PETA kills 97% of its adopted animals

madanthonywayne said:
Animals should be treated as humanely as possible. Someone who intentionally treats animals in a sadistic manner is liable to do the same to humans. It's evidence of a sick mind.

But that doesn't mean animals have "rights". I'll recognize an animal's rights, when a lion or tiger or bear recognizes mine.
Click to expand...

They do though, animals recognize your existence and do not try to rid themselves of you. Unless they feel they are threatened or when they want to feed on you. I'd say humans should to do exactly the same but there's this little problem. We are too many... on top of that we have the ability to show compassion and the mental capacity to come up with alternatives.
 
i always get sick and tired of watching people go out hunting a white pointer shark because it has bitten someone. of corse the thing bit you, its main sence is taste and your in ITS enviroment. Idiots
 
Enmos said:
They do though, animals recognize your existence and do not try to rid themselves of you. Unless they feel they are threatened or when they want to feed on you. I'd say humans should to do exactly the same but there's this little problem. We are too many... on top of that we have the ability to show compassion and the mental capacity to come up with alternatives.
Click to expand...

But animal rights activists are getting rid of animals, killing them to save them from the "evil" humans.
 
Bells said:
What context?

I can give you the answer I would give to such a question. I do not believe that my ownership of my pets grants me (or anyone else) the right to treat them inhumanely, just because they are 'my property'. See? Not too hard, now is it?

Meh.. you're choice really.
Click to expand...

Why do you ask that question in this thread?
 
Enmos said:
They do though, animals recognize your existence and do not try to rid themselves of you. Unless they feel they are threatened or when they want to feed on you.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is that animals "recognize" our existence and do us no harm unless doing so somehow benefits them.
I'd say humans should to do exactly the same
Click to expand...
I'd say we already do.
Asguard said:
i always get sick and tired of watching people go out hunting a white pointer shark because it has bitten someone. of corse the thing bit you, its main sence is taste and your in ITS enviroment. Idiots
Click to expand...
What makes it their environment? If we want to go there, it's our environment too. As Spicolli said,
fast-times-at-ridgemont-high-spicolli.jpg

"If I'm here, and you're here, doesn't that make it our time?"
 
Last edited:
And one funny thing is that humans gather groups of animals and breed them to make larger groups. This is to the net benefit of the exploited species.
 
Bells said:
It was in reply to a comment you made.

See Meta, this is a forum. You make a statement or comment and others reply to them and sometimes will ask you questions.:p
Click to expand...

In the context that you asked it, it was a loaded rhetorical question that is used maliciously.
 
madanthonywayne said:
What you're saying is that animals "recognize" our existence and do us no harm unless doing so somehow benefits them.
I'd say we already do.
Click to expand...

No we don't, we don't just kill animals to eat of to defend our selves..
We kill/mistreat loads of animals for other reasons then for food or defense.

Also, I meant that even if that was what we do now.. it can't go on like that forever. There are too many people..
 
MetaKron said:
In the context that you asked it, it was a loaded rhetorical question that is used maliciously.
Click to expand...

Maliciously?

Ok, granted I'll accept that. I will say if you had answered yes, I would have felt a malicious distaste. After all, what kind of sick bastard tortures or treats an animal inhumanely and then deems they are allowed to do so because the animal belongs to them?

Had you answered no, then you would not be a sick bastard who deems himself above the law because the animals belong to you.

:)
 
Id say we have an ETHICAL obligation to treat animals humainly, for our own benifit in most cases. For instance how many drug trials tested on animals are then found to be toxic to humans? (i can rember atleast one case in the UK) so if we can eliminate testing on animals in favor of more acurate methods great

How about improving farming practices, well inproving the health of farm stock means that they are in much better health when slaughtered and are worth more money.

How about improving slaughter practices, well if an animal is NOT killed quickly the meat tenses up and is of poor quality, therfore worth much less

what about pet health, well improving pet health also inproves the human health of those who live with the pets benifiting both.

Animal welfare is a 2 way street, it benifits the animals yes but it also benifits the rest of us
 
Bells said:
Maliciously?

Ok, granted I'll accept that. I will say if you had answered yes, I would have felt a malicious distaste. After all, what kind of sick bastard tortures or treats an animal inhumanely and then deems they are allowed to do so because the animal belongs to them?

Had you answered no, then you would not be a sick bastard who deems himself above the law because the animals belong to you.

:)
Click to expand...

No, it is used maliciously to imply that anyone who is not with the animal rights groups is an abuser.
 
Asguard said:
Id say we have an ETHICAL obligation to treat animals humainly, for our own benifit in most cases. For instance how many drug trials tested on animals are then found to be toxic to humans? (i can rember atleast one case in the UK) so if we can eliminate testing on animals in favor of more acurate methods great

How about improving farming practices, well inproving the health of farm stock means that they are in much better health when slaughtered and are worth more money.

How about improving slaughter practices, well if an animal is NOT killed quickly the meat tenses up and is of poor quality, therfore worth much less

what about pet health, well improving pet health also inproves the human health of those who live with the pets benifiting both.

Animal welfare is a 2 way street, it benifits the animals yes but it also benifits the rest of us
Click to expand...

For crying out loud. First you deny that the RSPCA is animal rights, then you defend it for being animal rights. The initial denial means that you know that people rightly abhor animal rights groups. "Animal welfare" is the term that the animal rights groups use to disguise themselves and make it seem less acceptable to hate them. Most people hate animal rights groups.
 
Asguard said:
Id say we have an ETHICAL obligation to treat animals humainly, for our own benifit in most cases. For instance how many drug trials tested on animals are then found to be toxic to humans? (i can rember atleast one case in the UK) so if we can eliminate testing on animals in favor of more acurate methods great
Click to expand...
More accurate? Like what? We need to test on animals, unless you'd rather we test on humans. Computer models are no substitute.
 
madanthonywayne said:
More accurate? Like what? We need to test on animals, unless you'd rather we test on humans. Computer models are no substitute.
Click to expand...

Why test on animals when we can use humans ? That's what the products are meant for..

Why is it right to test on animals while it's wrong to test on humans ?

We do not need to test on animals... it is just the cheapest way.
 
MetaKron said:
No, it is used maliciously to imply that anyone who is not with the animal rights groups is an abuser.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

I do not belong to an animal rights group and I can assure you, I do not abuse my animals.

I personally disagree with a lot of what PETA does (eg killing animals in captivity because they are in captivity is one of the things I find abhorrent and inhumane). But I do agree with them in that animals should be treated humanely. Just because I disagree with their methods, does not mean I do not agree that animals should be treated humanely.
 
Last edited:
Mad i didnt mean we should replace them YET, the technology isnt there. I was refering to the fact that if we DID get a more acurate method than testing on animals then it would be in our own best intrest to use it. Oh and By the way we ARE cutting down on animal testing anyway, yes its a stage that a drug still has to go through but its now quite late in the testing where as previously it was the only method we had. So yes in that case it would be unethical to START with animal testing before we even knew if the drug would pass other tests, it would also have no logical purpose other than to be cruel and I think that computer modling in the early stages is much less expencive than animal testing in the early stages and probably acurate.
 
Bells said:
Where did I say that?

I do not belong to an animal rights group and I can assure you, I do not abuse my animals.

I personally disagree with a lot of what PETA does (eg killing animals in captivity because they are in captivity is one of the things I find abhorrent and inhumane). But I do agree with them in that animals should be treated humanely. Just because I disagree with their methods, does not mean I do not agree that animals should be treated inhumanely.
Click to expand...

Your timing sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top