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Anyone who is not vegan promotes the killing of animals, Bernie Sanders included. However, Sanders is an enemy of our capitalist system, which is the primary engine of animal exploitation and murder.

      We take our allies as we find them. Sanders is not my ideal candidate, but he is preferable to the field by several orders of magnitude. Until a revolutionary socialist vegan atheist becomes a viable candidate, Sanders will have to do.

      Like

  2. You are fifth column vegans because you talk like vivisectors and other deranged morons. Sorry but you do.
    This is the Francione-Winograd-Berman-Vivisector view which you agree with:

    PETA is committed to killing healthy animals.
    Why? Because they hate animals and are only interested in making money. All their campaigns are designed to make money. Typical vivisector nonsense.
    I dont care whether you use euthanasia or mercy killing-but the idea that PETA murders healthy animals for sport or callousness is vivisector talk.
    Nonsense. Not going to even address it. PETA and every sane person’s definition of misery is being treated in ways you would not want to be treated yourself–i.e. being stuck in a cage for your entire life.
    I said it once I will say it again-what are YOU going to do to get the pet industry and breeders to take responsibility for the problems they created? Nothing. You are going to attack their enemy PETA.
    PETA’s view on breeds is that if dogs such as pitbulls (an unnatural animal species) are bred-they will end up in the hands of dog fighters or end up abused and subjected to the kinds of things that happened to the dog in Arizona where he is now in a cage because a child took his bone as the parents were supervising him. But you dont care about that. You care about PETA like vivisectors. Be glad I am just calling you Fifth Column Vegans. I could call you fucking idiots but no true vegan would talk like you do. It is after all, the dietary preference of Leonardo da Vinci.
    No vegan is that stupid.
    Industry shill activity is what we are having here.
    Why dont you get real jobs.

    Like

  3. Roland Vincent–how exactly would you propose PETA–which spends a great deal of time dealing with things you claim to oppose like hunting, fishing, the meat industry, vivisection, zoos, bullfights etc–how do YOU propose they rehome these animals that are brought to them to be euthanized? Let me…say that slowly..animals..brought..to.them..to be…euthanized. They are not brought to them to be rehomed. They are abused or sick animals and they are brought to PETA because people either assume PETA is meant to deal with this sort of thing OR they would rather take them there than the local shelters in Virginia.
    PETA has said it operates a shelter of last resort.
    I have or had a reptile refuge in my area that had people dumping reptiles on their doorstep even when they were told it was full. If that sort of thing happens in a small town-what do you think happens with PETA’s HQ? You are making PETA the problem. I would call it armchair advocacy except the goal appears to attack the animal advocacy groups while leaving the exploiters alone. You should be cursing out PETCO and every animal breeder in the country for creating the suffering.

    What is your opinion on the non PETA kill shelters in Virginia? The problem you people have besides agreeing with vivisectors and industry agents like Francione and Winograd is that you do not seem to grasp the concept of fairness. This is a red flag to me. A really big one. Do you agree with me and sanity that PETA did not create the homeless animal situation? Ok you must. Then do you also agree with me that currently domesticated animals do not have the right to be protected from harm or torture or starvation in human society–including animals in TNR?

    PETA is not all powerful-and it doesnt have endless amounts of money as Francione and Berman claim. That is part of the strategy to attack animal advocacy–make it seem they are all powerful corporations(like animal exploiters are).

    I would suggest you read up on the history of black slaves in the UK–many former slaves ended up living homeless in London–begging, abused, dying of sickness and starvation. Was that moral? Was that right? They were free-I guess that is all that matters.

    It would be amusing if it wasn’t so disgustingly unfair that some claim to be super shelter saviors who can get 500 animals dumped on their doorstep and find good forever homes for all of them.
    Even Winograd-the darling of Richard Berman, even he couldnt be so heroic. He said he declawed cats in order to find them homes. Was that moral?

    The problem is that you people are following the ol standard abuser line: “exploitation isnt the problem, the activists are the problem.”
    So apparently by your reasoning, PETA is actually the problem-not the pet industry, breeders, abusers.
    You are trying to shift the conversation away from the source of the problem-and make people believe that PETA has bad intentions. You can research actual statements by Ingrid Newkirk and others taken in context-and see that their position is entirely reasonable. It is the position of so-called animal activists who agree with vivisectors who are unreasonable.

    PETA is not the problem-the animal breeders are.
    If you believe PETA is actually devoted to harming animals then you agree with vivisectors and hunters and bullfighters and cockfighters.
    Congratulations-you just revealed yourselves to be Fifth Column Vegans. Nuff said.

    Like

    • PETA and its apologists constantly assert that PETA’s critics are doing the work of the animal exploiters and their henchmen. In fact, were PETA not killing healthy animals, nor advocating for the extermination of whole breeds, there would be nothing for the exploiters to criticize.

      The ridiculous idea that I am some sort of fifth columnist is ludicrous and insulting. I have been an animal advocate for sixty years. My entire life, such as there is left of it, is dedicated to radicalizing the animal movement. In that pursuit I call out those who murder animals. I find it as abhorrent to kill homeless animals as it would be to kill homeless people.

      Like

      • Why don’t you work for the abolition of pet ownership? I have talked with a few shelter workers. They believe the canine and feline were meant to be domesticated and their lives controlled by us (humans). I find this metaphysics pathological.

        Like

      • We are all going to die. it’s just a matter of when and how much suffering before death. Do you disagree with this? Surely you agree it is better for a homeless animal to be euthanized by PETA than to either starve or worse on the street. I’ve been rescuing animals for years and have NEVER found a rescue (5013c) that wasn’t over capacity that could help at all. There simply aren’t enough homes for the millions of homeless animals. Period. Better to be euthanized than tortured or starve.

        Like

      • Would you euthanize homeless people? How about poor children? Sick ones? PeTA doesn’t spend a dime on finding homes. Instead of lobbying to murder pitbulls, they should lobby to increase the number of animals permitted per household, lobby to require landlords to rent to pet owners, lobby to require municipalities to be no-kill, lobby for public funding of veterinary care, lobby to ban online sales of animals, lobby to ban sales of pets.

        Like

  4. This is the first time I have disagreed with this blog. I have been a PETA member since 1987. It was the first big organization that took the unyielding stance that “animals were not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse or any other way.” That not only seemed radical at the time when the focus was on animal welfare rather than animal rights but still seems radical to many people.

    I know PETA has been criticized by some for “killing puppies and kittens.” That is what is most mentioned by PETA haters in comments sections. Most of that criticism is not because of the fate of the puppies and kittens but because people vehemently disgree with PETA’s other positions on eating meat, hunting, and experimentation. Yes, they do “kill” animals, but their method is better termed euthanasia. PETA sees many animal victims and is concerned about their suffering, as am I. The pictures of animals euthanized by PETA, most of whom were refused by shelters in poor neighborhoods, is excruciatingly sad: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/euthanasia/ The animals were too sick/injured to survive and find homes. Ending suffering should be a major goal in animal rights. Unfortunately, many animals that are not sick or injured are euthanized by the millions because irresponsible human beings do not spay or neuter pets and think of animals as expendable and easily replaceable objects in this throw-away society. No one has been able to find enough homes for these innocent victims, something PETA acknowledges.

    I value animal lives and want them to live. But I want them to have good lives. So I believe that providing a painless exit from a harsh world is better than letting an animal suffer just in order to let him/her keep breathing. We often think in terms of cats and dogs when it comes to euthanasia and good lives. But what about farmed animals? What if the question were asked of a new-born female dairy calf? Would she want to spend a life getting forcibly impregnated, having her calves taken away, spending years giving milk for humans, being abused by workers and, finally, when old, sick, or injured, or just worn out being dragged to that terrible truck for a long and arduous journey to death? What would she choose? Would she want such a life? Would ending that life and its suffering be wrong? Many animals know virtually nothing but hard lives, from abandoned pets to animals in entertainment and research, or those forced to work hauling loads. For the latter, PETA, in its Animal Rahat program in India, provides care and sanctuary for working donkeys, horses, and bullocks. They have veterinarians and counselors at festivals where draft animals have brought the people in order to check the animals, administer to them, given advice to owners. Several thousands small tractors have been donated by Peta to free the animals from hard work and early death.

    No-kill shelters. They sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, it does not always work out well for some animals, although it makes people feel better. Some no-kill shelters do, in fact, keep the animals but in deplorable conditions, stacked in cages as long as they are there, a terrible fate for animals judged as undesirable by prospective adopters. Other no-kill shelters will turn away the animals that are most in need of help–the old, the sick, the unattractive. They want to move the animals out so they can take more in. That makes their stats look good. But they are not sanctuaries. Some no-kill shelters demand a fee for animals turned in. If people either cannot pay or will not pay, their animals may end up among the abandoned street strays or taken to “kill” shelters, where they, in fact, may not get adopted and are euthanized.

    TNR. These can be a great service to feral cats if there is some kind of followup, such as that done by Tabby’s Place in New Jersey. They trap, neuter, vaccinate, and also do dental work and other health services the cats require, then follow up with feeding and housing. This assures some kind of continuity of care. Other communities also attempt some variation, at least attempting regular feeding and some kind of shelter. Otherwise, feral cats can still have hard lives and are at the mercy of the weather, traffic, malicious people, and the infirmities of old age, should any arrive there.

    BSP. Banning specific breeds does not seem fair in itself. It does not allow dogs to live and thrive in loving homes. Unfortunately, there are specific breeds that specific people want for purposes that do the dogs no good and often lead to their death. They are the breed used most often in fighting, and equally unfortunately in some parts of the country there may not be the will or the resources to arrest the fighters and confiscate the dogs. For pit bulls, especially, it can be a virtual crap shoot–will they have caring homes or end up with the likes of Michael Vick? The dogs cannot tell us if they would choose to live if they would die fighting. But it is a question worth pondering. Of course, the burden should be on seriously going after the people who fight dogs or abuse the dogs, not outlawing the breed.

    I have experience trying to help unwanted animals. I have taken kittens from supermarket, mega-hardware stores, and K-Mart parking lots that people were giving away–FREE KITTENS! Shelter stats show that animals taken on impulse or given to children to take home would usually end up abandoned again. I would take them to a shelter, pay for their adoption fee, plus paying for spay and neuter fees. However, sometimes I was turned away because the shelter was too full. So I would bring them home and care for them until space was available. But what happened to the others that were turned away? Were they among the ones abandoned here at an abandoned race track or the empty Kaiser plant?

    There is one special story I can relate about a black stray cat, who obviously had not had an easy life by the time I met him. This is a neighborhood with heavy traffic, multiple family dwellings, and a park nearby where such cats are left behind. Some people in the area adopt the cats they can while others chase them away as soon as they show up at their doorstep. I fed the cat and spent as much time with him as I could during the early fall. I checked all shelters for a place for him and offered to pay for adoptions fees and care. No one really wanted him because of his age and color. Winter was approaching, which turned out to be particularly cold and snowy. No neighbors were interested. I talked to several veterinarians. Some did not want to euthanize cats without life-threatening illness or injuries but had no suggestions about how to make sure he would not die of pneumonia or freeze to death or get hit by one of the many speeding vehicles in the area and end up as another small victim by the curbside. One veterinarian believed euthanasia was in his best interests under the conditions of a less than perfect world that makes life so harsh for the unwanted. I named him Shadow, would have loved to keep him, but could not. At that time I was already caring for an elderly and FIV-infected cat whose veterinarian said I could not bring in another animal. So I had to let him go. I still think of him every day and donate in his name, hoping that others may fare better. I have also taken animals who were too sick and injured to survive for euthanasia. Yes, they had a chance to live for a while on their own. But I wonder if what they would say if they were asked. Would they choose to take their chances knowing one day they would lie by the roadside dying of internal injuries and broken bones? Would they take their chances with the kind of people here who set two cats on fire?

    So I will go along with PETA in trying to stop animal cruelty and give life but also recognize that some animal victims of human irresponsibility and abuse may never have a chance. They may live in horrendous circumstances or be too old, too sick, too injured to survive for long. It may be that the kindest act they ever know is help in leaving a cruel world behind.

    I hope that doesn’t make me a heretic and unwelcome on this site that offers so much I agree with.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You are certainly not unwelcome here! We disagree on PETA, but so what? I hardly expect my readers to agree with me on everything. I’m thankful they agree with me most of the time. Amazed that they do, actually!

      My problem with PETA is their killing of healthy animals, usually on intake. They make no attempt to rehome animals that could be rehomed, even though they are a multi-million dollar operation. Ingrid and I disagree on the basic concept of animal rights. I think an animal’s right to life is the most basic of animal rights. She is more concerned with animal suffering, to the point of killing animals who MIGHT be at risk of suffering.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I’ve looked into this pretty thoroughly, Roland, by way of extensive records requests through the FOIA, interviews with PETA, Virginia’s State Veterinarian, and shelter directors in PETA’s area, and familiarizing myself with Virginia Comprehensive Animal Law so that I could speak of these important matters accurately. What I’ve learned is that there’s every indication that PETA’s doing exactly what they say they’re doing, and that’s running a small, specialized facility that operates for the primary purpose of providing humane euthanasia to suffering community animals who require it. Additionally, there’s every indication that PETA is providing veterinary treatment for treatable animals they receive so that they can be offered for adoption.

    Liked by 2 people

      • If PETA’s specialized animal shelter were a catch-all landing place for all manner of unwanted animals, the way traditional animal shelters are, then I could see your issue with their “statistics.” But because their shelter operates for the primary purpose of providing veterinarian-supervised humane euthanasia to community animals who require it, it makes sense that they would attract animals needing that specific service.

        Like

  6. With all due respect, I believe this post to be unfair and off-the-mark. Anyone who has actually been directly involved in animal shelter work knows that there exists an overwhelming number of homeless dogs and cats, far in excess of the number of good homes available to take them in. “No kill” animal shelters work just fine until the “inn is full” and, then, they close their doors and let somebody else deal with the excess. Those animals turned away and left on the streets being likely to experience, as multiple scientific studies amply demonstrate, a life that is brutish, nasty and short. Animal shelter work is all about making hard choices. And while finding good homes for every stray, feral or abandoned animal is the ideal, RESPONSIBLE individuals realize that this is not going to happen now or in the immediate future and take the necessary steps to deal with that reality. Arm-chair animal rights theoreticians need to explain in detail how precisely they would handle this massive number of homeless dogs and cats. I guess we could just leave them out on the streets to roam and scrounge for food as is the case in many Third World countries. Anybody who has ever visited such places can testify to how well that approach works out! Those who choose to actually get involved with this work and get their hands dirty quickly realize that calling for increased spay and neuter funding, more responsible ownership, and other glib suggestions that, apparently, shelter workers have not been sufficiently clever enough to think of themselves, doesn’t do anything for the animals sitting on the porch RIGHT NOW.

    Trap-neuter-release is a difficult subject — perhaps the most ethically difficult one facing the animal rights community. The predatory nature of small domestic carnivores like cats undoubtedly results in the deaths of many wild birds and small mammals. One can argue that this is but a small fraction of the total numbers lost directly attributable to human activities, but it is still a significant number. If PETA has opted to oppose TNR (I wasn’t aware that it has) they have plenty of objective reasons for coming down on that side of the argument. Calling them “murderers” and criticizing them for what they do without offering a reasonable alternative serves only to further divide an already fragmented animal rights community. I think anyone familiar with the current state of the animal rights movement knows that those most loudly condemning PETA in the media for allegedly killing homeless strays are nothing more than PR flaks for animal-using industries trying to undermine those organizations campaigning for animal protective legislation that might inconvenience the industries they pimp for.

    PETA goes a little overboard at times what with its naked-lady-jumping-out-of-the-cake style of public protest, but I’d be far more inclined to follow Ingrid Newkirk to the gates of hell than any one of the fatally-flawed, anthropocentric, don’t-give-a-damn-about-animal-rights socialist revolutionaries that seem to enjoy a free pass at this site.

    And by the way, isn’t this the blog site that in the past has lambasted animal rights advocates for feeding or assisting those domesticated or wild animals whose obligatory-carnivorous diet necessitates the deaths of other domestic animals?

    Liked by 2 people

    • My position on carnivores is that they not be in captivity. TNR is the only rational way of dealing with domestic cats short of murdering them. PETA’s position on TNR and BSL is quite enough to earn my enmity even if they weren’t murdering animals.

      Like

    • “But I’d be far more inclined to follow Ingrid Newkirk to the gates of hell than any one of the fatally-flawed, anthropocentric, don’t-give-a-damn-about-animal-rights socialist revolutionaries that seem to enjoy a free pass at this site.

      Geoff, why don’t you explain this comment for me? Who is enjoying “a free pass at this site”? It seems as if your animal rights advocacy is about your preferred “homeless” animals. I have an answer for all these homeless animals, but you wouldn’t like it, because it would mean putting you out of a job and, perhaps, forcing you to advocate for humans, instead.

      Like

  7. Re-homing animals–specifically, canines and felines–is a matter of saving the lives of two preferred species to the death of the bovine, salmon, elk, deer, pheasant, chicken, pig, tuna, duck, turkey, rabbit, etc.

    I walked by five re-homed felines this morning and scattered on the sidewalk in front of a neighbor’s house were 5 tin cans. It appeared the preferred felines were content because they had just feasted on the dead, pulverized remains of a few other species, compliments of the biased homo sapiens.

    Am I to value the life of the canine or feline over the lives of a host of other condemned species killed for our preferred pets? No one addresses the hypocrisy of this crude arrangement. I don’t lament the death of canines or felines in shelters; I detest the metaphysics of humans who continue to act as if the bovine was fated for the dinner plate and the canine was fated for the guest house or spare bedroom (yes, we build houses with canine rooms now).

    Like

    • Do you, in the interests of not appearing to be a hypocrite, also “not lament” the death of meat-eating humans, including their children? After all, a human who eats meat during their roughly 75 years of life is complicit in the deaths of far more food producing domestic animals than any shelter dog or cat will ever be. Doesn’t logical consistency compel you to be as unsympathetic towards starving children of carnist background as you profess to be about homeless dogs and cats? Just wondering.

      Like

      • Sounds like the chorus (the Furies) has decided that all animals should be killed. All righty then. Let the games begin. Never mind any extraneous circumstances – like humans were complicit in causing the long time and current situation to happen. Why bother with these nasty facts? Too complicated. They just get in the way of pop philosophy and brilliant ideas. Yes – let’s kill off all the cats and dogs because they are unworthy since they eat other animals. And that obviously means, we need to kill off all the BIG bad meat eaters – the lions, tigers and bears and all the other meat eating animals of the world. And then let’s just get rid of all human carnists – children and adults alike. Seems like a good solid Peta philosophy – no compassion (hear that “Jerry?” )- just stark raving crazy madness. Only vegans should live on this planet. Oh oh right – not the true vegans who actually THINK rationally but the vegan cupcakes who’d rather go naked than wear fur and post pictures of their dinner on Facebook next to their selfies proclaiming ” I am vegan” lest they should forget.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Geoff,

        If a cat or dog wants to eat another species, then he ought to do it without our assistance. I am against animal ownership, period. I am against eating animals, period. Now, you seem to be someone who deems pet ownership benevolent. From my perspective, even if a man treated a canine well, it wouldn’t justify owning one, because benevolence is beside the point. I am about educating people about the virtues of veganism and biocentrism. I am about species impartiality and non-interference. Let us understand the canine and feline fit a pet profile we have created for ourselves which is prejudicial to other species. My commitment is foremost to the human species. If there is no human species, then, obviously, there would be no reason for animal advocacy, but what precedes animal advocacy is our proper moral edification in regard to nature–again, the reason why I am committed foremost to our species. What isn’t logical are no-kill shelters, because you and I know no-kill for some means yes-kill for others.

        I get the impression some of you “Armory-of-the-Revolution” disciples believe a paradise of animal harmony awaits us. This is a ridiculous fantasy. The best we can do is leave the other animals of the world alone. The minute you take one in, he becomes a preferred consumer; he becomes a legally protected person; he becomes a target of products. Last week, a nearby community proudly opened another new Pet Resort and Spa: “Where Pampered Pets Play and Stay!”

        Geoff, would you like to know what is on the menu at this new resort for our preferred pets?

        Like

      • Jerry,
        Just to correct some assumptions and misperceptions evident in your posts: I do not work for an animal shelter; I do not “own” any animals although I do help provide shelter, food and necessary medical care for stray cats and injured/orphaned wildlife that show up unannounced at my door; my biggest concern is the murderous impact that humanity is having on the biosphere of our planet, not the welfare of cute pets; and if I were to name my favorite species of animal it would be cattle.

        You sidestepped my question about whether you would choose to save a human family of carnists from death knowing that their continued existence would result in the future deaths of many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of food producing animals to satisfy their hunger. A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed and would tell us exactly where you are coming from. But perhaps you did that in a more roundabout way by stating “My commitment is foremost to the human species.” That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? Hello, speciesism.

        As to the “free pass for socialists”, I stand by my statement. I think Roland’s tone on this blog site is one of better to be a speciesist and a socialist than to be an animal rights advocate and a capitalist or religionist. In Roland’s worldview the latter two ‘isms are the wellsprings of all evil. I respectfully disagree. I accept a committed animal rights advocate as my brother (or sister) regardless of their political, social, economic, or theological orientation. If they are an evangelical, capitalist, racist, Republican, fascist, plutocrat but nevertheless laboring sincerely on behalf of animal rights, I accept them as family even if I disagree with their other views. Myself being an atheistic, misanthropic, anarchist, who am I to judge? Unlike Roland I’d much rather make cause with animal rights advocates of all stripes than sow divisions within their ranks and throw my lot in with socialist revolutionary types who evidence no sympathy, or even understanding, of animal rights.

        Like

    • perverse logic. “Am I to value the life of the canine or feline over the lives of a host of other condemned species killed for our preferred pets?”
      I am a longtime vegan. but I can’t help but think back to when Ingrid told people they did not need to be vegan. because, why cut into her own fundraising base? To the “welfarist” mind set to which Peta appeals — including suburban housewives and complacent “regular” people who want to feel good about “loving animals”–there is indeed a disconnect between all those “animal lovers” who eat some animals and celebrate others.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. This is an unfortunate article post you have made Roland Vincent. It reeks of Nathan Winograd-Center for Consumer Freedom BS which has been debunked for ages–by me and others. Just as Francione is an industry agent pretending to be an animal advocate-anyone who aggressively criticizes PETA for its shelter actions without fairness is as bad as Winograd or Francione in this area. Francione himself has criticized PETA for the very same-so despite your earlier articles against him, it seems you now agree with Francione as well as vivisectors who used the same attacks in 1991. I really hope you retract this article.

    PETA believes (rightly) that death is preferable to misery. I.e. if the choice was between one million African slaves being tortured to death over a 5 day period vs a quick death in 1 minute–no one moral or sane would say the first scenario is best. Likewise, if the choice is between animals being caged for their entire lives or being given to people who set them on fire, vs euthanasia, the moral choice is clear. PETA has neither the personnel or money to maintain a permanent shelter animal situation-and operates a shelter of last resort–since–as you should know or care–regular shelters with no connection to PETA are cruel and lethal (if you say that suffering doesn’t matter when someone is killed then that is another sign of being a Fifth Column Vegan).

    What is most troubling in your article is that you act as if PETA alone has the money and power to solve the shelter situation–you did not mention the pet industry or breeders who create the problem. Why aren’t you asking them to fund a no kill shelter paradise? That oversight is telling. People who claim to be animal rights activists and ignore the role of industrial exploiters in creating a problem are most likely Fifth Column Vegans seeking to disrupt the movement from within.
    I sincerely hope you come to your senses within a day.
    I will check back within 24 hours to see if you edited the article and title to reflect common sense and pro-animal fairness instead of acting as an agent for animal exploitation industries.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Supremacy Myth: I have some questions for you – and I hope your answers help me to understand yours and Peta’s POV.

      You say that Peta believes “death is preferable to misery.” How do you define misery? Is a rescued cat who lives in a reasonably sized cage for 2 weeks in misery? A dog? Is it one who has lived in a 2 x 4 cage for a year? Where do you draw the line? By calling it “misery” you are pointing fingers at every shelter that tries to do the right thing – and yes, this goes for those with animal control contracts also.
      – does that mean you are opposed to all rescue groups and shelters? Even kill shelters keep some animals until they are adopted. Should they immediately euthanize them? Please be honest here.
      – should all companion animals who have been homeless and on the street be euthanized?

      Why do you deal in absolutes such as “animals being caged for their entire lives: or being set on fire? “ I have rescued many animals from the street and their condition was this: most needed to be deflead; a few had upper respiratory treatable condition; some had ear mites; all needed to be vaccinated and neutered. I am not now, nor ever been a hoarder. I helped the cats that I could handle.

      I know that Peta is opposed to TNR because they believe outdoor cats suffer and should all be “humanely” euthanized. Since you probably agree with this although you did not mention it – maybe you can explain why Peta does not appear to have the same philosophy regarding other animals – such as squirrels, raccoons, opossums, pigeons, ground hogs, beavers, chipmunks, etc. etc. Shouldn’t all of these animals be euthanized also so they do not suffer? And then taking this a step further, shouldn’t we go after all the fur bearing animals and euthanize them also since many suffer terrible outside.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Peta is a disgrace and does far more harm than good.
        But Ingrid would be happy to see that you used the word “euthanize” to describe killing a healthy animal who might have ear mites or FVR. That’s the key to Peta’s propaganda campaign.

        Liked by 1 person

      • WalkNYC: you are correct It is not euthanasia to kill a healthy animal. It is MURDER/EXECUTION done by someone who thinks they are god and know best. I am still waiting to hear Supremacy Myth’s answers to my questions. What constitutes ” misery” to a Peta supporter? Why does this philosophy not apply to other animals? Why are they not answering this?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Of course PETA does not have the money to solve the pet overpopulation problem, but PETA does NOTHING to rehome animals, they kill them. That is to be expected of municipal death camps, but certainly not of an organization supposedly dedicated to helping animals. PETA is a death cult.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s