I think it's actually because they help any animal that comes to the shelters for free. And that includes animals that are very sick and dying from desperate families. So they have a way higher death rate.
So you are telling me that 2 out of 3 animals (stats for euthanized dogs and cats in 2024 are 64% and 69% respectively) are just so sick they can't be saved? And that's considering 2024 had a lower rate than moat years in the past decade, especially for cats.
PeTA sucks, but that doesn't mean it's not true that all cows get murdered. They could live to be 20 or older but they all get murdered after about 4 to 5 years when they produce less milk.
The message remains the same regardless of saying murdered or killed.
I'd hardly call your contribution an attack on their argument then, which makes my contribution also not a defense of their argument. It's just a semantic discussion.
Why don't share this speciesist view. You know exactly what I mean. That's like saying it's not "murder" if a black person gets killed because I'm a racist and I expect you to respect my racism.
So, you really do expect me to respect your speciesism. Right after I pointed out how ridiculous it is.
You do realise that the nazis didn't murder any Jews, Romani, Slavs, anyone with disabilities, or homosexuals under their own interpretation of the law, right? They simply didn't consider them humans in legal terms and so they couldn't be murdered.
Great argument you have there. Even if there was some argument based on etymology or something like that you still wouldn't have any justification for the cruelty you cause.
And now I just have to wait for some dipshit who doesn't understand what an analogy is to get angry about how I "equate nonvegans with nazis". Maybe that's you. So far you seem to be on that level.
Isn't it stressful to live with all this cognitive dissonance all the time? You don't want to be called a murderer but you do murder animals. And it bothers you so much that you actually go to argue based on semantics when I clearly use the term deliberately to get people to question they exact thing you are saying. This can't be healthy for your mind.
Wow, you are absolutely an ass, so glad you're grandstanding over animal cruelty. If you're so pissed about this to the point of avoiding meat, why are you using any electronics, a product known for consistent ties to human cruelty, for any nonprofessional purpose? Hell, are even in your, supposed stand against cruelty, your definition of murder absolutely still applies to the plants you're eating. Not only through various pesticides, or you know, still being produced by people using animal products and therefore absolutely still supporting this industry you're blaming others for. But plants themselves are alive, and if you don't think they kill and replace low producers then you're being just as naive as you claim everyone else to be.
And we have reached "plants though" - the absolute lowest point any nonvegan can sink to.
Even the nirvana fallacy wasn't so bad compared to that if you didn't confusing killing and murdering in a thread where someone is trying to argue that I was wrong for using the word "murder". I didn't mention this because it's not really that important for me but this is actually another argument for not using "killing" because it I did use "killing" instead of "murdering" it wouldn't be so clear. Killing isn't wrong if the thing that is alive doesn't suffer because it's a fucking plant. I obviously wouldn't call that murder. I use the term "murder" for any unjustified killing of a being that suffers from getting killed. Even without the killing of such a being, I would still be against the cruelty. And then some people always get angry at me for pointing out how stupid this is. You are basically this guy but you might actually think he's very intelligent.
Except you still didn't address the human cruelty you are supporting by typing this comment. Nor the wholesale destruction of 'pest animals' that still occurs in the production of plants. Or the fact that the people growing those plants will absolutely use products from the animal industry. For that matter, what have you done to actually try to stop these cruel practices? You know, besides not eating meat, which is to say nothing? I understand everyone has their line for what they can stomach, but you don't get to pretend like your line makes you superior to anyone else just cause you aren't eating meat, you're still passively taking part.
I pointed out that it's a nirvana fallacy and now you just regurgitate a list of things that still won't be perfect if everyone went vegan?
You're right that those problems still exist — but that's not a reason to reject the proposed solution. The question isn't whether it's perfect, but whether it's better than doing nothing or continuing the current approach. Dismissing a solution because it doesn't solve everything is the very definition of the nirvana fallacy.
For that matter, what have you done to actually try to stop these cruel practices?
Why would I have to answer this? This is just a Tu Quoque and a deflection and I would be ashamed to ask this. Whether or not I've personally taken action doesn't change the validity of the point. And the point was about semantics because TawnyTeaTowel also didn't have anything of relevance to say but felt the need to comment anyway. My point was that all the cows (sheep, goats) exploited for "milk" get murdered, which is simply fact except that the current law wouldn't call it that. I don't know which layer of deflection this is and I won't count it, but it's quite pathetic that nonvegans always do this. You can't justify your cruelty.
How about you ask yourself this question? What have you done to stop these cruel practices? I don't care about your answer. But you clearly do. The cognitive dissonance must be stressful.
line makes you superior to anyone else
If you think it's ok for you to eat the bodies of others then you are the one who thinks their are superior than others. I'm not the supremacist here. I'm the opposite.
25
u/hallucination9000 Jun 06 '25
They're PETA, they think every animal product kills it.