Slashdot Mirror

In response to [successful] bad press, the HFCS crowd is pushing for the rebranding the horrid syrup as "corn sugar". A waste of time and money, I wager, in the end. Ignoring the fact that it is reasonably well established that HFCS is not good for you, it tastes like crap. Compare yellow-capped Coke (yellow=kosher) with the "regular" sold in the US...there is no comparison (inexplicably, Coke only inflicts HFCS on the US market).

PETA recently attempted the same campaign to rebrand FISH as SEA KITTENS...apparently they felt that people wouldn't be so willing to eat something with a cuddly persona. Completely backfired with me...I had never thought of it before, but have you tried Kitten & Chips??? A new personal favorite. Kitten, the other, other white meat.

Who knows, maybe kitten tastes better in a nice HFCS glaze...

After all, PETA wants us to save Sea Kittens.
http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/index.asp

"Nobody would hurt a Sea Kitten!"

> There was a moderate earthquake while the scantily clad women were trying to prove that immodest dress didn't cause earthquakes.

Links please :).

BTW, seems that killing and eating animals can cause women to become scantily clad: http://blog.peta.org/archives/nude/

>> PETA's platform doesn't include energy policy.

That statement related to the environmental impact of current sources of energy. Which they do care about: http://blog.peta.org/archives/environment

Similarly, I cannot think of any Christian traumatizing children with protests against McDonalds

http://blog.peta.org/archives/100_2389sm.jpg

Or performing gay sex acts in the streets(in the name of gay rights) (Folsom street fair).

You know, liberals are at the forefront of those, so lets lump them all together.

Now, I'm sure you're gonna tell me that I'm making a logical fallacy (and you'd be right) however, you're making the very same logical fallacy. I'm just saying.

The problem is that, in their guilt trip, biologists have blamed man for the state of pretty much every endangered species on the planet. Can you name a single endangered species (or even variety of species) that man is *not* blamed for right now? I doubt there is even one. So that means that we are supposed to preserve every single species that happens to exist at this particular moment in our planet's history, like some weird zoo where we've effectively stopped natural selection?

Wow, slow down! Try the decaf. Some of us are biologists and not every card carrying biologist is a member of PETA. You do have a point as the environmentalist movement tends to hammer hard on every potential species or ecosystem lost and it's usually, as you mention, the result of evil, nasty, smell 'mankind' (as opposed to 'humankind'). Unfortunately, we really don't know why a lot of extinctions take place. Some of the best studied ones do seem to be human caused. Even early humans may have been responsible for numerous large animal extinctions (go look it up). So we have a long track record in this regard. We also seem to be in the midst of another mass extinction and one that is at least partially human caused.

Will 'nature' deal with this 'problem'. Sure will. Come back in a couple of million years and you may find very little sign of homo industrialis. Many people aren't comfortable with that sort of time frame and so they complain, come up with hyperbolic arguments, get elected to Congress and all manner of silly things.

Truth is, it's hard to separate us from them. We are part of natural selection.

If the license said "do no harm" what you are saying would probably be true, but it doesn't. Do read the explanation at http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm

The license talks about intent to cause grievous bodily harm. These are formal legal expressions with well defined legal meanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm

Wow. Just, wow. I had no idea how off the deep end (offer the deeper end?) PETA had gotten.

I started to use their contact form for the fish and wildlife service, having replaced their pre-filled text with the phrase "PETA has gone off the deep end". Then I noticed who it is being sent to on my behalf: Sam D. Hamilton. Hmm, wonder who that is, I pondered. Have a look:

"Sam D. Hamilton dead at 54; U.S. fish and wildlife director"

Oh, well. I guess I'll have to figure out another way to entertain myself on a Friday night.

I would strongly protest any idea of so called "humane" killing. There can surely be no way to "humanely" kill an animal, for our pleasure, just as there can be no "humane" rape, or "humane" child slavery.

I promote Veganism through creative, and nonviolent means. I want no part of PETA's sexist stunts, and single issue campaigns. I still cannot believe they give awards to slaughterhouse designers! http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html Temple Grandin is mentioned as a "visionary".

There is simply no moral justification for the slaughter of 56 billion land animals a year. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

Way ahead of you.

Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con [peta.org]:

"I personally consider the fact that HPL is incompatible with GPL as it's main disadvantage. Believe me, we have thought long and hard about ways to make the HPL GPL-compatible, but we have finally reached the conclusion that it is fundamentally and utterly impossible. Like most FLOSS proponents, I would like to see a widespread distribution and use of the code that I make available to the community; but I would rather take the risk of no one every using my code than letting a single person or organisation use it to cause harm. So, in conclusion, the ideological "harm-less" principle takes precedence over practical inconvenience and I side with the HPL. "

Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#pro_con "The fact that HPL licensed software is considered non-free according to FSF might sound harsh. We value freedom very much and HPL licensed software grants you far reaching freedoms to use and redistribute your code (and it complies with the remaining three clauses in FSFs free-software definition). However, and this is an ideological bifurcation point, we value prevention of harm higher that the freedom to inflict harm. This makes HPL licensed software non-free according to FSF, but this is a conscious, ideologically motivated, restriction of freedom." "The HPL is not open-source according to OSI; but we don't think that OSI owns the term open-source. Furthermore we don't think that their requirement "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" has relevance to the definition of the term open-source (even though we can agree that it is generally a good thing). We therefore consider software licensed under the HPL to be genuinely open-source. " It doesn't have to be approved by FSF to be FLOSS and it doesn't have to be approved by the OSI to be open source.

It might not be right for every project. However, Quoting from http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm "The open source community will hopefully benefit from the HPL since some software can be made publicly available that would otherwise have been withheld altogether."

Perhaps you should check out the less restrictive version of the HPL, the wHPL (that only applies to humans) http://www.peta.org/hpl.htm#whpl

I'm a fairly radical leftist and even I find PETA to be utterly ridiculous and ineffective. They harm their own cause with their hard line stance and near-terrorist (some would say, get rid of the 'near' part) actions. Sea Kittens? Really?

Wow. From their Sea Kittens page: "People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads--which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you're swimming, and the big ones--well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by."

So because big fish bite your face off, and they're slimy and slithery, they need to make up a ridiculous fantasy animal that we're supposed to protect the oceans for? I'll have you know that my youngest niece's two favorite stuffed animals are her Walleye Pike and my old Shamu (only at her grandparents' house). Some people like fish, but sea kittens are aberrations that should be killed with toxic waste and fertilizer runoff.

Speaking of waters...I thought the 'Sea Kittens' campaign was the silliest PETA would ever get, now this happens. I'm all for animal rights but how about the ethical, or at least reasonable, treatment of people.

Someone obviously did their homework here W.R.T. software licenses. My guess is that the name mentioned at the bottom of the license page (Anders '4ZM' Sundman) is someone who works with FLOSS licenses often, and (like many of us on /.) can easily rattle these concerns off pretty easily.

Still, I'm impressed that PETA would allow that kind of critical analysis on the license page. Usually advocacy groups concentrate on the advantages of their position, and avoid active pro/con debate, at least on official pages.

I'm also intrigued that PETA put up a 2nd license on the page -- the so-called wHPL license. The basic difference between the HPL and the wHPL is that the former is written to protect Humans + Animals, and the latter is just written to protect Humans. While PETA offering users a choice between the two is admirable, I am curious as to why they would author the 2nd license at all.

Don't get me wrong, protecting humans is a great and noble cause, but if PETA believes that the furry (and not-so-furry) critters deserve equal protection as humans, then why would they provide a license that allows users to protect humans while, at the same time, roasting up Bambi et al. for some shish-kabobs?

I see two possible motivations here

1. More groups/programmers will sign on to using the wHPL than the more restrictive license; PETA can then apply the more restrictive license if they make derivative works (I assume that they're compatible)
2. PETA might hope to get programmers to start using the wHPL initially, and then might be encouraged to move to the HPL eventually.

I may not agree with PETA on many things, but it's certainly nice to see such frank self-analysis accompanying a software license. Kudos to them.

They also recommend that people mutilate their cats by ripping off the top joint of their toes (declawing) [...]

Wow, you're either trolling, or REALLY REALLY wrong. The bit about declawing seemed the easiest to fact-check, and sure enough I found the opposite is true. Since your credibility is blown, I'm going to assume the rest of your claims aren't worth the time to fact-check.

What's with the incredible FUD campaign against PETA? This isn't the first time I've seen false and/or willfully misleading info spread about PETA here on slashdot. Is it just a rare specimen of troll, or do people really believe this stuff? Or have people just taken to a "fight fire with fire" attitude in response to PETA's own misleading advertising?

I don't agree with them, but I never agree with intellectual dishonesty. If this is a fight fire with fire situation, shame on you. Sinking to their level will just discredit the anti-PETA movement, much like PETA's intellectual dishonesty discredits them. If you really did believe it, shame on you for being so stupidly gullible. If that post was a troll... bravo, well-played.

I haven't found antyhing that supports your statements, but I've found this. It seems to contradict what you said.

I'm a fairly radical leftist and even I find PETA to be utterly ridiculous and ineffective. They harm their own cause with their hard line stance and near-terrorist (some would say, get rid of the 'near' part) actions. Sea Kittens? Really? And PETA have 'rescued' animals, only to let them die because they did not know how to care for them or did not have the resources. They are buffoons.

If you want to support a legitimate group with the same or very similar goals, support the SPCA I'm all about reducing suffering and cruelty, in animals and humans. But animals are delicious. An animal, raised right by humans for food, suffers FAR LESS than its wild counterpart. Being raised by a good rancher is a great bargain for a cow. A pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation, in exchange for a quick and painless death. If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.

Careful what you ask for. You might get it.

That's:
http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens
but thedevils has funny pictures.
As Patrick Laffey (RIP) used to say, "You can't MAKE this shit up."

For the record, PETA has a $1M reward for exactly this, for exactly the reasons you're suggesting. It's interesting because a lot of PETA members are really pissed about the idea since they want people to just stop eating meat, even if it's not actually from an animal.

Or just farm out the job to PETA they seem to have that angle covered.

Come to think of it... I think everybody involved would be happier if PETA members were down there with the explosives, rather than the invertebrates...

Or just farm out the job to PETA they seem to have that angle covered.

LOLZ. But what's the real difference between fish and cat meat?

Only a Chinaman would know.

But they sent the bug catcher.

check out our handy-dandy bug catcher—one of which we are sending to President Obama for future insect incidents.

link.

> "And, where will the necessities of modern life come from?"

Where does free software come from? Or music put under a Creative Commons license? Well, where that comes from, so can other things come from.

> "If people only do the work they want to do, who will do the dirty jobs?"

Seriously, what percentage of jobs are there that are "dirty"? 1%?

People who think they need to be done. Do you ever vacuum your house or take out the trash or clean up after dinner? If no one wants to do them, then we can either re-engineer the work to be fun, we can re-engineer it to not be needed, or we can re-engineer it to be automated.

If, for example, no one liked working on cars, we could probably re-engineer them to require less maintanence effort, or design them for automated maintenance by making them more modular. Electric cars may require much less maintenance, for example.

> "Who will collect the trash?"

Well, what about home recycling systems based on nanotech disassembly? Or what about robotic garbage trucks which pick up standard containers (see the DARPA Grand Challenge to see how trucks can drive themselves)?

Besides, why not just create a public logistics system for moving packages, where the same trucks or robotic vehicles or subway tubes that bring stuff to the homes take unwanted stuff away?

> "Who will work in the sewer plants?"

Well, John Todd developed biological sewage treatment plants that are pleasant greenhouses. Lots of people like working in nature. Just because you can force desperate people to work in today's chemical monstrosities of water treatment systems does not mean their are not alternatives.
http://www.oceanarks.org/

> "Who will raise the crops and slaughter the animals?"

Most US crop land is used for animal production and people would be healthier with a mostly vegetarian diet. That would reduce the amount of people working in agriculture from about 1% to maybe 0.1% of the workforce. Lots of people like working with growing plants, especially with machines and robots to do the hard work. As for actually slaughtering the animals, people are learning how to grow meat in vats, so that won't be needed.
"Lab Meat: Tastes Like a Million Bucks"
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/04/lab_meat_tastes.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
Not perfect yet, but closer every year. One by one, all these assumptions about scarcity and labor are becoming untrue.

> "Who will mine and smelt the ores?"

Even decades ago we had all the technology to do this almost entirely automatically much more safely. This has been resisted by unions who are stuck in the same economic paradigm you are endorsing.

> "Who will work on the assembly lines doing the same three things for hours on end?"

Robots. Also, you can print things fully assembled with 3D printers.
"Jay Leno's 3D Printer Replaces Rusty Old Parts"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4320759.html

And we can design things to be easier to assemble and to recycle. Like in the South before the Civil War, or like in Ancient Greece, the presence of slaves, either formal slaves or wage slaves, reduces the motivation to build better tools and better processes.

> "Who will do anything, especially anything even slightly unpleasant, if they can sit around doing nothing and get the same return?"

People who sit around and do nothing are unhealthy and mentally ill. As James P. Hogan points out in "Voyage From Yesteryear", it is the collective responsibility of society to take care of such mentally ill people. The only reason people in the USA aspire to that is because our collective socie

The basic value of caring for (non-human) animals is impeccable. How you choose to go about doing that is also important. If something goes awry in the translation from fundamental values to action, then help is required. Getting upset over a fly is a bit much.

Oh, look at this: http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/06/obama_and_the_f2.php

It seems they weren't upset.

PETA has a $1 million prize for whoever brings it to market first. Isn't that saying enough?

http://www.peta.org/feat_in_vitro_contest.asp

They were even willing to put their money where their mouth is. I recall they had some internal conflict over this and finally decided on a pro-artificial meat position; unfortunately I can't find the reference just now.

From TFA: "The truth is, this spider isn’t a complete vegetarian – more of a flexitarian: it still snacks on the occasional ant attacker or ant larvae." So it's kind of like those people who say they're vegetarian, but "eat a little fish" or "a little beef."

I'm still waiting for PETA to release some propaganda relating to this story...

PETA-bit would be much better PETA's poorly chosen blog name. Seriously, what is wrong with those people?

You dont have to be a jerk to people you dont agree with.

Theres no great shame in being in the Animal Rights movement, in case you havnt noticed, "animal rights" people are often parading about naked, or in cages. Its not like its some shameful thing we hide away!

Anywho, Gary Francione is probably the best person to point to as being Animal Rights compared to PETA and their Welfare movement.
Here Francione mentions being suprised to be on the same side as PETA, if you want to see his videos on welfare vs rights, then feel free to watch.
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/a-note-about-differences-with-peta

"PETA may have started as a worthwhile organization, but it has become an end in itself and exploited nonhumans are merely âoepropsâ in an endless series of self-promotions that have turned PETA into a multi-million dollar organization that has abandoned any claim to be abolitionist in any serious sense. PETA is hindering, and not helping, the cause of animal rights. But then, if PETAâ(TM)s giving an award to âoevisionaryâ slaughterhouse designer and animal exploiter Temple Grandin, or PETAâ(TM)s position that animal rights means dead animals, did not cause you to come to the conclusion that PETA has gone so far astray as to have lost the path entirely, then perhaps a full frontal striptease performed by a woman extolling the virtues of animal welfare juxtaposed with scenes of animal exploitation and ending with Dr. Martin Luther King will not bother you either."

One of PETAs awards to people who "lessen the suffering" or whatever of animals, thats whats called Animal Welfare.

http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html

On the same page as Temple Grandin, slaughterhouse designer, Whole Foods "Whole Foods has consistently done more for animal welfare than any retailer in the industry, requiring that its producers adhere to strict standards. Recently, Whole Foods launched the Animal Compassion Foundation. John Mackey, the chair, CEO, and cofounder of Whole Foods Market, observed, "By creating the Foundation, Whole Foods Market is pioneering an entirely new way for people to relate to farm animalsâ"with the animals' welfare becoming the most important goal."

Hey, heres a hint, if what the animal feels is most important, they wouldnt be chopping it up and selling its body! See, thats the welfare thing "people are going to eat animals, so we might as well ask them politely but firmly not to beat them so hard before they die".

I have better things to do than be insulted by you, so unless you have any genuine questions, consider this my last post.

Yes, PETA runs ads saying 'X is unacceptable', and run ads about the most horrific animal abuse.

That does not mean they consider other uses 'acceptable'. PETA is an inherently dishonest organization.

I point out their webpage explicitly says, and I quote 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.'.

And just in case that's not clear, here's their FAQ: 'What do you mean by âanimal rightsâ(TM)?

People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here.

They are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose

Right there. Black and white. PETA's own web page. http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

PETA believes it is immoral to use any animals, whatsoever, in any manner at all. Not just abuse of them, heck, not even eating them. Read what they actually say about pets: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

And you'll notice they don't actually answer the real question 'Do you believe it is ethical to own pets at all?'.

Yes, PETA runs ads saying 'X is unacceptable', and run ads about the most horrific animal abuse.

That does not mean they consider other uses 'acceptable'. PETA is an inherently dishonest organization.

I point out their webpage explicitly says, and I quote 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.'.

And just in case that's not clear, here's their FAQ: 'What do you mean by âanimal rightsâ(TM)?

People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here.

They are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose

Right there. Black and white. PETA's own web page. http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

PETA believes it is immoral to use any animals, whatsoever, in any manner at all. Not just abuse of them, heck, not even eating them. Read what they actually say about pets: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

And you'll notice they don't actually answer the real question 'Do you believe it is ethical to own pets at all?'.

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that PETA kills animals. Not a handful of animals. Thousands.

Perhaps it also has to do with calling feeding kids meat child abuse.

Maybe it could be with this not so tactful ad.

Or maybe he's offended by PETA's ads that make mothers out to be murderers.

Then PETA goes on to say that dad's a psychopathic killer.

Facts, they are stubborn things...

People unfamiliar with farming underestimate the degree to which the comfort of animals is taken into account.

All of the investigative reporting on factory farming in the last several years would indicate the exact opposite of this assertion. The comfort of the animals in farms across the United States is dead-last in priority, behind profit, common sense and even the humanity of those involved.

Some dairies play music all day because they've found it has a calming effect and increases production.

Like anything, it's all about money.

Where are all these dairy farms in which they play music for the cows? Do the cows spontaneously break into dance, too?

Is a visit to the dentist really that much better because they pipe in muzak during the root canal procedure? Or can we agree it's still pretty freaking uncomfortable? Now imagine getting a root canal every day of your life, for a couple of years, until the last day, in which the dentist shows up with a blade. This may sound a little extreme, but it's probably not actually all that far off from the average factory farm animal's perspective and experience.

Bottom line, factory farming is still cruel, with or without the soundtrack.

Dude, I am totally going to put one of these awesome banners on my site!

Don't bother. PETA and Greenpeace both called and said it'll kill too many endagered fish species.

Fish? Oh, you mean sea kittens.

Well, I've heard this one before and I have a couple of things to say about it. First, you can read PETA's response to this at their forum. I admit that posts by PETA admins are very likely to be pro-PETA, but this is in contrast to your source, a website called petakillsanimals. I don't think it will be hard to sort the bias from just facts. The PETA response provides a context that is not presented by the petakillsanimals page, which you can evaluate for yourself. The (my) tldr version of this is: PETA is killing those animals to end their suffering and not for PETA's benefit, i.e. to consume the animals or otherwise use their parts. Perhaps I am predisposed to believe them, so read the whole thing if you suspect I'm presenting it wrong.

Second, consider who the Center for Consumer Freedom is and what they represent. On their main page, they're advocating for high fructose corn syrup and one of their other projects besides petakillsanimals is a site defending trans-fats. They have every right to shill for the processed food industry but let's recognize them for what they are.

Last, I am reminded of Matthew 7:3.

Nasty humans exploiting those defenseless unicellular creatures!

We'll call them Sea Puppies! Because who would want to hurt a sea puppy?!
 
/In case you don't get the joke

Don't forget about the life lead by Sea Kittens!

reminds me of the joke "Seal walks into a club."

Also what is it with these Peta campaigns? If I wear fur, they will keep showing naked ladies? Sounds counterproductive to me.

You forgot the oblig linky. Disclaimer: Don't think there's anything X-rated, but it's definitely NSFW. Both genders on display, so there's something for everyone. Extra disclaimer: Yes, I linked to PETA. Read at your own risk, beware of brainwashing, etc.

So, you were hoping for ads more like the rejected PETA ad (non-PETA link)? ;-)

When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover.

...see here.

How the hell did this piece of establishment diatribe get modded +5 informative?

ALF - Animal Liberation Front - a umbrella name for an unconnected group of compassionate people prepared to break the law and risk their liberty to defend animals from abuse. They have a strict policy of non-violence to any animals, including humans.

SHAC - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty - a lawful group that campaigns against hideous abuse of animals at Huntingdon Life Sciences, who have been exposed numerous time for punching beagles, force-feeding them weedkiller, and torturing monkeys.

SPEAK - A group campaigning against a new animal torture facility in the heart of Oxford, UK.

PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - a large mainstream animal rights group, that nevertheless recognises that some people will break the law to help animals in suffering.

BUAV - British Union of Anti-Vivisectionists - a formerly radical but now wishy washy group whose main activities are lobbying politicians, who get much larger bribes from drug companies anyway.

You put the algea in large tubes (10 ft tall, 2 ft around) and continuously churn the water until the density of algea reaches your target harvest point. Then drain the water and process the agea.

Not dissimilar to how commercial farms raise the chickens we eat. ;-)

While there's been no Disney movies produced to date that feature algae in starring or even cute supporting roles, it's not unthinkable that some group will incorporate the wildly-creative reasoning of the Life Begins in The Womb types, or those ideas advocated by the more extreme environmental groups, to raise objections to harvesting our single-cellular friends on a mass scale.

If that sounds absurd, consider PETA's new campaign to Save the Sea Kittens. Note that the site is neither a joke, nor a kids entertainment page.

Every day you drive to work, a kitten starves.

PETA on pets: http://origin.www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp PETA on service dogs: http://blog.helpinganimals.com/2008/01/exploiting_mans_best_friend.php http://blog.helpinganimals.com/2008/02/to_serve_man.php PETA is against crating (crating is actually a helpful traing tool, as well as giving the dog its own private space): http://origin.www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-cratingdogs.asp PETA wants dogs and cats to be fed vegan/vegetarian diets (which is not good for the animals): http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34 PETA tries to make children fear their their parents: http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf In short, they're a bunch of nut-jobs. Doesn't matter if you're democrat or republican, if someone really cares about or is involved with animal welfare, they shun PETA. I know plently of liberals as well as republicans that hate PETA. From pet owners, to shelter workers, to reputable breeders. Seriously, just read through their site, read between the lines, and research their claims. They aren't what they seem to be on the surface.

PETA on pets: http://origin.www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp PETA on service dogs: http://blog.helpinganimals.com/2008/01/exploiting_mans_best_friend.php http://blog.helpinganimals.com/2008/02/to_serve_man.php PETA is against crating (crating is actually a helpful traing tool, as well as giving the dog its own private space): http://origin.www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-cratingdogs.asp PETA wants dogs and cats to be fed vegan/vegetarian diets (which is not good for the animals): http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34 PETA tries to make children fear their their parents: http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf In short, they're a bunch of nut-jobs. Doesn't matter if you're democrat or republican, if someone really cares about or is involved with animal welfare, they shun PETA. I know plently of liberals as well as republicans that hate PETA. From pet owners, to shelter workers, to reputable breeders. Seriously, just read through their site, read between the lines, and research their claims. They aren't what they seem to be on the surface.