>Actually the stance of PETA is that your dogs dependency on you is shameful. >In effect we've "manufactured" a subservient class of creature which cannot >live without us. > >We should then care for those poor, helpless creatures we have but >immediately stop the creation of all others: no more pet stores, no more pet >breedings, no more pet services companies (pet food, pet toys, etc).
Here's what PETA says on their site: "In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=29 You said: >Domestication is the same thing as slavery (so their literature goes) and >even a well-kept slave is still a slave and the keeping of it is an act of >cruelty. Perhaps they frown on domestication, but based on the above, keeping a domesticated animal is not an act of cruelty... >Of course PETA headquarters euthanizes most of the animals they receive as >strays (although they don't promote this fact) so perhaps you might read >into that a method of dealing with the issue. Hmmm... Reference? Anyway, I support most of what PETA does and stands for, though there are things I don't entirely agree with. That said, I like that there is a group out there (yes, a controversial one, but a vocal one as well) that speaks out against cruelty to animals. The majority of their energy is not focused on people like us that own cats and dogs in our homes, but is focused on large corporations and farms that abuse animals on a large scale. They are also advocates of vegetarianism/veganism and building an awareness of animal-friendly behaviors/purchases/brands/etc. Very *little* energy is spent making their members go out and throw red paint on fur coats, but these kinds of things are what gives PETA a bad name. I do not agree with this kind of fanatasism, but these are the kinds of things that make the news. In my opinion, these tactics turn more people off. If you ever read their website or their newsletters, though, you'll see that the majority of their campaigns are very well thought out and non-violent/non-offensive. They urge celebrities to promote vegetarianism, wage campaigns against companies (yes, even dog food companies) that treat animals cruelly, and offer factual material about what you can do to help. They offer a lot of information about what's going on in the world today and encourage consumers to speak out with their wallets. Honestly, I think most people bash PETA before they know much about them. If people looked for a second beyond the stuff that gets all the negative media attention, they'd see that it's not all that I know this will probably start a flame war. Oh well. *sigh* Any mention of PETA usually does. -Robyn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:144494 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
