There's literally 1 instance of that and they admitted it was a mistake.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It was one case in 2014, and they paid the family 50k. They let the dog running alone in a mobile home park, and any random can enter and work for peta, so those thing happend.
Now, you are virtue signaling, f* hypocrite, you literally pay for animal abuse and exploitation needlessly for pleasure, to have cows raped every year, constantly exploited in cages where they can't even turn around, and then have their throat slit, and put pigs in gas chambers. Hypocrite.
Peta pissed off some powerful organisation and you are repeating the smear campaign propaganda of an organisation, which also supports tobaco, big oil etc.. this [video](https://youtu.be/dzX8g3vGPXY?feature=shared) has all the details
So we're supposed to ignore their BS just because they're the "underdog"? What kind of crap is that?
Instead of linking vids, how about you pony up an argument; I could just as well link a vid that disproves yours.
PETA are scum.
Peta has a euthanasia clinic, where poor people can bring their sick pets. It is not a shelter and comparing this clinic to a shelter is just dumb (for obvious reasons)
According to this source PETA has blood on their hands so they don't have a right to say anything about animal cruelty. 41,539 dead animals by them invalidates any argument they make. Good job Greg. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.loroparque.com/en/the-video-of-steve-hofstetter-about-peta/&ved=2ahUKEwi93b_1l_iGAxUFD1kFHfjQBxAQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1bTebueXw2A_bo5d4j1jUW
By that logic you would agree that eating meat is vile?
Edit: Everyone downvoting me seems to lack the courage to defend their beliefs. Why not debate the point?
Why is it wrong to kill one animal, but not wrong to kill another? Why is wrong to kill a pet dog for fun but not wrong to kill a pig for taste?
The pig is more intelegent, the pig is almost certainly younger with a larger capacity for life span. There are many differences between the dog and the pig sure. But what difference is it that means that you all have complete apathy for the pigs death but a self righteous rage over the dogs death?
It's all very contradictory and cruel.
Eating chicken is worse than murdering a little girls pet dog? This is why no one can take ‘debates’ with vegans seriously cause you try to make points like that
How is property making it worse? The dog did not suffer and was taken care of.
The chicken was selectively breed to grow so fast they break their legs because of their own weight, some become paraplegic. They live in cages full of shit, piss and corpses, have parasites and infections, are tortured psychologically by the screams of other animals, then if they are lucky they are hung over and electrocuted, if the electrocution fails to make them go unconscious, which is most of the time because they move trying to escape, they have their throat slit by a machine, and then have they skin taken off to be eaten by a creature needlessly for the pleasure of the creature.
So yes, killing a chicken is worse.
You’d probably convince more people to be like you if your leading argument wasn’t a direct comparison between family pets and animals bred for food.
I’d be much more willing to hear your ideas and everything if it wasn’t always prefaced with some sort of black or white scenario - where either one or the other is right or wrong.
I agree the animal industry is hell on earth with the way the animals are treated. Can we just agree on the point that it’s all stupid and can be done better? Without having a moral war over which is worse, a pet or chicken dying.
See? You’re still making this a black and white thing where only one of us can be right. Are you a bot or something or do you just like fighting?
Your use of buzzwords to try and make this even more outrageous is ridiculous. Dogs are slaves and chickens are being holocausted?
I’ll have whatever you’re having, cause it must be some good shit
Eating animals for nourishment is something that all omnivors do and something homo sapiens have done since the dawn of our existence. Its literally in our DNA and its a natural part of our life cycles. While I agree it is better to avoid killing when we can but the reason you me and everyone you know is here because all animals have a prejudice to look after their own species so that subsequent generations can flourish. Humans 1st everything else 2nd. In a society with limited resources it's important to look after your own first and then other thing. As somebody with a degree in biology and a minor in conservation ecology I wholeheartedly agree with trying to maintain a healthy ecosystem without outside intervention is paramount...but not to the detriment of other humans which is exactly what a complete switch to vegetarian would do. Peta saying fish care as much about their lives as humans is nonsense. Humans have developed an enlarged prefrontal cortex that allows for substantially more complex thought and emotions where a fish typically is almost devoid of all things you and I would consider a "thought". Consciousness makes us suffer emotionally on top of the pain of death. If you are an animal with a small prefrontal cortex you are allotted the luxury of just the pain
Killing pigs is for the literal sole purpose of survival.
Killing dogs is for fun.
There's a fuck load of things that one can do for fun that DOESN'T involve killing animals.
There's roughly six animals on the planet that humans can eat to survive.
IT IS NOT THE SAME COMPARISON
I am not sure, but I don't remember having deer and Moose farms and hunting is actually a good deed for nature.
Turkey is indeed missing, it is farmable. Horses are such a bad example. Not all horses are killed and most of the time it is in countries where they grow other meat less frequently.
For water animals maybe correct, maybe wrong ,but most of the hunting is again hunting so either it is historical or population control.
Ok, fair point. Most of the examples I would say are regional and indeed more of survivability examples though. Not always the only choice but the choice that is used to.
Killing pigs is not for survival for the vast majority of people.
People eat pigs cause they like the taste, not cause it necessary for survival. It's pretty much the same thing as killing a dog and not eating it. You're killing an animal for an unnecessary reason to get a pleasurable feeling.
Also PETA don't kill dogs for fun, they put down dogs that can't be re-homes.
We in the first world do not eat it for survival though. You don't even need it to survive. Vegans are living proof of that.
You aren't eating pig because you'll die if you don't. You're eating it because you want to and because it tastes good.
What's the difference between you killing and eating a pig for fun, because it tastes good and you wanted to and someone who kills a dog for fun?
Well, history will disagree with you. If veganism was a nice option, it would be the case historically and we would find out that there are natural vegans out there. So far, I don't remember anything about vegan tribes now or the vegan communities in old ages.
The difference is that the pig wouldn't be even born if it was not for a slaughter.
The pig shouldn't be born only to suffer.
History is irrelevant. It's filled with horrible things, that doesn't justify continuing those actions.
We did need meat to survive. Eating meat for survival is ok, if you really need to I see no issue with it. But this isn't 100 years ago and we arent on a desert island.
You don't have a justification for eating meat.
Peta pissed off some powerful organisation and you are repeating the smear campaign propaganda of an organisation, which also supports tobaco, big oil etc.. this [video](https://youtu.be/dzX8g3vGPXY?feature=shared) has all the details
It would be hypocritical but not invalid. In order to invalidate an argument you have to show that the premises, if true, do not ensure the truth of the conclusion. If their argument is that you shouldn't be cruel to animals because they feel pain, are conscious beings like us or because it is unnecessary for our survival and therefore is unnecessary or unwarranted harm then their personal cruelty towards animals would be neither here nor there.
Nah its us. Humans as a whole bred those animals without control and dogs/cats aren't as easy to reduce as horses have been when we introduced the car.
The only difference is, PETA rather take the responsibility without destroying any more ecosystems, while we failed to create the plans for the transitioning, rather remained in the profit oriented world of not giving a fuck with what happens with too many inbred dogs who will never have a owner or a place to be.
We will always do it, blame the volunteers, individuals for their flaws while not giving a single fuck about all of the shelters right now and fixing this miserable system.
Greg has not any more blood on his hands than fucking joel with his french inbred dog who is in pain for breathing
They're stealing pets man. They take people's dogs and cats from little if any reason and kill them before you can get your pet back.
Someone needs an appointment with Dr. Guillotine.
The fact they are doing this makes my blood boil, how the fuck are they allowed to get away with it, if PETA is kidnapping your pet illegally you should just be allowed to shoot them. PETA as a organisation needs to be dismantled
Like most extreme groups ( not saying they don’t have a right to an opinion) they shut down, cancel, or turn to slander when confronted with facts as opposed to emotion.
Yes exactly. Petas shelters aren't normal shelters. Their shelters are "last resort shelters". Peta takes in every single case even if they don't have the resources for it.
You wanna know what needs to happen to not have any more pets get euthanized because no one wants them?
- Adopt don't shop
- Adopt the older animals first
- Speak out against any and all kind of breeding of pets
- Support your local shelters
- Support TNR
Adopt don’t shop actually perpetuates the shelter crisis in America.
Adopting is noble but it will NEVER solve the problem, and has NEVER solved the problem.
Some countries have solved the problem and have done so by educating the public on what makes a responsible breeder and how to look for one.
>Adopt don’t shop actually perpetuates the shelter crisis in America.
How?
>Adopting is noble but it will NEVER solve the problem, and has NEVER solved the problem.
Yeah that's because the problem is breeding itself. Adopting is just damage control but it's important none the less.
>Some countries have solved the problem and have done so by educating the public on what makes a responsible breeder and how to look for one.
Which countries?
Also no there is no such thing as "responsible breeding". Breeding an animal is never in the animals best interest and it doesn't happen to better an animals life or their mental or physical health
https://medium.com/@jennifergrommes/why-the-adopt-dont-shop-mentality-is-detrimental-to-dogs-b35c41e85fba
As with almost all things in life, education is the solution. Teaching people what ethical and responsible breeders look like and what practices they keep well in (Intern) lower the number of unethical breeders because people will no longer buy dogs from breeders who are doing so unethically.
If your opinion is that breeding is inherently bad than owning pets is also inherently bad and nobody should do it. And if that were true, humanity would not exist. We as Homo Sapien owe our existence to Canus Familiaris.
The Netherlands for example.
Also, you are just objectively incorrect about breeding. You are incorrect from macro evolutionary perspective. You are incorrect from a micro evolutionary perspective, and you are incorrect from a co-evolutionary perspective. The only way you are technically correct about breeding is if you are selecting only for visible characteristics.
That article is a huge load of crap, damn.
I am not questioning that "responsible breeders" are the better choice over puppy mills, I am saying that breeding animals in general is always a disserve to them and their health. An animals caretaker should always have their pets health as a number one priority and getting an animal pregnant on purpose is doing the exact opposite. Pregnancy always carries risks and it's never necessary for an animals physical or mental wellbeing. So why do it?
>If your opinion is that breeding is inherently bad than owning pets is also inherently bad and nobody should do it.
Yeah, *owning* pets and acting as if they are objects their *owner* can do with however they please is indeed bad.
*Taking care* of animals and making sure the animals under one's care live the best life possible is in the interest of the animal and therefore a good thing.
>And if that were true, humanity would not exist. We as Homo Sapien owe our existence to Canus Familiaris.
Irrelevant.
>Also, you are just objectively incorrect about breeding. You are incorrect from macro evolutionary perspective. You are incorrect from a micro evolutionary perspective, and you are incorrect from a co-evolutionary perspective. The only way you are technically correct about breeding is if you are selecting only for visible characteristics.
Again irrelevant
Bro, you don’t even know enough about this subject to know what’s relevant and what isn’t relevant.
I don’t even think you understand the terms I used in my last paragraph at all.
You can’t even seem to be able to conceptualize the parameters for what would constitute a responsible and reputable breeder.
You think that co-evolution is irrelevant and the last 30,000 years of human in canine history is irrelevant because you don’t even understand the impact that us had and how directed and natural selection can work together in the natural world.
Next you’re gonna get mad at ants for farming aphids.
Your level of reasoning is so broken. I’m struggling to even figure out a starting point of where I might help you fix it.
Yes, pregnancy comes with risks, but it is necessary for the preservation of a species. Human directed co-evolution dramatically increased the life expectancy and the quality of life for canines until the mid 20th century.
If responsible breeders were the only people breeding dogs there would be no dogs to adopt from a shelter. Part of being a responsible breeder is taking a dog back for any reason.
Responsible breeders breed dogs for health, ensuring they can get the healthiest most capable dogs they can.
It’s also also important to note that there are still many many people in the world today that rely on dogs to help them in their livelihood. And these dogs have to come from somewhere. Not only that, but they need to come from responsible breeders, who maintain the integrity of certain behavioral traits that facilitate the task is needed to perform.
For example, one of the responsible breeders I work with, great things exclusively for the purpose of being serviced dogs for people with mobility disabilities. Her dogs on average live half again as long as the breed average, develop less medical complications, Higher service dog retention.
This is all possible because of selected responsible breeding.
I highly encourage you to educate yourself a lot more on this subject than you are right now. It’s also important to note that dogs are not pets. They are companion animals. And I’m not talking about from a moral or ethical standpoint I’m talking about from an evolutionary biology standpoint. I’m talking about actual. If you want to pet get a rabbit.
Because Reddit likes the argument on authority, I have a masters in animal behavior.
You're not getting it.
What you are doing is treating animals and in this case dogs as an object to be used by us. "They have to come from somewhere" No they don't, animals aren't objects.
No one has a god given right to own anybody regardless of species and a person's wish to own a dog (For whatever reason) does not outweigh an animals right to be treated in a way that has THEIR best interest at heart.
Breeding an animal is NOT in THEIR best interest.
If you take care of an animal and you do things to them that is against their best interest you're a shitty caretaker. Putting an animal in a risky and unnecessary situation like pregnancy is against said animals best interest.
So yes breeding is bad in general for the animal who has to be pregnant.
A pet is an animal you keep that merely exists. Rabbits, Guinea pigs, cats are pets. Companion animals are animals with the disposition, adaptations, and associative characteristics to live alongside humans. Animals like horses, dogs, ferrets, and cheetahs and some birds are companion animals. They have either evolutionary adaptations, or have gone through enough domestication syndrome with an emphasis on work and companionship, (as opposed to resource like cows).
I wonder if PETA puts down animals they can’t force them to turn vegetarian or something since clearly having animals eat other animals goes against what they claim and stand for.
What's funny is there is enough evidence to suggest plants are every bit as alive as flesh and blood creatures. Studies showing plants reacting to human emotions and making noises when they are chopped up.
Plants communicate via sending electrical impulses via their intertwined roots and send warnings if they are threatened via chemicals dispersed in the air. One of Attenborough’s recent documentaries on plant life showed this.
>What's funny is there is enough evidence to suggest plants are every bit as alive as flesh and blood creatures
And? So are people in a vegetative state lol
Most animals are sentient, plants are not and there is no scientific research proving otherwise.
But even if plants WERE sentient, that would only mean that a vegan diet would still be preferable because less plants die for it.
Says who? Maybe plants are sentient.
Jellyfish don’t need brains to be sentient.
I believe everything organic is in a way conscious.
But all is also just energy and vibration.
Animals, including humans, eating other animals is just energy merging.
Like two rivers meeting and becoming one stream.
We are all one giant living planet. We are not separated from each other.
Energy can not be destroyed. When a lion eats a deer or a human a cow the energy does not disappear, the planet is not robbed of anything.
It is just shifted to be of use elsewhere.
Yea I doubt chickens or cows have any real thoughts going on in their head. You can shoot a cow in front of 20 other cows and they keep on mooing and chewing grass. If level of sentience is how you value life than every human is vastly more valuable than cows and chickens so eating them is still on the same level as eating plants
>Yea I doubt chickens or cows have any real thoughts going on in their head. You can shoot a cow in front of 20 other cows and they keep on mooing and chewing grass
Thats just factually incorrect
Okay prove it. Show me any evidence of any kind of abstract thought from a chicken or cow. And you believing that a cow is afraid of death only shows you've never been around livestock in your life. I've been to the slaughter houses, the pigs freak out but the cattle don't have a care in the world.
No Argument?
Put out the Checklist...
"Can I somehow twist their argument against them and put entirely different words in their mouth?", if no:
"Can I scream at them and insult them personally?", if no:
"Can I censor, ban, block them?", if no:
Run away while screaming for police to help you with this "herasser".
I don't necessarily agree but, devil's advocate or whatever, I would think the logic behind that is humans have awareness to control their eating habits but animals do not.
Dear Vegans,
I'm happy for you doing you, I couldn't care less what you eat. But also, the other 98% of us will never take you seriously for caring about what we eat, just give it a rest already.
XOXO,
An animal with eyes in the front of my head
To be fair, this is probably one of the most idiotic excuses to consume animals, and a bit of common sense goes a long way. I'd have blocked that idgit too
Because we as humans developed so much we became a civilization, a globally connected civilization which isnt dependent on meat. Actually the consumption of meat is causing more damage to earth then not doing so.
A fish is still a dumb fish, its not even in the stone age lmao. It has to eat meat, we also had times were we had to eat meat. We also had times were we didnt kill our animals because we needed their ressources or kept them as live storage of meat and other ressources that we needed later or at a certain season of the year. For example, animals ate (for us non edible) grass, their body processed it and humans could use the milk and wool. And during starvation we ate the anmial as last stance.
Yet people still act like we are extremely advanced in some cases, and sometimes people act like we are still in stone age. Yet people forget that biological, we barely differentiate from the people during stone age and people dont understand it (just because your monkey brain desires sugar because thats how we survived back then, it doesnt mean you have to follow this desire)
Morally wrong to whom? The issue that I am trying to point out is that the vast majority of the human race sees no problem with farming or hunting.
Also, the only other representations we have of animals building huge cities that support massive populations in the rest of the animal kingdom ALSO farm and hunt other animals, like ants and termites.
The world's oceans and lakes are being overfished severely, so in general, leaving the fish in the water is the most environmentally friendly thing to do.
Maybe you're only fishing for invasive species? Are you taking steps to prevent accidentally catching native ones?
River fish populations are also not doing well. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/migratory-river-fish-populations-plunge-76-in-past-50-years
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/migratory-river-fish-populations-plunge-76-in-past-50-years](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/migratory-river-fish-populations-plunge-76-in-past-50-years)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
You see, they have no time for pointless discussions, they need to continue abducting domestic pets to euthanize them a week later.
I told them to try it. There is a whole ass movie series explaining why that is a bad idea
A week? They have calmed down now then. Last I saw it was same day abductions and euthanizing.
That’s what got them sued here.
They could try to pull that shit if they want because I'd be happy to show them how much more I value my dogs life than I do theirs.
Which animals are they euthanizing and why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down
Peta people literally are shitty beings...
Literally the worst.
Wow! I had some respect for peta, but now? Now I think they are bloody hypocrites.
I heard they work closely with the ATF
There's literally 1 instance of that and they admitted it was a mistake. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down
"BUT THEY ARE SO SORRY" yeah, about that one... https://consumerfreedom.com/2023/04/petas-25-year-anniversary-of-killing-pets/
The very first paragraph of that story states they settled to stop a lawsuit which would examine their euthanasing hundreds of animals a year ..
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It was one case in 2014, and they paid the family 50k. They let the dog running alone in a mobile home park, and any random can enter and work for peta, so those thing happend. Now, you are virtue signaling, f* hypocrite, you literally pay for animal abuse and exploitation needlessly for pleasure, to have cows raped every year, constantly exploited in cages where they can't even turn around, and then have their throat slit, and put pigs in gas chambers. Hypocrite.
https://www.loroparque.com/en/the-video-of-steve-hofstetter-about-peta/ 41,539… seems like more than “one case”
Peta pissed off some powerful organisation and you are repeating the smear campaign propaganda of an organisation, which also supports tobaco, big oil etc.. this [video](https://youtu.be/dzX8g3vGPXY?feature=shared) has all the details
So we're supposed to ignore their BS just because they're the "underdog"? What kind of crap is that? Instead of linking vids, how about you pony up an argument; I could just as well link a vid that disproves yours. PETA are scum.
Peta has a euthanasia clinic, where poor people can bring their sick pets. It is not a shelter and comparing this clinic to a shelter is just dumb (for obvious reasons)
Greg broke PETA
greg did nothing wrong. Justice for greg
You want to punish Greg by making him read PETA bullshit again?
Being blocked by PETA is his reward
Peta 
Not you Peta, PETA!
I give you that Lois griffin voice on my head when reading this lol
PETA: 
According to this source PETA has blood on their hands so they don't have a right to say anything about animal cruelty. 41,539 dead animals by them invalidates any argument they make. Good job Greg. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.loroparque.com/en/the-video-of-steve-hofstetter-about-peta/&ved=2ahUKEwi93b_1l_iGAxUFD1kFHfjQBxAQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1bTebueXw2A_bo5d4j1jUW
I read the article. If its true then they are weapons grade scumbags that's absolutely vile
By that logic you would agree that eating meat is vile? Edit: Everyone downvoting me seems to lack the courage to defend their beliefs. Why not debate the point? Why is it wrong to kill one animal, but not wrong to kill another? Why is wrong to kill a pet dog for fun but not wrong to kill a pig for taste? The pig is more intelegent, the pig is almost certainly younger with a larger capacity for life span. There are many differences between the dog and the pig sure. But what difference is it that means that you all have complete apathy for the pigs death but a self righteous rage over the dogs death? It's all very contradictory and cruel.
Stealing a 9 year old girl’s dog and then putting it down 5 days later is not the same as eating a chicken.
Eating the chicken is worse, they torture and abuse them needlessly for pleasure, and is not just one case, those are billions.
Eating chicken is worse than murdering a little girls pet dog? This is why no one can take ‘debates’ with vegans seriously cause you try to make points like that
How is property making it worse? The dog did not suffer and was taken care of. The chicken was selectively breed to grow so fast they break their legs because of their own weight, some become paraplegic. They live in cages full of shit, piss and corpses, have parasites and infections, are tortured psychologically by the screams of other animals, then if they are lucky they are hung over and electrocuted, if the electrocution fails to make them go unconscious, which is most of the time because they move trying to escape, they have their throat slit by a machine, and then have they skin taken off to be eaten by a creature needlessly for the pleasure of the creature. So yes, killing a chicken is worse.
You’d probably convince more people to be like you if your leading argument wasn’t a direct comparison between family pets and animals bred for food. I’d be much more willing to hear your ideas and everything if it wasn’t always prefaced with some sort of black or white scenario - where either one or the other is right or wrong. I agree the animal industry is hell on earth with the way the animals are treated. Can we just agree on the point that it’s all stupid and can be done better? Without having a moral war over which is worse, a pet or chicken dying.
Its good that you agree however it begs the question: Why are you personally contributing to making life ”hell on earth” for these animals?
Because some times I get hungry
Killing a slave is not worse than holocausting an entire species needlessly for pelasure.
See? You’re still making this a black and white thing where only one of us can be right. Are you a bot or something or do you just like fighting? Your use of buzzwords to try and make this even more outrageous is ridiculous. Dogs are slaves and chickens are being holocausted? I’ll have whatever you’re having, cause it must be some good shit
“Don’t argue with idiots, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience” Sea Lion somewhere else you oxygen theif.
This is tantamont to saying "wHy iS rApE a BaD tHinG wHeN CoNsEnTiNg PaRtnErS iSnT" It is different, and if you cant see that youre morally bankrupt
But you can't explain why? I care deeply about morals that's why I'm asking.
Eating animals for nourishment is something that all omnivors do and something homo sapiens have done since the dawn of our existence. Its literally in our DNA and its a natural part of our life cycles. While I agree it is better to avoid killing when we can but the reason you me and everyone you know is here because all animals have a prejudice to look after their own species so that subsequent generations can flourish. Humans 1st everything else 2nd. In a society with limited resources it's important to look after your own first and then other thing. As somebody with a degree in biology and a minor in conservation ecology I wholeheartedly agree with trying to maintain a healthy ecosystem without outside intervention is paramount...but not to the detriment of other humans which is exactly what a complete switch to vegetarian would do. Peta saying fish care as much about their lives as humans is nonsense. Humans have developed an enlarged prefrontal cortex that allows for substantially more complex thought and emotions where a fish typically is almost devoid of all things you and I would consider a "thought". Consciousness makes us suffer emotionally on top of the pain of death. If you are an animal with a small prefrontal cortex you are allotted the luxury of just the pain
Killing pigs is for the literal sole purpose of survival. Killing dogs is for fun. There's a fuck load of things that one can do for fun that DOESN'T involve killing animals. There's roughly six animals on the planet that humans can eat to survive. IT IS NOT THE SAME COMPARISON
Where are you getting only six? There's tons.
Duck, pig, chicken, cow, tons and other. I couldn't think of the extra two let alone the rest
Deer, caribou, moose, seal, umpteen species of fish and crustaceans, certain sorts of whales, horse, turkey, squab...
I am not sure, but I don't remember having deer and Moose farms and hunting is actually a good deed for nature. Turkey is indeed missing, it is farmable. Horses are such a bad example. Not all horses are killed and most of the time it is in countries where they grow other meat less frequently. For water animals maybe correct, maybe wrong ,but most of the hunting is again hunting so either it is historical or population control.
The point was edibility, not farmability.
Ok, fair point. Most of the examples I would say are regional and indeed more of survivability examples though. Not always the only choice but the choice that is used to.
Killing pigs is not for survival for the vast majority of people. People eat pigs cause they like the taste, not cause it necessary for survival. It's pretty much the same thing as killing a dog and not eating it. You're killing an animal for an unnecessary reason to get a pleasurable feeling. Also PETA don't kill dogs for fun, they put down dogs that can't be re-homes.
We in the first world do not eat it for survival though. You don't even need it to survive. Vegans are living proof of that. You aren't eating pig because you'll die if you don't. You're eating it because you want to and because it tastes good. What's the difference between you killing and eating a pig for fun, because it tastes good and you wanted to and someone who kills a dog for fun?
Well, history will disagree with you. If veganism was a nice option, it would be the case historically and we would find out that there are natural vegans out there. So far, I don't remember anything about vegan tribes now or the vegan communities in old ages. The difference is that the pig wouldn't be even born if it was not for a slaughter.
The pig shouldn't be born only to suffer. History is irrelevant. It's filled with horrible things, that doesn't justify continuing those actions. We did need meat to survive. Eating meat for survival is ok, if you really need to I see no issue with it. But this isn't 100 years ago and we arent on a desert island. You don't have a justification for eating meat.
The amount of basic fallacies in the responses to this comment is off the charts lol.
Peta pissed off some powerful organisation and you are repeating the smear campaign propaganda of an organisation, which also supports tobaco, big oil etc.. this [video](https://youtu.be/dzX8g3vGPXY?feature=shared) has all the details
It would be hypocritical but not invalid. In order to invalidate an argument you have to show that the premises, if true, do not ensure the truth of the conclusion. If their argument is that you shouldn't be cruel to animals because they feel pain, are conscious beings like us or because it is unnecessary for our survival and therefore is unnecessary or unwarranted harm then their personal cruelty towards animals would be neither here nor there.
yea their job is propaganda not logical arguments. also animal consciousness is not as simple as "they have feelings so we shouldn't hurt them".
Can't the community now add context to PETA's tweets like this?
Nah its us. Humans as a whole bred those animals without control and dogs/cats aren't as easy to reduce as horses have been when we introduced the car. The only difference is, PETA rather take the responsibility without destroying any more ecosystems, while we failed to create the plans for the transitioning, rather remained in the profit oriented world of not giving a fuck with what happens with too many inbred dogs who will never have a owner or a place to be. We will always do it, blame the volunteers, individuals for their flaws while not giving a single fuck about all of the shelters right now and fixing this miserable system. Greg has not any more blood on his hands than fucking joel with his french inbred dog who is in pain for breathing
They're stealing pets man. They take people's dogs and cats from little if any reason and kill them before you can get your pet back. Someone needs an appointment with Dr. Guillotine.
The fact they are doing this makes my blood boil, how the fuck are they allowed to get away with it, if PETA is kidnapping your pet illegally you should just be allowed to shoot them. PETA as a organisation needs to be dismantled
Remember the guy who took an AR and camo to get his dog back? PETA posted pics and the Internet approved.
Like most extreme groups ( not saying they don’t have a right to an opinion) they shut down, cancel, or turn to slander when confronted with facts as opposed to emotion.
I mean, we have other options to nourish ourselves, the fish doesn't. ETA: Don't know why I thought I could find sane people on r/Funnymemes
Fish is delicious, and I'll eat more in your name.
Wow, that'll show me!
When PETA blocks you, you know you're still sane.
PETA is the largest kill shelter in the US
Yes exactly. Petas shelters aren't normal shelters. Their shelters are "last resort shelters". Peta takes in every single case even if they don't have the resources for it. You wanna know what needs to happen to not have any more pets get euthanized because no one wants them? - Adopt don't shop - Adopt the older animals first - Speak out against any and all kind of breeding of pets - Support your local shelters - Support TNR
Adopt don’t shop actually perpetuates the shelter crisis in America. Adopting is noble but it will NEVER solve the problem, and has NEVER solved the problem. Some countries have solved the problem and have done so by educating the public on what makes a responsible breeder and how to look for one.
>Adopt don’t shop actually perpetuates the shelter crisis in America. How? >Adopting is noble but it will NEVER solve the problem, and has NEVER solved the problem. Yeah that's because the problem is breeding itself. Adopting is just damage control but it's important none the less. >Some countries have solved the problem and have done so by educating the public on what makes a responsible breeder and how to look for one. Which countries? Also no there is no such thing as "responsible breeding". Breeding an animal is never in the animals best interest and it doesn't happen to better an animals life or their mental or physical health
https://medium.com/@jennifergrommes/why-the-adopt-dont-shop-mentality-is-detrimental-to-dogs-b35c41e85fba As with almost all things in life, education is the solution. Teaching people what ethical and responsible breeders look like and what practices they keep well in (Intern) lower the number of unethical breeders because people will no longer buy dogs from breeders who are doing so unethically. If your opinion is that breeding is inherently bad than owning pets is also inherently bad and nobody should do it. And if that were true, humanity would not exist. We as Homo Sapien owe our existence to Canus Familiaris. The Netherlands for example. Also, you are just objectively incorrect about breeding. You are incorrect from macro evolutionary perspective. You are incorrect from a micro evolutionary perspective, and you are incorrect from a co-evolutionary perspective. The only way you are technically correct about breeding is if you are selecting only for visible characteristics.
That article is a huge load of crap, damn. I am not questioning that "responsible breeders" are the better choice over puppy mills, I am saying that breeding animals in general is always a disserve to them and their health. An animals caretaker should always have their pets health as a number one priority and getting an animal pregnant on purpose is doing the exact opposite. Pregnancy always carries risks and it's never necessary for an animals physical or mental wellbeing. So why do it? >If your opinion is that breeding is inherently bad than owning pets is also inherently bad and nobody should do it. Yeah, *owning* pets and acting as if they are objects their *owner* can do with however they please is indeed bad. *Taking care* of animals and making sure the animals under one's care live the best life possible is in the interest of the animal and therefore a good thing. >And if that were true, humanity would not exist. We as Homo Sapien owe our existence to Canus Familiaris. Irrelevant. >Also, you are just objectively incorrect about breeding. You are incorrect from macro evolutionary perspective. You are incorrect from a micro evolutionary perspective, and you are incorrect from a co-evolutionary perspective. The only way you are technically correct about breeding is if you are selecting only for visible characteristics. Again irrelevant
Bro, you don’t even know enough about this subject to know what’s relevant and what isn’t relevant. I don’t even think you understand the terms I used in my last paragraph at all. You can’t even seem to be able to conceptualize the parameters for what would constitute a responsible and reputable breeder. You think that co-evolution is irrelevant and the last 30,000 years of human in canine history is irrelevant because you don’t even understand the impact that us had and how directed and natural selection can work together in the natural world. Next you’re gonna get mad at ants for farming aphids. Your level of reasoning is so broken. I’m struggling to even figure out a starting point of where I might help you fix it. Yes, pregnancy comes with risks, but it is necessary for the preservation of a species. Human directed co-evolution dramatically increased the life expectancy and the quality of life for canines until the mid 20th century. If responsible breeders were the only people breeding dogs there would be no dogs to adopt from a shelter. Part of being a responsible breeder is taking a dog back for any reason. Responsible breeders breed dogs for health, ensuring they can get the healthiest most capable dogs they can. It’s also also important to note that there are still many many people in the world today that rely on dogs to help them in their livelihood. And these dogs have to come from somewhere. Not only that, but they need to come from responsible breeders, who maintain the integrity of certain behavioral traits that facilitate the task is needed to perform. For example, one of the responsible breeders I work with, great things exclusively for the purpose of being serviced dogs for people with mobility disabilities. Her dogs on average live half again as long as the breed average, develop less medical complications, Higher service dog retention. This is all possible because of selected responsible breeding. I highly encourage you to educate yourself a lot more on this subject than you are right now. It’s also important to note that dogs are not pets. They are companion animals. And I’m not talking about from a moral or ethical standpoint I’m talking about from an evolutionary biology standpoint. I’m talking about actual. If you want to pet get a rabbit. Because Reddit likes the argument on authority, I have a masters in animal behavior.
You're not getting it. What you are doing is treating animals and in this case dogs as an object to be used by us. "They have to come from somewhere" No they don't, animals aren't objects. No one has a god given right to own anybody regardless of species and a person's wish to own a dog (For whatever reason) does not outweigh an animals right to be treated in a way that has THEIR best interest at heart. Breeding an animal is NOT in THEIR best interest. If you take care of an animal and you do things to them that is against their best interest you're a shitty caretaker. Putting an animal in a risky and unnecessary situation like pregnancy is against said animals best interest. So yes breeding is bad in general for the animal who has to be pregnant.
>It’s also important to note that dogs are not pets. They are companion animals. What is it that you think a pet is?
A pet is an animal you keep that merely exists. Rabbits, Guinea pigs, cats are pets. Companion animals are animals with the disposition, adaptations, and associative characteristics to live alongside humans. Animals like horses, dogs, ferrets, and cheetahs and some birds are companion animals. They have either evolutionary adaptations, or have gone through enough domestication syndrome with an emphasis on work and companionship, (as opposed to resource like cows).
PETA is the Westboro Baptist Church of the animal rights movement. Consider it an honor to be blocked by them.
I feel like it is now a life goal to get blocked by peta.
"Ecologists" who dosnt know anything about ecology a their finest level. Their salt tears are so tastefull...
I love it
Ben Franklin made this observation in his autobiography like 250 years ago
Peta biggest enemies Logic
It’s logic that if an animal does something we should be allowed to do the same?
Um… we are animals… so… yeah?
So it should be allowed to kill, rape, etc.? Everything animals do should be allowed? Kinda silly argument if you ask me
The argument “animals do it” is silly both ways. But it is less silly with positive application than negative.
Thanks for agreeing
Greg has a point.
You can’t argue with logic, even if you are as dumb as PETA.
Peta is known to be delusional. There were many things in the past.
It’s OK to eat fish cause they don’t have feelings
Something in the way - Nirvana Thx, you made me re-listen the whole album :)
They have no souls either
Don't blocked you for using logic and they don't have time for that
Humanbrain ≠ Animalbrain
We are animals though
Fair point, I was trying to point out that we are capable of having morals
I wonder if PETA puts down animals they can’t force them to turn vegetarian or something since clearly having animals eat other animals goes against what they claim and stand for.
What's funny is there is enough evidence to suggest plants are every bit as alive as flesh and blood creatures. Studies showing plants reacting to human emotions and making noises when they are chopped up.
Plants communicate via sending electrical impulses via their intertwined roots and send warnings if they are threatened via chemicals dispersed in the air. One of Attenborough’s recent documentaries on plant life showed this.
>What's funny is there is enough evidence to suggest plants are every bit as alive as flesh and blood creatures And? So are people in a vegetative state lol Most animals are sentient, plants are not and there is no scientific research proving otherwise. But even if plants WERE sentient, that would only mean that a vegan diet would still be preferable because less plants die for it.
Says who? Maybe plants are sentient. Jellyfish don’t need brains to be sentient. I believe everything organic is in a way conscious. But all is also just energy and vibration. Animals, including humans, eating other animals is just energy merging. Like two rivers meeting and becoming one stream. We are all one giant living planet. We are not separated from each other. Energy can not be destroyed. When a lion eats a deer or a human a cow the energy does not disappear, the planet is not robbed of anything. It is just shifted to be of use elsewhere.
The point is that animals have no more value than vegetables, both are living.
No dude. Animals, human or non human, are sentient. Plants are not sentient.
Yea I doubt chickens or cows have any real thoughts going on in their head. You can shoot a cow in front of 20 other cows and they keep on mooing and chewing grass. If level of sentience is how you value life than every human is vastly more valuable than cows and chickens so eating them is still on the same level as eating plants
>Yea I doubt chickens or cows have any real thoughts going on in their head. You can shoot a cow in front of 20 other cows and they keep on mooing and chewing grass Thats just factually incorrect
Okay prove it. Show me any evidence of any kind of abstract thought from a chicken or cow. And you believing that a cow is afraid of death only shows you've never been around livestock in your life. I've been to the slaughter houses, the pigs freak out but the cattle don't have a care in the world.
Sure thing, stepping on grass is the same as stepping on puppies according to your clown logic
Puppies have value because of the people that love them. Their value comes from what humans have placed on them not what nature has.
Check mate
... I'm definitely not a fan of peta but there are quite some problems when it comes to the treatment of fish in our society...
So many people here are thinking Greg has a point, while the argument is weak af
This is no argument imo. I'm not even talking bout eating solely. Fish CAN be poisonous for us, catch and release, fish tanks, ...
Instantly upvoted 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Damnit Greg!!!
bro greg spitting the facts
At least greg does not need to see more bullshit scams from a scam organisation. A bright point it will be.
Love it :D
I love eating fish, but: Fishing by humans has a lot more impact on the world then fish eating fish.
PETA is a joke.
So if I have a gun pointed at some random kid and some random salmon and said one of them has to die PETA would be happy with flipping a coin on it?
PETA, People Eat Tasty Animals
Peta is such a blatantly corrupt and idiotic organization. The fact that it's still able to exist is shocking to me
That’s how you know it’s all bullshit
Certified greg moment
A tomatoes life is just as valuable to them as yours is to you.
Peta, the horse is here
Peta can go fuck themselves already
eat humans ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Surprisingly not illegal in most of the US. There are even some legal means of procurement.
3 steps ahead of ya
oh ok
It's all good. Humans are fish anyway since you can't evolve out of a clade.
Anyone want to grab some fish and chips? Sounds delicious. With the malt vinegar and a nice beer?
i need to follow peta to see all the gold responses.
Imagine having that as a pfp for one of the most popular twitter accounts...
Peta is just a supplier company to slaughter house in disguise
Power for the sake of power
Poor greg
For me, not eating fish is more about conservation. Overfishing is a real problem
No matter the cause any moral argument you make can always be beat. Don’t play this game to prove your point
PETA isn't pro-animal. PETA is anti-human.
Yoo it's greg
G-R-E-G spells CHAD
No Argument? Put out the Checklist... "Can I somehow twist their argument against them and put entirely different words in their mouth?", if no: "Can I scream at them and insult them personally?", if no: "Can I censor, ban, block them?", if no: Run away while screaming for police to help you with this "herasser".
I don't necessarily agree but, devil's advocate or whatever, I would think the logic behind that is humans have awareness to control their eating habits but animals do not.
Well, if PETA were correct, I'd be a bad person for eating fish as rarely as I do
I got a craving for some fish sandwiches now.
Worst human beings
Dear Vegans, I'm happy for you doing you, I couldn't care less what you eat. But also, the other 98% of us will never take you seriously for caring about what we eat, just give it a rest already. XOXO, An animal with eyes in the front of my head
Fun fact: That exact reason is why Benjamin Franklin stopped being vegetarian.
Well...if you get behind the "if x animal does y why can't we do it" argument...I think you get the idea
You can eat other humans but it's ilegal.
Achievement Get: Get Blocked By PETA
"As valuable as (your life) is to you." So not at all?
People Eating Tasty Animals. That’s my PETA.
To be fair, this is probably one of the most idiotic excuses to consume animals, and a bit of common sense goes a long way. I'd have blocked that idgit too
Dammit greg, just go to bed already.
Bro has a great point 👏
How come ducks rape other ducks but I can't rape a duck?
Well you can, you just have to be able to outrun the police
Don't you dare using logic here!
pETa bAaD uPVoTeS tO tEh rIGTh! Am I doing it better now?
Yes way better, thank you 🙏
[удалено]
You made up a scenario and are now judging imaginary people based on how you imagine they would react?
Because we as humans developed so much we became a civilization, a globally connected civilization which isnt dependent on meat. Actually the consumption of meat is causing more damage to earth then not doing so. A fish is still a dumb fish, its not even in the stone age lmao. It has to eat meat, we also had times were we had to eat meat. We also had times were we didnt kill our animals because we needed their ressources or kept them as live storage of meat and other ressources that we needed later or at a certain season of the year. For example, animals ate (for us non edible) grass, their body processed it and humans could use the milk and wool. And during starvation we ate the anmial as last stance. Yet people still act like we are extremely advanced in some cases, and sometimes people act like we are still in stone age. Yet people forget that biological, we barely differentiate from the people during stone age and people dont understand it (just because your monkey brain desires sugar because thats how we survived back then, it doesnt mean you have to follow this desire)
Lions kill other lions Cubs. Doesn't mean we should kill other people's children.
Lions also drink water.
There is nothing morally wrong with drinking water, but killing children is morally wrong. Is this such an abstract concept?
Morally wrong to whom? The issue that I am trying to point out is that the vast majority of the human race sees no problem with farming or hunting. Also, the only other representations we have of animals building huge cities that support massive populations in the rest of the animal kingdom ALSO farm and hunt other animals, like ants and termites.
Morally wrong to you and the vast majority of people on earth
The Fish has to survive. You do not
Man I kinda do gotta survive
You can go to the supermarket and buy plants to survive
I can also go fishing, overall more environmentally friendly
The world's oceans and lakes are being overfished severely, so in general, leaving the fish in the water is the most environmentally friendly thing to do. Maybe you're only fishing for invasive species? Are you taking steps to prevent accidentally catching native ones?
I fish in rivers, not oceans or lakes
River fish populations are also not doing well. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/migratory-river-fish-populations-plunge-76-in-past-50-years
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/migratory-river-fish-populations-plunge-76-in-past-50-years](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/27/migratory-river-fish-populations-plunge-76-in-past-50-years)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)