PETA

[Conserative Morality]

PETA is not an animal shelter. PETA accepts animals that may qualify for adoption but for whatever reason were not, and kills them as humanely as they know how. I don't have to like it, but I can comprehend the logic of their actions.

It works something like this: kill only when not killing would lead to suffering. Don't kill when you have a choice. This is a code of ethics I wish everyone could say they adhere to.

There are three things you aren't getting here:

1. Several of the animals that were there were said to have a good chance of being adopted.

2. Most animal shelters euthanize these creatures after a time, as well. PETA swept in and immediately did so, giving the animals no chance for a better life.

3. PETA lied about their purposes with the animals.

[Chumblywumbly]

Even, and especially, using your asinine arguments, there is no logic in taking agreeably adoptable animals from shelters running adoptions and euthanizing them well before the shelters decide it is time too.

Housing unadopted pets is harmful.
Euthanising said animals less so.
We should do less harm.
We should euthanise the pets.

I am sure many other arguments could be put forward.

[The_pantless_hero]

Housing unadopted pets is harmful.
Euthanising said animals less so.
We should do less harm.
We should euthanise the pets.

Is that supposed to be logic or a textbook example of asinine reasoning?

[Conserative Morality]

Housing unadopted pets is harmful.
Euthanising said animals less so.
We should do less harm.
We should euthanise the pets.

I am sure many other arguments could be put forward.

Euthanizing unadopted pets before they've had a chance is cruel.
Giving the animals a chance, less so.
We should be less cruel.
We should give the pets a chance to be adopted.

[Treznor]

PETA is not an animal shelter. PETA accepts animals that may qualify for adoption but for whatever reason were not, and kills them as humanely as they know how. I don't have to like it, but I can comprehend the logic of their actions.

It works something like this: kill only when not killing would lead to suffering. Don't kill when you have a choice. This is a code of ethics I wish everyone could say they adhere to.

There are three things you aren't getting here:

1. Several of the animals that were there were said to have a good chance of being adopted.

2. Most animal shelters euthanize these creatures after a time, as well. PETA swept in and immediately did so, giving the animals no chance for a better life.

3. PETA lied about their purposes with the animals.

Who gets to define this? Was the shelter overstocked with animals that also had a good chance of being adopted? Maybe PETA overstepped their bounds in the name of religious zealotry. That's entirely possible. I'm not a member of PETA, and I'm willing to concede that they may have fucked up.

The argument being made as I understand it is that PETA is a hypocritical organization that has no business involving themselves in how anyone treats animals. As an organization, PETA justifies euthanizing animals because even those qualified for adoption can wait a long time before they find someone willing to adopt them. The longer they wait, the more likely they are to face overcrowding, malnutrition and illness. So PETA has arrived at the conclusion that it's more ethical to kill otherwise adoptable animals than let them crowd together waiting for a new owner.

That a branch overstepped its bounds and violated PETA guidelines does not incriminate the entire organization, especially when the organization steps forward to renounce that action. We should punish them for specific violations that take place, but that doesn't invalidate their mission.

[The Alma Mater]

Housing unadopted pets is harmful.
Euthanising said animals less so.
We should do less harm.
We should euthanise the pets.

I am sure many other arguments could be put forward.

Euthanizing unadopted pets before they've had a chance is cruel.
Giving the animals a chance, less so.
We should be less cruel.
We should give the pets a chance to be adopted.

And what makes your reasoning more right than the one it responds to ?

[Chumblywumbly]

Is that supposed to be logic or a textbook example of asinine reasoning?

Kindly show how the reasoning is asinine.

Again, you condemn without reasoning. I would remind you this is a discussion board, not a board in which you air unsupported opinions.

You stated that there is no logical argument in favour of euthanising unadopted animals, when there clearly is. I would agree with you, to some respect, that PETA gets this one wrong, but I would not make the assumption that there's is a unreasoned position.

---

Euthanizing unadopted pets before they've had a chance is cruel.
Giving the animals a chance, less so.
We should be less cruel.
We should give the pets a chance to be adopted.

I'm not positing the argument, merely showing one can be made.

[Treznor]

Housing unadopted pets is harmful.
Euthanising said animals less so.
We should do less harm.
We should euthanise the pets.

I am sure many other arguments could be put forward.

Euthanizing unadopted pets before they've had a chance is cruel.
Giving the animals a chance, less so.
We should be less cruel.
We should give the pets a chance to be adopted.

And what makes your reasoning more right than the one it responds to ?

On that whole topic, I support the notion of giving adoptable animals the chance to be adopted. However, once that chance has passed I support the killing of those animals to avoid overcrowding and the like. How long that chance lasts depends greatly on the resources of the shelter holding them.

[Conserative Morality]

And what makes your reasoning more right than the one it responds to ?

Isn't life preferable to death?

[The Alma Mater]

And what makes your reasoning more right than the one it responds to ?

Isn't life preferable to death?

That is a question philosophers have still not reached an agreement on. That innocent seeming question has led to wild controversy. Not merely in debates such as this, but also when talking about euthanasia, abortion and so on.

Let us start of with an "easy" one on the general level. Is it better to live in absolute agony for 50 years than it is to live for 10 in bliss ?

[The_pantless_hero]

The longer they wait, the more likely they are to face overcrowding, malnutrition and illness.

What. The Fuck. I don't know what hellhole you live in but every shelter I have seen, while no picnic, that is patently false.

[Conserative Morality]

That is a question philosophers have still not reached an agreement on. That innocent seeming question has led to wild contoversy. Not merely in debates such as this, but also when talking about euthanasia, abortion and so on.

Let us start of with an "easy" one on the general level. Is it better to live in absolute agony for 50 years than it is to live for 10 in bliss ?

Ten years of bliss, but Animal shelters are not 'agony' by any means.

Well, unless the bliss would come at the cost of someone else's happiness. That might make me reconsider.

[The_pantless_hero]

You stated that there is no logical argument in favour of euthanising unadopted animals, when there clearly is.

Only on the base assumption that any animal that does not at this exact moment have a home should be immediately put down. Which means that it is fairly likely that all real pets will eventually cease to exist.

[Treznor]

The longer they wait, the more likely they are to face overcrowding, malnutrition and illness.

What. The Fuck. I don't know what hellhole you live in but every shelter I have seen, while no picnic, that is patently false.

Do you know how many shelters you've seen have been kill shelters? That is: they kill or outsource killing any animal that hasn't been adopted within a specific time period?

You might be surprised by the answer.

[Conserative Morality]

Do you know how many shelters you've seen have been kill shelters? That is: they kill or outsource killing any animal that hasn't been adopted within a specific time period?

You might be surprised by the answer.

Eh, no. All the Shelters I've seen have all used humane methods of disposing of the animals. Euthanasia. Unless you're against that as well. But, unlike PETA, at least these shelters give them a chance before killing them off!

[Chumblywumbly]

Only on the base assumption that any animal that does not at this exact moment have a home should be immediately put down.

Then you see that there are arguments for PETA's action.

Good.

[Calvinsjoy]

"We actually believe in what we're doing!" has never been a good excuse.[/quote]

Didn't the Nazis say that before taking power?[/quote]
Yeah not sure you can equate PETA with nazism tbqh.[/quote]

Really? You can certainly equate it with fascism.

[Treznor]

Do you know how many shelters you've seen have been kill shelters? That is: they kill or outsource killing any animal that hasn't been adopted within a specific time period?

You might be surprised by the answer.

Eh, no. All the Shelters I've seen have all used humane methods of disposing of the animals. Euthanasia. Unless you're against that as well. But, unlike PETA, at least these shelters give them a chance before killing them off!

Yes, that's what kill shelters do. They euthanize the animals. Sometimes they outsource it to other organizations, like PETA. They do it because if they didn't, their facilities would be overwhelmed with furry, adoptable pets that nobody has adopted.

PETA, as a general rule, doesn't barge into every shelter demand every animal regardless of how long it's been there, and drown them. That exaggeration seems to be the implication of everyone objecting to PETA's policy. They accept pets that the shelters deem have been waiting too long and they euthanize them.

Occasionally, a branch may overstep its bounds and go abduct animals from a shelter to kill them before that wait period is over. I don't know, and I certainly don't condone it. But it doesn't erase the valuable service PETA performs for shelters that are already understaffed, underpaid and overwhelmed with homeless animals.

[Conserative Morality]

Do you know how many shelters you've seen have been kill shelters? That is: they kill or outsource killing any animal that hasn't been adopted within a specific time period?

You might be surprised by the answer.

Eh, no. All the Shelters I've seen have all used humane methods of disposing of the animals. Euthanasia. Unless you're against that as well. But, unlike PETA, at least these shelters give them a chance before killing them off!

Yes, that's what kill shelters do. They euthanize the animals. Sometimes they outsource it to other organizations, like PETA. They do it because if they didn't, their facilities would be overwhelmed with furry, adoptable pets that nobody has adopted.

PETA, as a general rule, doesn't barge into every shelter demand every animal regardless of how long it's been there, and drown them. That exaggeration seems to be the implication of everyone objecting to PETA's policy. They accept pets that the shelters deem have been waiting too long and they euthanize them.

Occasionally, a branch may overstep its bounds and go abduct animals from a shelter to kill them before that wait period is over. I don't know, and I certainly don't condone it. But it doesn't erase the valuable service PETA performs for shelters that are already understaffed, underpaid and overwhelmed with homeless animals.

I can see this argument is going in circles, for both of us. I bid you adieu.

[The_pantless_hero]

Do you know how many shelters you've seen have been kill shelters? That is: they kill or outsource killing any animal that hasn't been adopted within a specific time period?

You might be surprised by the answer.

I'm sorry, perhaps you would like to provide a reply relevant to the condition of the shelters.

[Calvinsjoy]

People Eating Tasty Animals is my FAVORITE CLUB, nom, nom, nom,

[The_pantless_hero]

PETA, as a general rule, doesn't barge into every shelter demand every animal regardless of how long it's been there, and drown them. That exaggeration seems to be the implication of everyone objecting to PETA's policy. They accept pets that the shelters deem have been waiting too long and they euthanize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for ... al_charges

[Chumblywumbly]

Yeah not sure you can equate PETA with nazism tbqh.

Really? You can certainly equate it with fascism.

How, exactly?

[Treznor]

Do you know how many shelters you've seen have been kill shelters? That is: they kill or outsource killing any animal that hasn't been adopted within a specific time period?

You might be surprised by the answer.

I'm sorry, perhaps you would like to provide a reply relevant to the condition of the shelters.

Sure: how do you know all those shelters were keeping all of the adoptable animals for as long as it takes to get them adopted, and not killing the ones who waited the longest to make room for new arrivals?

PETA, as a general rule, doesn't barge into every shelter demand every animal regardless of how long it's been there, and drown them. That exaggeration seems to be the implication of everyone objecting to PETA's policy. They accept pets that the shelters deem have been waiting too long and they euthanize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for ... al_charges

Yes, the branch that committed that crime was repudiated by the parent organization. That doesn't mean every branch did this, only one. And, I seem to recall, they were acquitted of their crimes.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, the branch that committed that crime was repudiated by the parent organization. That doesn't mean every branch did this, only one. And, I seem to recall, they were acquitted of their crimes.

No, they didn't. All they condemned was the dumping! They didn't condemn the instant euthanasia!