PETA Asks band Pet Shop Boys to Change Name

[randiann]

Ok I'll bite. But I'm not going to get into a name-calling contest with you, Faith's already asked to keep that out of here.

Tell me where I said that that animals were inferior.

You implied this by saying dogs can't feel love

We don't even have proof that our existence isn't just to 'hump', but the urge we have TO procreate is the greatest driving force of all.

Maybe for some people, but it's not my greatest driving force

You want to interact with animals, thats fine, but don't domesticate them to the point that all they do is sleep and eat at your feet.
Don't buy one to keep it locked in a cage all of its life, with or without wings....
I also love the fact that you say 'animals should have jobs'.

Like the Canaries that tested for methane underground?
Like the dolphins and seals used to find and detonate water mines, killing themselves in the process.
Like Monkeys trained to jump through rings of fire?

I'm not saying that people haven't abused animals, but there is nothing wrong with taking a domesticated animal and putting it to use, hence the not 'keeping it locked in a cage all its life'. You are fufilling the needs of the animal too. They DO feel, and they need to feel love in their lives. There's nothing wrong with providing that.

All that you have said though, the animals have little choice in the relationships we decide to create.
We either train their actual nature out of them or we breed it out of them and if that doesn't work, we kill it.Dogs were, or rather the wolves they decended from, created so that we could breed and breed and breed until they became a race of animals to do our bidding and entertain us.

Yes. That is exactly what I said. Thank you.

Animals should never have been domesticated in the first place and that will never change now, does NOT mean that its right.

So this means we should throw them all out to fend for themselves and have nothing to do with any animals. Letting pets out into the wild to either 'survive or die out' is more humane how?

I would ALSO appreciate, instead of bitching, just delete the comment you deem as 'unnecessary and rude' rather than make more of it because you put something out of context just further adding to the already inaccurate view of members on this board that I am the one causing any friction.

You want to defend your 'friend', thats fine, but don't do it at my cost because I have no issue what so ever retaliating in kind to anyone!

Then please don't make them.

 

[JCC]

Harm's Way, if PETA are relocating less than one percent of the dogs that they take in, then they should leave that job to more competent shelters, since they obviously aren't cut out for that work. PETA's shelters are just slaughterhouses. Also, they would be able to afford to take care of unwanted animals rather than euthanising them all if they didn't spend all of their money on making celebrities get naked holding rabbits and getting people to dress up as chickens and walk up and down the high street.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Ok I'll bite. But I'm not going to get into a name-calling contest with you, Faith's already asked to keep that out of here.

Then don't start it then.
I reply in kind to people - you don't want bitchy responses, don't be bitchy!

You implied this by saying dogs can't feel love
Maybe for some people, but it's not my greatest driving force

You inferred this, I made no such implication.
I said that dogs (animals) don't feel love and that is because of the level of sentience they have. Its nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

As for the procreation - it is the BIGGEST driving force of ours, and indeed any, species on the planet, its as simple as that.
To argue against that with 'oh well maybe for others ..yadda yadda' just shows absolute naivity.

I'm not saying that people haven't abused animals, but there is nothing wrong with taking a domesticated animal and putting it to use, hence the not 'keeping it locked in a cage all its life'. You are fufilling the needs of the animal too. They DO feel, and they need to feel love in their lives. There's nothing wrong with providing that.

They become accustomed to their situation and instinct tells them they have to follow their pack leader (dogs) there is no love here, this is all about survival.

Yes. That is exactly what I said. Thank you.

If this is sarcasm then it doesn't make my point wrong, if its not, then it just further adds to my argument that animals shouldn't be domesticated.
Animals can lose that domestication within a couple of generations - its not something that can't be reversed.

So this means we should throw them all out to fend for themselves and have nothing to do with any animals. Letting pets out into the wild to either 'survive or die out' is more humane how?

Its more humane because eventually their species gets back into the natural cycle they were ripped out of to become servants of mankind.

This entire thread of people finding excuses or wanting pets just reeks of the arrogance of man.

Then please don't make them.

As I said before - I will reply in kind to any post aimed at me.

 

[randiann]

You inferred this, I made no such implication.
I said that dogs (animals) don't feel love and that is because of the level of sentience they have. Its nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

But even there you are basically saying that a dog's/animal's brain is not capable of love. From this I infer that either you:
A)consider humans to be animals in this category (which we are biologically) and think that love then does not exist and humans do not have feelings either or
B) consider humans to be capable of emotion while animals are not, thus implying that humans are superior to other animals in this aspect

They become accustomed to their situation and instinct tells them they have to follow their pack leader (dogs) there is no love here, this is all about survival.

One might argue there that their willingness to follow their leader is a sign of their love and devotion. Love then would be an instinctual feeling that helps the dogs survive. I don't know if you've ever seen a dog when their 'pack leader' comes home. To me, it would seem silly if a dog gets so excited over this simple, daily act unless it was their way of expressing how happy they were to see the person whom they love the most.

If this is sarcasm then it doesn't make my point wrong, if its not, then it just further adds to my argument that animals shouldn't be domesticated.

It is sarcasm, and it means that I thought this point was so far out there that it did not deem a response.

Animals can lose that domestication within a couple of generations - its not something that can't be reversed.Its more humane because eventually their species gets back into the natural cycle they were ripped out of to become servants of mankind.

So it is more kind to put, say, pomerainins (sp?) out in the wild to survive by themselves because, when they die, their species will revert back to the way it was? I see the point you are trying to make about survival of the fittest here, but that in no way makes this humane.

 

[Harm]

randiann agrees: In killing though, they contradict what they are about. More animals don't suffer because of no kill shelters in Canada, instead more get placed into homes. And I bet those 40 cats thought they made a HUGE difference.

1. More animals DO suffer because the no-kill shelters fill up
too fast to rescue any more!
2.You need to start thinking of the bigger picture!

Harm's Way, if PETA are relocating less than one percent of the dogs that they take in, then they should leave that job to more competent shelters, since they obviously aren't cut out for that work. PETA's shelters are just slaughterhouses. Also, they would be able to afford to take care of unwanted animals rather than euthanising them all if they didn't spend all of their money on making celebrities get naked holding rabbits and getting people to dress up as chickens and walk up and down the high street.

1. Every (smart) shelter euthanizes. PETA TRIES to get them homes but there is only so much you can do.
2. PETA, although I dont agree with their methods is an ADVOCACY group. Of course most of their money goes to ADS.
3. You know nothing about slaughterhouses obviously.

 

[Revolver]

Assuming the numbers given earlier in this thread are accurate, there must be more they can do. Those numbers are pathetic.

 

[Harm]

Where are these numbers even from anyways?

 

[Revolver]

I'm not sure, but as soon as numbers are posted on the internet, you can be sure they are accurate. 55% of people know that.

 

[randiann]

Don't know how reliable THIS source is, but it's one of many if you google "peta shelters"

 

[Harm]

BillyIdolWannaB agrees: Your wrong. How do they 'have' to kill animals? Theres no justifying it.

What is the alternative? Please enlighten me.
The PETA Files: Why We Euthanize

 

[randiann]

It's easy to post pictures of animals in severe pain who, perhaps, should be euthanized to lessen that pain. What's not easy is for PETA to explain why they are euthanizing 95% of the animals coming its way. Surely 95 out of 100 dogs they pick up do not have puppy cancer. Local shelters do far better than PETA, and if PETA can't re-home more animals, than they have no business running shelters. They should leave that to more qualified facilities.

You just simply CAN NOT defend those numbers.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT

Ok, one thing I find interesting is that on their website in their "About us" section, they have 20 vital stats. Only 5 can be taken as even remotely helping animals. About half are about advertising. This says to me that they don't have their minds focused on helping animals like they say they do, and care about publicity more instead. PETA

 

[Harm]

I know what you are saying. But If PETA leaves all this to these other shelters, than just more animals will live on in pain. I'd much rather PETA rescue them and euthanize them.

 

[randiann]

And I'd rather PETA did a better job at that.

 

[JCC]

I know what you are saying. But If PETA leaves all this to these other shelters, than just more animals will live on in pain. I'd much rather PETA rescue them and euthanize them.

PETA is undeniably the largest and most influential animal rights group worldwide. If you go with their general yearly average of about 5% rehomed animals (2008 was just a worse year than usual, it seems), and an average of 2000 animals, why can such a massive group not encourage more than 100 people to take an animal in a country of millions? If PETA leaves this to other shelters then these animals might have a chance of actually being rehomed, because I don't even know why PETA has shelters.

 

[BillyidolwannaB]

So every dog PETA kills is on its death bed wether homeless or not? I was under the assumption that the majority would be relativly healthy unwanted dogs off the street.

 

[Harm]

I'm not denying that PETA euthanizes perfectly healthy and neither are they.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

But even there you are basically saying that a dog's/animal's brain is not capable of love. From this I infer that either you:
A)consider humans to be animals in this category (which we are biologically) and think that love then does not exist and humans do not have feelings either or
B) consider humans to be capable of emotion while animals are not, thus implying that humans are superior to other animals in this aspect

Why do you need to make it seem like I am saying an animal is a lesser to a human?
Is that the only way you can argue your case?

I have not once said, or indeed suggested, that.
On the contrary, I believe that every animal be afforded the freedoms it rightly deserves and not be imprisoned in cages, be forced to kill itself or do the bidding of another animal that is outside of its nature.

Do you think the lion hates the zebra?
Do you think the dog hates the cat?

Not at all, that emotion doesn't even come into it, what they DO is hunt or show strength to retain territory.

One might argue there that their willingness to follow their leader is a sign of their love and devotion. Love then would be an instinctual feeling that helps the dogs survive. I don't know if you've ever seen a dog when their 'pack leader' comes home. To me, it would seem silly if a dog gets so excited over this simple, daily act unless it was their way of expressing how happy they were to see the person whom they love the most.

Yes, one might argue that - but then one might argue that the Sun moves around the Earth, that doesn't mean its accurate.

I've seen wolves get excited when the pack leader has come back after a day of hunting who will lead them to fun.
I have seen wolves be 'playful' or what seems as being playful, but what is actually happening is they are practicing their hunting skills.

You wanna assign emotion to an animal, enjoy it, but its you who is assigning the emotion because thats what you believe you would 'feel' its not what the animal feels.

It is sarcasm, and it means that I thought this point was so far out there that it did not deem a response.

Well you gave a response anyway, so by giving a response then saying it did not deem a response makes you look a little foolish - choose one.
Also, for future reference, I recommend you work on your argument and make it clear before you start with the sarcasm.

So it is more kind to put, say, pomerainins (sp?) out in the wild to survive by themselves because, when they die, their species will revert back to the way it was? I see the point you are trying to make about survival of the fittest here, but that in no way makes this humane.

Yes, I am saying that.
How do you know that any breed of dog would or wouldn't survive?

As I said, dogs are pack animals, they automatically create packs and a pack will feed the rest - the pack will grow to retain territory and also for procreation - thats how the world works.

You really need to understand more about animals before you make comments like this because it really does show an absolute lack of understanding of anything.

 

[randiann]

Why do you need to make it seem like I am saying an animal is a lesser to a human?
Is that the only way you can argue your case?

I have not once said, or indeed suggested, that.
On the contrary, I believe that every animal be afforded the freedoms it rightly deserves and not be imprisoned in cages, be forced to kill itself or do the bidding of another animal that is outside of its nature.

Do you think the lion hates the zebra?
Do you think the dog hates the cat?

Not at all, that emotion doesn't even come into it, what they DO is hunt or show strength to retain territory.

But it is their EMOTIONS that help animals (and humans) have the ability to survive. And, if you look at example A

A)consider humans to be animals in this category (which we are biologically) and think that love then does not exist and humans do not have feelings either or

I did offer an arguement other than "Humans are superior to animals"

Why do you have such a hard time believing that animals are capable of feeling emotions? My theory is that we feel emotions, we are very biologically similar to animals, therefore it is not a great leap to imagine that animals feel emotions.

As far as the lion hating the zebra, no I doubt he "hates" the zebra, but I don't hate my steak when I eat it either.
What about the lion fighting the other lion for territory, or killing off cubs of another lion? He does this for survival and to retain territory, yes, but probably also because he feels THREATENED. His territory is threatened, he feels uneasy and probably angry at the animal who poses a danger to him, and therefore he takes action.

As neither of us are biologists or animal psychics, I think this is a moot point.

Yes, one might argue that - but then one might argue that the Sun moves around the Earth, that doesn't mean its accurate.

I've seen wolves get excited when the pack leader has come back after a day of hunting who will lead them to fun.
I have seen wolves be 'playful' or what seems as being playful, but what is actually happening is they are practicing their hunting skills.

And fun leads to feeling joy and happiness. Why can they not be playful WHILE practicing their hunting skills? Children play house and tea parties, are they simply practicing for adulthood or do they get joy from these activities as well?

You wanna assign emotion to an animal, enjoy it, but its you who is assigning the emotion because thats what you believe you would 'feel' its not what the animal feels.

Prove they don't.

Well you gave a response anyway, so by giving a response then saying it did not deem a response makes you look a little foolish - choose one.
Also, for future reference, I recommend you work on your argument and make it clear before you start with the sarcasm.

And again with the personal attacks instead of dealing with the debate at hand. Just out of curiousity, and not to attack your debate strategy, but can you discuss something without demeaning the other person?

Yes, I am saying that.
How do you know that any breed of dog would or wouldn't survive?

Because certain types of dogs are pretty much man-made creatures. For example, the English Bulldog. As they require artificial insemination and c-sections to procreate, it is highly unlikely that they would survive very long in the wild. To completely abandon them would, in my opinion, be cruel. But then again, breeding an animal to this type of extreme is also unethical in my book.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Well, it's interesting to see how popular my little thread has become!

 

[JCC]

Vis-a-vis animals emotions debate:

Prove they don't.

This is the problem. The fact is, it can't be proven that animals can feel emotion, and it can't be proven that animals can't feel emotion, so the whole thing is running around in circles, which is monumentally daft. I find it difficult to come to terms with the idea that out of billions of species we are the only ones that feel emotions, but that's merely my feeling and it is completely a stab in the dark, as are all opinions on this issue, so there's no point arguing about it.