PETA Asks band Pet Shop Boys to Change Name

[Harm]

What about pets that when their "humans" leave they whimper? Or when they scream from being hurt? Things like that.

 

[Mumrik]

PETA are well known for being ridicolously stupid attention whores. This just happens to prove it once again.

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:19 PM ----------

No-kill shelters often don't work out because they can rarely care for very many animals. And I don't think you understand how shelters (especially ones like PETA) work. If these animals aren't adopted soon there isn't much they can do but euthanize.

Yes, they do. In Germany there are ONLY no kill shelters and they work just fine. Of course they are full as we have many animals from Spain, France and other nearby countries aswell. But they also get walked, played with and cared for daily, those who need sports get them, some get trained to be search and rescue dogs or guide dogs, for example. Sure, they'd be better off in a home with a nice family but at least they're not dead and still have the chance to find a nice home.
We had a dog who had been in a shelter for more than three years, had at least four owners before us and he spent the last three years of his life very happily and you couldn't think of a more thankful pet. What you're saying is, he'd be better off if he was euthanized after not being able to find a home for six months? I don't think so.

I'm going by the numbers which were given in this thread here: If PETA can't find homes for more than 95% animals they "rescue" they obviously should think of something better to do with their time and leave it to the ones who can. These numbers are simply not justifiable.

Do you even know what you are saying? They EUTHANIZE them because they have no other choice. Would you rather these animals still be living in horrible conditions before PETA got there?

Do you even know what YOU are saying? Euthanizing is a nice word for killing. Calling it a pretty name doesn't change the matter.

The thing about them wanting that band or whatever to change their name? Probably, because they want more attention to their cause.

But their cause is faulty. Most of their campaigns are downright ridicolous. I've heard PETA people call my dad the Anti-Christ because he is a butcher and a hunter but I'm not going to make a point why hunting is not wrong here because that has already been covered by someone else earlier.

I think they do it, because it seems to be the best for the animal. The animal might be in great pain, or unable to survive on it's own. It's then better to put the animal to sleep, for it's own sake, on a humane and painless way

Euthanizing should be a last resort when an animal is deadly sick and you don't want it to suffer any longer than it has to and not an easy excuse to not have to find a new home for an animal.

Yeah, but these are smaller shelters. PETA's shelters are by no means small. These other shelters may ban together and help each other out, but their numbers aren't nearly as big.


I know what you mean. But it's a fact that no-kill shelters are limited to a certain amount. I mean 40 cats? That's not very many at all.

You take a lot of smaller shelters and you get one big shelter and I can guarantee you those animals are cared for better than they ever could be in a big one.
It's not the size that matters.

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!

No they don't. Animals get adopted out of there too once in a while, you know. There are lots shelters who work together with private persons who take in animals as long as they haven't found a new home yet. Or, if one is full they give it to another one in the neighbourhood. At least they do here.

The bigger picture doesn't help the friendly old dog who is getting killed simply because most people want cute, clumsy puppies.

 

[JCC]

What about pets that when their "humans" leave they whimper? Or when they scream from being hurt? Things like that.

Well, it all depends on your outlook. Some people say that they're instinctual reactions, some say that they aren't.

 

[Harm]

Yes, they do. In Germany there are ONLY no kill shelters and they work just fine. Of course they are full as we have many animals from Spain, France and other nearby countries aswell. But they also get walked, played with and cared for daily, those who need sports get them, some get trained to be search and rescue dogs or guide dogs, for example. Sure, they'd be better off in a home with a nice family but at least they're not dead and still have the chance to find a nice home.
We had a dog who had been in a shelter for more than three years, had at least four owners before us and he spent the last three years of his life very happily and you couldn't think of a more thankful pet. What you're saying is, he'd be better off if he was euthanized after not being able to find a home for six months? I don't think so.

He wouldn't be better off euthanized, but you aren't looking at the bigger picture (big suprise in this thread) because of these selfish shelters, many animals go unsaved.

I'm going by the numbers which were given in this thread here: If PETA can't find homes for more than 95% animals they "rescue" they obviously should think of something better to do with their time and leave it to the ones who can. These numbers are simply not justifiable.

I've addressed this.

Do you even know what YOU are saying? Euthanizing is a nice word for killing. Calling it a pretty name doesn't change the matter.

And this.

But their cause is faulty. Most of their campaigns are downright ridiculous. I've heard PETA people call my dad the Anti-Christ because he is a butcher and a hunter but I'm not going to make a point why hunting is not wrong here because that has already been covered by someone else earlier.

I know they are ridiculous. I don't like them at all, but they aren't what a lot of people are saying.

Euthanizing should be a last resort when an animal is deadly sick and you don't want it to suffer any longer than it has to and not an easy excuse to not have to find a new home for an animal.

It's not an excuse...it's a reality.

You take a lot of smaller shelters and you get one big shelter and I can guarantee you those animals are cared for better than they ever could be in a big one.
It's not the size that matters.

Once again, I've addressed this.

No they don't. Animals get adopted out of there too once in a while, you know. There are lots shelters who work together with private persons who take in animals as long as they haven't found a new home yet. Or, if one is full they give it to another one in the neighbourhood. At least they do here.

Yeah, once and a while. That doesn't do much for the others.

The bigger picture doesn't help the friendly old dog who is getting killed simply because most people want cute, clumsy puppies.

And that's very sad, but that has to happen, if everyone thought like that then thousands of animals would die suffering and tortured.

 

[Relic]

For the benefit of BillyIdolWannaB I will attempt to explain Harms Ways post. (not that i think it needs explaining, but I 'm just trying to do a public service for Mr. WannaB.)

She mentioned the fact that people seem to want clumsy puppies. I'm not sure if that is indeed everyones poragative, but assuming that it is and we look at this statistically and find it true....few old dogs are in shelters and feweer yet are adopted. Shelters cater more to the demographic that is more readily adopted, young pups or early adolescent dogs.

If people held out for the old dogs and let the undeseriable others go by the way side and get the hot shot, then the only demographic being adopted would be the recently saved old dogs (of which there are naturaly fewer of.)

That would mean exactly as she says, minus maybe the torturing and suffering, as the greater population of young animals are exterminated because the current fad/whatever is to get geeezer dogs which are in short supply.

Think of it as going to an age open singles club and mostly everyone only accepting a fun time with a sr. citizen, and that most clientel would not date the young.
Assuming that at the end of the night, anyone you would not be intrested dating would be shot dead, what do you think the chances are that many would survive? (or the club for that matter)

I Hope this makes some sense to you, or at the very least does not confuse you further.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

But it is their EMOTIONS that help animals (and humans) have the ability to survive. And, if you look at example A I did offer an arguement other than "Humans are superior to animals"

Prove it - you say that their EMOTIONS help them, prove it.
Like JCC said, this is all opinion. Animal Instinct is what I believe controls the animal, this isn't emotion. Its instinct is to make sure it can eat, to procreate and teach their young to do the same.

Humanity is a different level of evolution, its a different level of conciousness and conscience, thats why we feel emotions.

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.

Why do you have such a hard believing that animals aren't capable?

The conscience, conciousness, is a random freak of nature, it isn't down to biology - if it was, then science would have been able to pin it down to some degree already, but they can't. It is still one of the greatest mysteries of the universe.
Scientifically though, animals (other than human) have shown their brain make-up is different to our.
The reason that animals are tested on is because, while exhibiting the same pain receptors as humans and PHYSICALLY showing the same responses as humans, they don't have the same emotional response - because they don't have them.

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.

'Probably' - no.

The animals territory and its prowess are what, generally, determine if it gets the best mate, so that it can have the strongest offspring.
Thats not emotion, thats procreation and a species survival.

But yes, neither of us are biologists.

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?

Who mentioned fun?
I assume by children you mean humans - well look above for my response to that.

Prove they don't.

Actually the onus is on you to prove otherwise. It has long been held, in the scien tific community, that animals don't feel emotion - you have to prove otherwise.

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?

Actually, without going all 'playground', you started by being sarcastic.
You can'r be sarcastic then have it returned THEN complain that someone has done the same.

I merely explained to you how you said something that was actually contrary to what you had done then to work on your argument and proof before you try that course.
This is a typical response from many people on this forum, the moment I 'bite back' people play the 'can't you be reasonable' card.
You want a reasonable response, try not crying wolf when someone gives in kind!

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.

So, they can't procreate?
If they can't, then they shouldn't be forced to, and if they are released into the wild, they don't procreate but they live on the rest of their lives.

 

[randiann]

Prove it - you say that their EMOTIONS help them, prove it.

I can't; which is exactly why I propose this as a theory, not as fact. You state things as fact instead of as theory, hence the problem.

Humanity is a different level of evolution, its a different level of conciousness and conscience, thats why we feel emotions.

Why do you have such a hard believing that animals aren't capable?

The conscience, conciousness, is a random freak of nature, it isn't down to biology - if it was, then science would have been able to pin it down to some degree already, but they can't. It is still one of the greatest mysteries of the universe.
Scientifically though, animals (other than human) have shown their brain make-up is different to our.
The reason that animals are tested on is because, while exhibiting the same pain receptors as humans and PHYSICALLY showing the same responses as humans, they don't have the same emotional response - because they don't have them.

So are you saying animal testing is ok because animals are less capable of feeling pain? The scientific community has been proven wrong before, and I have always seen this "excuse" as a faulty one that allows them to justify harming another animal. Conscience, in my opinion, is not a "freak" happening of evolution, but something everything possesses. I have no scientific evidence to back it up, but none to contradict it either other than people using the excuse that humans are somehow different, therefore it is morally acceptable to harm other beings for testing, manufacturing, etc.

Who mentioned fun?
I assume by children you mean humans - well look above for my response to that.

You mentioned fun-here it is:

I've seen wolves get excited when the pack leader has come back after a day of hunting who will lead them to fun.

And, yes, I meant human children.

Actually the onus is on you to prove otherwise. It has long been held, in the scien tific community, that animals don't feel emotion - you have to prove otherwise.

Again, this is why it is theory, and not fact.

Actually, without going all 'playground', you started by being sarcastic.
You can'r be sarcastic then have it returned THEN complain that someone has done the same.

I merely explained to you how you said something that was actually contrary to what you had done then to work on your argument and proof before you try that course.
This is a typical response from many people on this forum, the moment I 'bite back' people play the 'can't you be reasonable' card.
You want a reasonable response, try not crying wolf when someone gives in kind!

Was I?
Here's what I have said:

...ignoring all the namecalling, because it is just getting silly...

And in kind, I was told
that I was "bitching,"

Then there is this remark that was so far out of context as to what I replied I couldn't even respond to it, and my sarcastic little remark

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.

I said I would not get into a name calling contest, to which you replied

you don't want bitchy responses, don't be bitchy!

followed by

you look a little foolish

and a statement that my comments

show an absolute lack of understanding of anything.

I never said you can't be reasonable, just simply asked if you can debate a topic without demeaning the other person. I never "cried wolf," I simply asked what I see as a very valid question. In this conversation, I have called your remarks silly and made 1 sarcastic remark, and in turn, it has been said that I am "bitching," "bitchy," "bitchy," "foolish," and I have "an absolute lack of understanding of anything." I'm just curious if you can refrain from this. From how defensive you got when I asked, I'm guessing not.

So, they can't procreate?
If they can't, then they shouldn't be forced to, and if they are released into the wild, they don't procreate but they live on the rest of their lives.

They shouldn't be forced to procreate, which, in your opinion, is their main driving force for living, and they should just be released into the wild to live out the rest of their very short lives as they have no way to fend for themselves now. These animals are domesticated, whether you feel that is right or not. This means that many of them do rely on us for their survival now. Without humans, it is very unlikely that they will survive for very long.

I don't know, you argue that it is inhumane to have domesticated animals, but to me it seems inhumane to leave animals who are completely used to relying on humans to fend for themselves.

 

[Mumrik]

He wouldn't be better off euthanized, but you aren't looking at the bigger picture (big suprise in this thread) because of these selfish shelters, many animals go unsaved.

As I said, the bigger picture doesn't help the animals who get killed. I'm looking at what I see every day and that are one hundred dogs who might not be even alive anymore in another country.

And when I'm looking at the bigger picture in Germany I see that it works just fine. That is not selfish, it is what is best for the animals - that they still have the prospect of being exactly the pet that this one family is looking for.

Pets who are mistreated get taken away from their owners so they're not going unsaved because our shelters are selfish.
I know that we have much less animals living on the streets than, i.e. Spain (just going by what I know, I don't know how that is in the USA) but we get some of those on a regular basis - and I'm talking every shelter in this country not just the ones in my neighbourhood. And while we can't save - that is, get them off the street and try to find a home for them, not killing them - all of them, at least we try.
When it works fine in one country (someone mentioned it's the same in Canada, makes at least two and there are more), why wouldn't it in others aswell? Yes, it's a long way and many more shelters would have to be opened and a lot of animals would need to be castrated but it's not impossible.

It's not an excuse...it's a reality.

I think you didn't understand what I wanted to say. Might be because of how I worded it, I don't know. What I wanted to say is this: I know it's reality. But it seems to me that euthanizining these animals is their excuse to "rescue" and not have to care for them afterwards, then to go straight on the next campaign.

Once again, I've addressed this.

I know you already adressed most of what I quoted but I still wanted to say something about it.

Yeah, once and a while. That doesn't do much for the others.

I was being sarcastic. The quota of animals adopted out of shelters are pretty high here.

And that's very sad, but that has to happen, if everyone thought like that then thousands of animals would die suffering and tortured.

I would hardly call living in a shelter suffering and being tortured. I know it's not perfect living conditions but still better than being killed.
Again, animals who are mistreated are being saved. If there's not enough space for them, it is going to be found.

She mentioned the fact that people seem to want clumsy puppies. I'm not sure if that is indeed everyones poragative, but assuming that it is and we look at this statistically and find it true....few old dogs are in shelters and feweer yet are adopted. Shelters cater more to the demographic that is more readily adopted, young pups or early adolescent dogs.

It was just an example to make a point but I'm going further into this now.
As there are only no kill shelters here I think it's safe to say the numbers are pretty accurate and with what I've seen - I work voluntarily in a shelter. And mostly with dogs as some might have noticed -, it matches with what I said.

Most people rather have a cute, small puppy who naturally has a longer life expectance than a nine year old dog so they get that one. That they're cute, small and clumsy only helps.
Different breeds have different life expectances so a nine year old might be dying the next year or live on for the next five years. Most people think it's not worth it to get a dog that's older than six or seven.

More than often what people who only want a puppy don't take into account that they still grow and need some decent education as well, so when they're not house-trained from day one, don't behave or grow bigger a lot of them find their way back into the shelter one way or another.

I'm not saying that puppies shouldn't be adopted too - they all deverse a home - but that they have it much easier to find one for the time being. So if we are in a country who euthanizes the animals who are in a shelter longer than any given time the chances that it's mostly old/older dogs much higher than that it's puppies.