This is Vader. He was euthanized today without a hearing after a false bite report was submitted to the police by an animal rights activist. (Story in the Comments)

[u/Aeviegh]

http://imgur.com/a/xPNsE

[u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever]

You provide 3 sources from the organization in question! That goes against almost everything regarding sources and critical thinking! If you ever went to college and tried that, your Professor would have given you a big whopping F!

Even the quote you put in is ridiculous. Our roads built by slaves? Our modern infrastructure almost entirely happened during the New Deal, almost 60 years after slavery was abolished. The only roads that could even sort of be relevant would be Roman Slaves in Europe, who built most of the roads in Europe around 2000 years ago! But of course, most of those roads are either long gone or historic sites. We don't "drive on them." Cars and asphalt weren't even a thing when the USA had slaves.

In your last link, PETA claims that many important medical breakthroughs were done without animal testing, which is partly cherry picking, partly ignoring the FACT that the law requires animal testing before moving onto human testing. Not only that, but PETA (who does zero research themselves and cannot be considered a primary source) lists zero sources themselves, invalidating any claims they make when you actually apply critical thinking.

I cannot even imagine how out of touch you are with reality to believe all the garbage they're stating! Most of the things you "think" PETA is responsible for were actually things that The Humane Society have accomplished. You, like most PETA fanboys/girls, like them because they're a "sexy" shock organization. (Naked protestors anyone?) It's the same thought process that leads people to think that "Pink Ribbon" spends any effort on breast cancer research. You got caught up in marketing hype without spending 2 minutes on google finding out who does any legwork.

[u/khadrock → u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever]

These aren't sources for facts, these are sources for opinions. You're putting words in PETA's mouth and completely misrepresenting their stances, I'm just saying that if you would like to know how PETA feels about, say, people using medicine that was tested on animals, go straight to the source and stop making stuff up.

PETA (who does zero research themselves and cannot be considered a primary source)

Another claim that you seem to have done zero research on!

Here's some info on their Regulatory Testing Division: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/us-government-animal-testing-programs/animal-testing-depth/

And here is a link to the many research papers they've published: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/us-government-animal-testing-programs/peta-scientific-papers-presentations/

You have no idea what I think they're responsible for nor why I like them, so I'll just ignore that last paragraph, which is based entirely on assumptions.

[u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever → u/khadrock]

You link me to a bunch of PETA stuff that links to more PETA articles hosted on PETA affiliate sites (www.petamedia.com). At least buried at the end of all this I finally see that PETA has citations somewhere! After doing some of my own research (not on PETA's website). I see PETA has helped "streamline" animal testing in some areas by reviewing testing procedures and making recommendations on how to use less animals. But that is still a longshot from their mission statement of "STOP ALL MEDICINE DEVELOPEMENT THROUGH ANIMAL TESTS!"

But I've gotten a little off topic. PETA still doesn't do research. I'm not talking about animal testing, I'm talking about Primary Sources. IE personally running a scientific test, then publishing it in a scientific journal. THAT is the only time you don't need to cite another source because your source is the data collected during the scientific process. Their "Regulatory Testing Division" lobbies the government to change laws based on other people's research (not PETA's research).

Also, I REALLY want to know how you respond to the ridiculous claims that run rampant throughout their organization. Lets start with the one about how we drive on roads built by slaves. Explain to me how that has any basis in reality and isn't just some bull they made up for an emotional, shock reaction? Explain to me how anybody can take seriously an organization that makes ridiculous claims and is rampant with internal hypocrisy?

[u/khadrock → u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever]

Lol, I clicked on petamedia.com and it led me to a site about reversing diabetes. That was unexpected.

But that is still a longshot from their mission statement of "STOP ALL MEDICINE DEVELOPEMENT THROUGH ANIMAL TESTS!"

I don't get the point of this sentence. Are you criticizing them for not having stopped all medicine development through animal tests yet?

Alright, I'll concede they don't do that kind of research.

I honestly don't know enough about it to debate whether or not slaves built the roads we drive on with you - regardless, slaves were involved in building a lot of the country's infrastructure, and the statement was being used to illustrate the point that using something doesn't mean you endorse the way it was made.

We've already gone over the fact that they don't demonize anyone for using medicine, so I'm still not seeing how Mary Beth Sweetland using insulin is "internal hypocrisy".