Thursday, October 13, 2005

Don't Be Misled By A Pretty Face

Got Pets? PeTA doesn't want you to.

I saw this today, and something just wilted inside me, and one of my long-standing "hot buttons" was triggered. I thought, "Not only have the hoodwinked another one, but this time it's someone I like!" (Click image to enlarge) I doubt very seriously that David Boreanaz, or any of the other celebrities who shill for PeTA (often posing with their precious pets), have any idea of the organization's true agenda concerning companion (and food, working, guide/assistance and medical research, etc.) animals, or of their well-established ties to terrorist organizations such as the ALF and SHAC. What David probably doesn't know is that, if PeTA's full agenda ever came to fruition, he wouldn't have his cute pet dogs, or any to replace them--ever. Paul McCartney wouldn't have his beloved Appaloosa horses, or Charlize Theron her big, huggable-looking dog pal. While often the PeTA surface messages are appealing, and reasonable (like the Boreanaz ad--be nice to your doggy), what lies behind them is a much larger agenda--the END of domesticated animals, period.

For a really excellent (though profanity-laden; you've been warned!! Big-time cursewords abound, but the content is worth it!) video clip that explains the pertinent facts precisely, see this clip from Penn & Teller's HBO show, "Bull****". And here are some direct quotes from PeTA President and Co-Founder, Ingrid Newkirk. You can find much more at this site and several others like it:

"There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation." [emphasis added]- “Animal Rights 2002” convention (June 30, 2002)

And just a few more of my favorites:

"There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals."

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."

"I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."

"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether."

And one that involves medical research, not pets, but that I couldn't resist tossing it in because it is SO especially offensive to me:

"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it."

The message I'd leave you with is, even if it's supported by someone you like very much (how could you not educate yourself, my Angel?), PLEASE learn the difference between groups who work hard to promote animal WELFARE (rescues, shelters, etc.) and groups whose concern is animal RIGHTS. There is a big difference. If you want money to go toward bettering the quality of life of animals, please don't give it to PeTA or the HSUS. Give it to someone who actually cares about the animals, instead of their own political agenda.

Off soapbox now, more silly stuff tomorrow, I promise.


  1. Bless you for saying all this about PETA. I used to belong and was proud of it, until I got the secret message behind the organization and promptly quit supporting them, way back in the 80's. I think that they're an incredibly dangerous and dishonest organization. You know that they lobbied successfully to outlaw the terminology "pet ownership" in San Francisco. People there are "pet guardians" because owning an animal is 'wrong' to PETA. Blech. Can you imagine how many millions of animals would be tosses aside to roam and fend for themselves if PETA had their way? It's sick.

    Give those poodles an extra hug right now, you pet OWNER, you!

  2. You're astute for realizing the danger of just a "little" change in language. I love my pets, they are my friends, and practically family members--anyone who knows me knows that. But by golly, I do *own* them. I am responsible for their care and have the right to make decisions as to what I think is best for them.

    And as I've said before, if it ever came down to a choice between one or all of my animals and ANY human...well, I wouldn't have to think about it. I don't believe that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Me, I'm going for that boy ahead of the rat, pig, or dog every time.

  3. And it is really irking me that the Google ads coming up for this entry are for PETA and HSUS!!! Urrrgh. It also really bothers me when they show the ads for "poodles for sale" by puppymillers.

  4. i'll tell you one two muttlies are glad to be 'owned' by me!

    and, this is gonna piss you off, but i thought that was nick lachey :) ha!

  5. You know, I can see the resemblance. Of course, what caught my attention was the face AND the giant word "ANGEL" on the poster. Bit of a tip-off.

    Oh, and if I haven't said it lately...Alex and Bear must never, ever meet.

  6. I lived directly across the river inlet from PETA's HQ in Norfolk. They were always using kids to do their dirtywork at local events. They've had some really stupid campaigns, like the drink beer not milk campaign, the McDonald's happy meal boxes with bloody animals on it, and the whole Holocaust on your Plate campaign, where they equated killing chickens for food with the Holocaust. If they really believed that and that resonated as true, no one would stand back and watch it all happen.

  7. I love the Penn & Teller clip. Thanks!

  8. What I fail to understand is how PeTA can justify a goal of "liberating" classes of animals that, on the whole, rely on their interaction with humans for sustenance and well-being? What exactly do they think would happen if all dogs and cats reverted to the wild - what food base would support them all, especially if they started "indiscrimately breeding"? How much suffering would there be from maladies that, under human care, would be easily treatable/preventable? The sheer idiocy of that vision is always what gets me the most...

    Anyway, thanks for your excellent posts on the subject.

  9. I can't say I disagree. I'll check to see the consensus. Happy mother's day!

  10. A片,aio,av女優,av,av片,aio交友愛情館,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,視訊聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,上班族聊天室,成人聊天室,中部人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,情色視訊,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,視訊,免費視訊,美女交友,成人交友,聊天室交友,微風論壇,微風成人,sex,成人,情色,情色貼圖,色情,微風,聊天室尋夢園,交友,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊辣妹,一夜情,A片,A片



    A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX,成人論壇