Euthanasia as in animals, no matter the quality of life, adoptability, and years left, are put down by the thousands because they’re inconvenient to keep alive and get adopted while PETA preaches that killing animals is wrong. Also, did you read the bit about them kidnapping animals from kids and old people?
Plus they’re cowards without the courage of their convictions. When I was growing up their protests included throwing red paint on people in fur but they wouldn’t do it to someone in biker leathers. One got them shunned and laughed at, the other would get them killed like the animals they stole.
TL;DR their whole schtick is to either destroy others’ property or steal loved members of families who have fur while killing many more animals than they save.
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Except you’re not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you’re just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?
The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You’re trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
,If you can’t answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that’s something you should reflect on.
Again, you’re attacking the other person instead of their argument.
It doesn’t make your point any stronger. It makes people unfamiliar with debates defensive from being personally attacked, and it makes those familiar with debates realize that they’re wasting their time.
You haven’t answered any questions though. How many pets taken and euthanized the same day would be acceptable to you? How many animals that are adoptable, not ill, don’t have behavioral problems, and aren’t elderly should they be allowed to euthanize? Should they have to retract their ad campaign that ran for years claiming a link between autism and milk or should they be able to quietly redirect it and not confront it because the “science” was almost as laughable as the link between vaccines and autism?
You’ll willingly answer, so I am eagerly awaiting answers rather than redirecting or trying to be the Glen Beck of PETA by JAQing off (I’m just asking questions!).
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
They have shelters that euthanized a high number of animals. They have also stolen animals from owners including homeless people and children.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
Euthanasia as in mercy killing?
Your beef with PETA is that they euthanize sick animals when shelters can’t afford to?
Euthanasia as in animals, no matter the quality of life, adoptability, and years left, are put down by the thousands because they’re inconvenient to keep alive and get adopted while PETA preaches that killing animals is wrong. Also, did you read the bit about them kidnapping animals from kids and old people?
Plus they’re cowards without the courage of their convictions. When I was growing up their protests included throwing red paint on people in fur but they wouldn’t do it to someone in biker leathers. One got them shunned and laughed at, the other would get them killed like the animals they stole.
TL;DR their whole schtick is to either destroy others’ property or steal loved members of families who have fur while killing many more animals than they save.
How many family pets have they kidnapped in total?
Consider that any number more than “zero” pets kidnapped and killed by a private entity is too many.
So is the number 1 time, 5 times? What is the situation?
How many are you comfortable with?
I am just asking the total number that you are aware of?
Is it just 1? Is it 5? Is it 8 million?
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for just asking an honest question 🤷♂️
One of the people accidentally responded to me with the wrong account, so I am assuming bit is a lot less people downvoting than it appears.
I have one account. It’s not my fault you can’t interpret impersonal language correctly.
It’s not mercy killing when the animals weren’t suffering and weren’t voluntarily given up. It’s murder for the sake of their agenda.
So PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
>you think euthanizing sick animals is bad?
>PETA euthanizes more than sick animals
>you think PETA doesn’t euthanize sick animals?
There isn’t a single thing I can say to convince someone who isn’t arguing in good faith.
Am I arguing or using the Socratic method?
Have you always felt the Socratic method is bad faith, or just when you already have a strong opinion?
I think you’re just being obtuse and pedantic for your own sake, if you’re really curious you could very easily look this information up. Please stop being like this, you don’t have to be this way. Touch grass for fucks sake, good luck out there, must be tough being an insufferable git.
Maybe it is pedantic. But people should have examined beliefs. I’m sorry you are against that.
Except you’re not causing anyone to question their beliefs, you’re just being intentionally obnoxious. If you wanted to provide some counter evidence to their point that would be a solid way to cause people to reconsider. As is I doubt you are being honest with your intention, even if to yourself. Maybe talk about it in therapy?
The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You’re trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.
So, in fact, you’re doing neither.
Nobody is forcing you to be in this conversation, or be on the defensive.
If you can’t answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that’s something you should reflect on.
I am willing to answer any questions you may have of me.
Again, you’re attacking the other person instead of their argument.
It doesn’t make your point any stronger. It makes people unfamiliar with debates defensive from being personally attacked, and it makes those familiar with debates realize that they’re wasting their time.
You haven’t answered any questions though. How many pets taken and euthanized the same day would be acceptable to you? How many animals that are adoptable, not ill, don’t have behavioral problems, and aren’t elderly should they be allowed to euthanize? Should they have to retract their ad campaign that ran for years claiming a link between autism and milk or should they be able to quietly redirect it and not confront it because the “science” was almost as laughable as the link between vaccines and autism?
You’ll willingly answer, so I am eagerly awaiting answers rather than redirecting or trying to be the Glen Beck of PETA by JAQing off (I’m just asking questions!).
You are arguing in bad faith
Asking for clarification is bad faith?
This comment chain is you defending PETA having high euthanasia statistics due to euthanizing animals they had taken from families yards and from homeless individuals. You had suggested that these euthanasias were mercy killings, and when another commenter pointed out that pets can’t be considered suffering even under the loosest definition of the word, you posed a rhetorical question in bad faith. If you actually wanted to argue that PETA’s euthanasias are only done in situations of suffering animals, you would have just said that and perhaps included a source for that claim like the initial commenter did for theirs.
What percentage of euthanasia is from kidnapped pets and not sick and dying animals?
If you want to make the claim that PETA’s behavior to people’s pets is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the burden of proof is on you.
12 year old article