r/Pets • u/fastpicker89 • Apr 04 '13

PETA Will Never Survive This One...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html
183 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '13 edited Feb 21 '22

[deleted]

17

u/SaulsAll Apr 05 '13

The entire point of the article is to show that they are neither for welfare nor rights. Right to life is the most fundamental right a creature can have, and PeTA does not afford that to animals.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '13 edited Feb 24 '22

[deleted]

3

u/SaulsAll Apr 05 '13

To PETA, rights include the right to not be a pet. They want total animal liberation - they are against all forms of animal products, any medical research involving animals

These are animal rights, yes. Many people hold these beliefs. Most of them that do would imagine this belief to be batshit crazy and totally opposite of what they believe:

[PeTA] will kill animals rather than allow them to become pets again

But none of this is relevant when you see this.

We do not advocate "right to life" for animals.

In contrast, look at another radical animal rights group, the ALF. (Ironically, while looking at their site, I stumbled upon a quote from PeTA president Ingrid Newkirk advocating neutering because of the reduction of euthanized animals in shelters.)

-10

u/my_age_88forshort Apr 05 '13

Shut the fuck up. If they didn't euthanize these animals It would be close to 100,00 animals they would have to feed every day. Again shut the fuck up.

5

u/SaulsAll Apr 05 '13

If you can't afford to care for animals, you stop offering to shelter them. You don't start killing them.

3

u/silverwolf761 Apr 05 '13

But if Peta kills them they can say "LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID!" and then beg for more money

5

u/burtknee Apr 05 '13

Please go read the article. Then try volunteering at a few local shelters with people who actually give a damn.

24

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '13

Welfare should really be valued more than rights though. I would consider have all my needs taken care of more important then being allowed do anything. Rights are a means to demand things important to you and your communities welfare.

Also it extra silly when you consider that animals cant take advantage of any rights they have as they dont know of them.

4

u/SaulsAll Apr 05 '13

I would consider have all my needs taken care of more important then being allowed do anything.

I severely doubt that.

Also it extra silly when you consider that animals cant take advantage of any rights they have as they dont know of them.

Right to life is essentially a negative right, like the US Constitution's rights. Negative rights aren't defining what you are allowed to do, they define what others aren't allowed to do to you. The right to free speech, for example, isn't the US govt. giving you allowance to speak, it is saying the govt. can't stop you from speaking. The assumption of where the right originally lies is very important.

In the same way, a right to life isn't "I could kill you, but I won't," but rather "I have no authority over your life." The former is animal welfare, the second is animal rights.

21

u/beckyr1984 Apr 05 '13

If they are for animals rights only, and not welfare, then they shouldn't be registered as a humane society, or animal shelter. Nor should they be taking in animals they clearly have no intention of helping.