I wonder if they would do the same free in the nature. Locked together in tight spaces and restricted freedom will change the behaviour of every creature.
I wonder if they would do the same free in the nature. Locked together in tight spaces and restricted freedom will change the behaviour of every creature.
This is the default behaviour for chickens. I can't think of any chicken like creatures that exists in the wild that resembles. The chickens I kept had plenty of room both inside and outside. Outside was a predator proof fence around a large area with different kinds of vegetation, bushes and wet and dry environments (I also had a couple of mallards). Inside they had running water, things to climb on to roost, and various boxes to lay and sleep in. Every week I cleaned their living quarters and threw down fresh bedding. They were not for food or for egg production. I ate and gave away the eggs they laid.
Edit: to keep the roosters from doing the dirty with close relatives, I swapped rooster with other people that kept poultry as a hobby
yea i do the same with mine, they roam free in the garden during the day and have a protected outdoor and indoor area so its basically a large playground for them and still the behavior you mentioned is what i see as well. also chickens in the wild? the measures i had to take to keep my chickens safe from foxes, martens, cats, dogs... is just crazy, they have zero defense capabilities so i dont know how they survived ubtill we kept them as livestock
Chickens originated from the red jungle fowl which is a much leaner and flighted bird (as are certain breeds of chicken) Weâve made modern chickens into something that canât survive in the wild, much like we turned wolves into pugs!
This all reminds me I miss having chickens and ducks. One of the bad sides living in a big city for work, I guess
Ever heard of domestication?
Chickens are a truly enlightened people
Yep. I've seen hens scalp their own chicks because they were a different colour from the others.
So you consider humanity superior in morality to chickens right? Which means that you identify the horrible things they do as horrible, and deem them unacceptable and definitely shouldn't be repeated by a being of supposed higher intellect and control over one's own actions beyond simple instincts?
Seems like an even better argument against eating other animals and especially, especially industrialized factory farming if you ask me, where everything you said is still done, but by humans to the chickens.
Big logical gaps in this argument:
The op never said they were superior morally.
Even, given the above, the op deemed chickens immoral that does not make all chickens' actions immoral. Preening, roosting and eating grain are not immoral activities.
Defining only the horrible acts as horrible is a circular argument as no definition has been provided as horrible.
Other than those three, you really stuck it to the carnist, chief.
I would assume that large chicken farms would separate the mother from the chicks long before any family bond could be established. There are a lot of viable concerns about how the animals are handled and treated, but the issue of separating a family is just not one of them.
Peta is Peta'ing yet another subject.
Wow, no.
But what it does do is point out that PETA is full of shit and you shouldn't listen to the organisation that runs kill shelters becaus they think you shouldn't have pets.
The fuckers have actually STOLEN PETS and "euthanized" them inside of a day, when the animal was in good health and in a loving home.
FUCK PETA, they are a bunch of animal killers.
PETA does not kill animals because they're against pet ownership. PETA administers euthanasia services for shelters that are over capacity.
FUCK PETA, they are a bunch of animal killers.
I assume that you are vegan and dont contribute to the industrialised mass killing of sentient beings in any way? Otherwise you seem quite hypocritical.
Lmao this bullshit again. PETA only euthanizes animals that are suffering and beyond saving. They accept animals that are rejected by those "no-kill" shelters that are more concerned with how their statistics look than helping suffering animals, which sometimes means euthanizing. The whole "PETA hates animals" thing is just another way for people to justify their own behaviour against animals. Do you honestly believe PETA is some kind of evil organisation that's out to kill animals out of pure spite?
Edit: see here
That one whooshed right over your head eh? He's saying that chickens families are not, in fact, the same as human families. They don't form a family unit with bonds above those of other chickens. It's mostly because they're chickens....and not humans and it was a dumb comparison for PETA to try and make.
Pointing out how chickens relate to other chickens does not mean it's an endorsement for cruelty...you stretched big time for that one.
Well, either you're really bad at expressing yourself through online comments...or you forgot to add a /s to the end of your comment. Certainly seems to me like you're still a bit confused.
So, do you think that there are ethical and non abusive animal husbandry methods for raising livestick?
Do you think there are ethical ways to slaughter livestock?
You seem to be making this a false binary.
Abuse? No. But kill and make tasty? Absolutely.
Unfortunately yes, I don't like that, that's abuse, but I'm not against murdering and eating things. I support stopping cruelty towards animals whilst they're alive.
Like dumb lizards jammed into a murder box? I know a farmer that uses them to generate all of the liming agent he needs for his fields.
Oh look an anti-vegan circlejerk.
Do the "how do you know someone's vegan? They'll tell you" joke next. I promise it doesn't come off as insecure.
Those lame jokes make me wanna mention the Vegan Bullshit Bingo.
In the wild.
An interesting tangent is that this could entail the extinction of several human-designed strains of animal which are not well equipped to live in the wild.
So mote it be I guess.
Base genetics are still around for the chicken, pig, and sheep, but the Aurochs's extinction means we irrevocably altered the cow. I'm sure a few varieties of cow would adapt to the wild though.
Buffalo may need to keep their vestigial wings too.
Simple: If the animals were freed they would destroy the ecosystems they were freed in (all ecosystems). They could all be killed so they don't cause any impact. The animals would be suffering from pain, illnesses and slow deaths just as nature intended. Animals would not turn vegans. The world would probably suffer a supply issue. Everyone would be weak, unhealthy and have a lower lifetime cause of their horrible diet. Everyone would be hypocrite as they kill plants and don't feel remorse just because they're killing something that can't walk and doesn't have eyes and mouth.
This is the list, add more if you wish.
I think I saw my 67 year old aunt post this on Facebook.
Boomer cringe
Hahhahaha PETA bad amiright?? Updoots to the left!!
Copied from an old reddit post.
This is why people hate PETA.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:
Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That's just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and "news articles" as well, so it's not always very obvious.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that's why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
[Their biggest victories] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/)
[All victories sorted by recent] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/victories/) (several per week!)
See also http://www.petakillsanimalsscam.com/
PETA and their kill-shelters:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can't adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more "hopeless" animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn't steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer's cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn't wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That's why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it's an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over "inferior" (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That's the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I'm not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It's basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy's, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn't that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA's shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into "PETA is stealing people's pets off the streets" and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, "PETA blasts child's bunny wedding!" But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the "journalist" reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, "we don't support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them." And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn't get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I don't really like PETA.
Copied from an old reddit post.
This is why people hate PETA.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:
Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That's just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and "news articles" as well, so it's not always very obvious.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that's why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
[Their biggest victories] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/)
[All victories sorted by recent] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/victories/) (several per week!)
See also http://www.petakillsanimalsscam.com/
PETA and their kill-shelters:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can't adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more "hopeless" animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn't steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer's cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn't wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That's why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it's an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over "inferior" (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That's the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I'm not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It's basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy's, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn't that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA's shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into "PETA is stealing people's pets off the streets" and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, "PETA blasts child's bunny wedding!" But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the "journalist" reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, "we don't support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them." And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn't get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I don't really like PETA.
Just research Ingrid Newkirk.
Ingrid is not a reasonable human being.
Have fun with the smear campaign...
So you might as well say you fell for PETAs bullshit excuses.
fossil fuels need to be phased out completely.
meat eating doesn't, it can be part of sustainable gardening.
but yeah the anti-vegan circlejerk is stupid, who gives a shit what you eat
The world is burning. Meat has got to go, just like short holidays by plane. And of course a whole bunch of other things. There is very little room to bargain here as we're way behind on our targets.
who gives a shit what you eat
We all should because we share this planet. You should judge a friend who eats steak frequently the same as someone who once in a while chops down a bit of rainforest. The consequences are the same.
you are an extremist mate, chickens in you backyard helping keep your garden clean won't end the planet
what about you killing my beloved tomatoes?
Would chickens really know tho?
Is that the metric then? If you don't know you're going to be killed, it's ok to kill you?
KFC's newest disclaimer: Family Bucket does not mean the entire family of chickens are in the same bucket.
Oyakodonburi
Oya = parent Ko = child Donburi = on rice
Chicken and egg on rice
Ah yes, the food that sounds cute but has deep dark meaning: kill the parents and eat the unborn children.
You understand the egg in this dish is unfertilized, yes?
Yes, but it sounds more savage this way.
Maybe step relative but definitely incest free!
I mean I'm just saying, banning meat lobby shilling and boomer tier animal abuse memes is morally good. Would be pretty based mod. Idk. They can get shit on in the thread for sure but I wouldn't mind not seeing the brain rot đ€·ââïž
Yea, screw this kind of stuff.
Most people on here will know vegetarians or in some cases be one. It's a respectable choice that takes a lot of willpower and energy. People who make fun of that aren't my crowd. Mostly because it's a dick thing to do.
As one who does not care if the food i eat has meat in it, maybe i can clarify why people react like this. It's simple: you make me feel like i'm some sort of a heartless, evil person for eating meat, i will make you feel bad as well. Eating chicken is murder ? We humans are omnivores, we eat anything. Meat is less efficient land wise, but is more efficient to digest. Morals have nothing to do with it, as we have long evolved to be that way.
If you want people to eat more plants; my advice is to make it a better option. I often make myself a 100% plant pasta sauce, but that takes 3x longer to do and doesn't cost much less then just grilling a piece of meat and cutting a tomato or two. Make cheap tasty vegetarian fast food stalls, cheap mini markets, etc. Calling people murderers will make some of them hate you.
PS I have a vegetarian friend, for over a decade i didn't know he was. Respect his decision, has nothing to do with me.
May I request that you watch Dominion, a 2018 documentary about the farming industry. https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko
If, after watching it, you still don't care about consuming animal products or not then fair enough. People seem so sure they already know how animals are farmed so they don't need to learn about it or watch this kinda thing, but I feel many people would be shocked to actually see with their own eyes that it's not 'happy cows living it up in green fields all day' like the farming industry would like us all to continue believing.
Many people who work in factory farms end up with all kinds of mental illnesses. Even those who are desensitised to the suffering of animals end up with PTSD and severe depression from contributing to this man-made animal hell.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/LQRAfJyEsko
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
My grandparents had pigs, chicken, goats, etc. And my father has farm animals. I'v also seen larger scale farming in my country. It's not so bad as what you are thinking of, here is not the usa. I know of what you want to show me. Maybe go watch Clarksons Farm for a different view ? Do what you want either way.
Unpopular take: Good people doing bad things does not make the bad things not bad. Yes, purchasing and consuming animal products is a morally bad thing to do. It is not morally neutral.
So yes, by consuming animal products, you are a worse person than you would be if you were not.
Your choice is to purchase the bodies of the dead and ârespectâ the fact they at they were killed by turning them into sewage. Your choice is to financially reward those who bring them into existence for the sole purpose of killing them for your pleasure and the killersâ profit. This is not a morally neutral thing. This is a morally bad thing.
Personal choice stops being personal when thereâs a victim. The victim is the one whose corpse is being ground up in your mouth.
Look, I agree that eating meat is morally bad, I accept that. What most extremist vegetarians need to accept is that there's people that simple don't care about animals as much as them, I don't really care about it just like I don't really care about some bad things happening in the world, I know that it's morally wrong, and I'll push for more options for the people that do care, but I won't restrict my diet or personally try to fix those things, because I don't care enough.
And this sounds quite rude and I look like an ass, I know, but the reality is that there's a lot of people that think exactly like this. Hell there's tons of people that thinks like this about actual humans. You won't convince those people because in the end, it's their decision and as bad as eating red meat etc is for the body and global warming etc, so are tons of other stuff that people do.
I really advocate for more vegetarian stuff, I actually enjoy seitan/tofu and dishes with them, but the fact is that I'll keep consuming meat once in a while, and when you start trying to make every meat consumer your enemy, you also make people from my group, people that actually push for more progress, your enemy, and that's honestly a bad way to make progress.
This is going to be a generational progress, there's way more vegetarian teenagers than 40+ people, and every friend group I frequent on my age range 25-35 has at least someone vegetarian, and businesses naturally will offer more options because if they won't they'll lose business.
Try not making society your enemy, because if you do you will become the enemy of society.
Your opinion isn't unpopular and you are not oppressed if the media supports you.
The problem is when the animal suffers. Animals eat other animals all the time and you're not a killer if you want to eat meat and be healthy.
If killing animals to eat them is immoral and sadistic even if the animal doesn't suffer then why you kill fucking plants to eat them? I value animals' lives and plants' lives more than human lives but I won't stop eating just because of that neither will force people or say they're killers cause they're eating something that was previously alive.
murderer.
Based.
Not moderating has gone wrong like a bazillion times.
Yes let all the Nazis racists eugenicists etcetera run wild because we don't want to censor based on morality đ„șđ„ș
Well, this escalated rather quickly....
A) I don't have to equivocate. Killing humans isn't the same as killing a chicken. We agree. The point is obvious. Moderation exists for a reason. Discrimination and normalizing violence are things worth moderating. You're either being intellectually dishonest in response or need to give it a little more thought.
B) Species difference aside, their experience at scale is by definition a holocaust. 136 million will die today alone. They can't grasp the scale as individuals, but they experience it personally. Believe it or not, some people value non-human life. Whether or not you do is not relevant given lack of moral justification.
You can't expect people in here to have some kind of brain. It's like trying to understand how they want a free (as in freedom) Internet without big tech at the same time they want censorship of their opponents and are lefties.
4edgy2me
They grew up thinking theyâll graduate, get a job, raise up a few chicks
Right?! This was just a low-effort repost to get some laughs. It actually ended up making me laugh hard today with how ridiculous it's gotten.
I dunno, I have a pet chicken, and I still eat chicken.
Shitty flawed emotional manipulation fails
Look, PETA is not exactly the model organization they think they are. Actually they have plenty of issues and hypocrisy with their own messages and IMO are by no means a credible or reliable source. BUT, credit where credit's due, their shitpost that everyone hated got more discussion from both sides on the realities of the meat industry than any whistleblower or researcher publishing a paper on the conditions of industrialized meat farming, its environmental and climate implications. More engagement from this than pretty much any measured response, analysis, or criticism of the meat industry or the ethics of eating meat that has ever come out. This thread is an example of that.
That might say more about the nature of internet culture and what people will actually respond to and engage with than anything else. Obviously in an ideal world everyone will engage way more with those whistleblower and scientific researcher findings and organizations like PETA wouldn't even exist, and it would be the measured responses that will be the things triggering discussion on subjects like plant-based meat and veganism, probably a much more level headed discussion since that tend to be more dependent on the context of the discussion than the subject itself, and we really should be working toward that. But, I think that's still a silver lining because we absolutely need to be having these discussions.
Yeah fuck this comm. It's all I see when I open Lemmy, and the jokes really are just boomer humor.
No no no! It's better to shriek about my hurt little feelings and demand federation or whatever.
Ur so cool and macho for downplaying others opinions on animal slaughter.
I bet your dad would be super proud of you! Yes he would! Whoâs a good little daddyâs boy! You are!
My dad was killed before I was born, and I was raised by sisters and aunts. So you can take your hollering about the patriarchy somewhere tf else lol. Got any other talking points you'd like to try out?
It's a joke. Lighten up.
Also, label it what you want, but I'm a millennial.
The moral middle ground is to not kill animals (or pay someone to) if you don't need to.
I don't know. That feels a bit off-center to me rather than middle considering one end of the spectrum is "kill nothing ever" and the other end is "How many endangered animals can I make extinct just for funsies." If everyone killed what they ate themselves, manually, I bet we'd have a bunch more vegetarians hanging around.
Right but how else will they move the goal post to get a conversational W
I think it's morally neutral to ask why we kill animals. Do you kill the animals you eat?
I agree that question is morally neutral. And not yet, I don't, but that is the long term goal. I've got the land I would need and am working on fencing. In the interim, I have switched to meat raised and butchered by hand.
This is why it's important to order the nuggets too.
do you eat animals?
That makes no difference, PETA is still a joke.
Copied from an old reddit post.
This is why people hate PETA.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:
Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That's just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and "news articles" as well, so it's not always very obvious.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that's why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
[Their biggest victories] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/)
[All victories sorted by recent] (https://www.peta.org/about-peta/victories/) (several per week!)
See also http://www.petakillsanimalsscam.com/
PETA and their kill-shelters:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can't adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more "hopeless" animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn't steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer's cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn't wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That's why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it's an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over "inferior" (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That's the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I'm not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It's basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy's, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn't that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA's shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into "PETA is stealing people's pets off the streets" and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, "PETA blasts child's bunny wedding!" But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the "journalist" reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, "we don't support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them." And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn't get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I don't really like PETA.
Wow, Hilarious! What an enormous penis OP must have to make jokes just so fresh and unexpected! Huge, definitely not-high-school sized, manly penis!
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
I've kept chickens. They do not understand the family concept. Roosters will happily rape their siblings or their mothers, and hens will enforce a gruelling pecking order even if it means someone dies of hunger/beatings đą
save