Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Hrm, it's too bad I can't use some personal research I did. :) Jazzman831 22:59, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

The main page for this article should be the full name of the organization, not the acronym. I'm proposing the article be moved to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Foxtrot 20:03, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Stop me if I'm overstating the case. PETA may or may not see human beings as animals - the way most liberals do. In Biology, human beings are classified as part of the Animal Kingdom; see primates or mammals.

Also, they don't say they want animals to have exactly the same rights; there are no plans for them to vote in elections. They use the word "consideration".

I'm still studying their view on people and (other) animals in relationships that can be seen as mutually beneficial. If I befriend a wild animal, and it starts to like being with me, am I "using" him (in a way PETA would condemn)? If I have a pet now, must I return it to the wild? Or what? --Ed Poor Talk 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

They have companion animals, actually. If you are interested in the topic, I highly recommend Peter Singer's Animal Liberation, which examines the topic at some length and really was the foundation of the "animal rights" movement.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm going to rewrite this article, actually, Ed. It just needs a redo, since it's scattered and not really cohesive. Also, PETA's aims against fishing and hunting and circuses and so on are very well-known objectives, so I'm not sure they are criticism, as they are listed now. Even though I dislike PETA and disagree with them, I am familiar with the philosophy and a vegetarian myself, so I think I can treat the subject fairly.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

"PETA opposes the human ownership of animals as pets or work animals."

That's not really accurate, from what I've heard. They think the world would be a little nicer if people had never domesticated wild animals and kept them as pets, but they have no plans to stop them now. In fact, they believe it's good to adopt animals without homes as that cuts down on animal suffering.

From PETA's official web site: "Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis." I also found another page on PETA's web site about pet ownership and they specifically say that contrary to myth, "PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and 'set them free.'" and that they want "the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals from pounds or shelters".

So that quote should probably be removed from the article.

Isn't it amazing that all people, Conservative, Liberal, white, black, religious, atheist, can all agree that PETA is insane? - xx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PumaS (talk)

Isn't it amazing, another group led by liberals? --Jpatt 15:00, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Personal tools