Slashdot Mirror
PETA Is Not Happy That Google Used a Camel To Get a Desert "StreetView"
First time accepted submitter flopwich writes Google used a camel-mounted camera to get a 'street view' of a stretch of desert in the United Arab Emirates. PETA's director Ingrid E. Newkirk is upset about it, saying they should have used jeeps. "These days, jeeps are in common use in the desert, as are light planes and even dune buggies, and satellite images could also easily have been taken instead," she said. "(Google) should leave camels out of its activites altogether."
It's Ingrid Newkirk. What did you expect?
If Google had used a dolphin, I would say that the PETA would have a point.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
PETA is never happy. Ever.
Then again, they are a bunch of hypocrites that kill healthy animals that need new homes because they'd rather see them dead than as pets.
So yeah....PETA can stuff it.
PETA don't like animals having any relationship with humans. They put down the vast majority of dogs they recieve rather than re-home them because they think that's more "humane" (and it's cheaper..)
They would rather you killed the camel and used a jeep to travel across the desert.
They are scum, and they won't be happy until there are no animals left on planet Earth except mankind.
I assume they put a decent camel jockey on the animal, probably brought it food and water, etc. I bet that camel's day was a lot better than it would have been if Google hadn't shown up to put a camera on its back.
Aren't the PETA folks big environmentalists too? I would imagine a camel puts out a lot less carbon and CO2 than a Jeep.
But then environmentalists would be unhappy that Google used fossil fuel burning Jeeps and not a greener mode of transportation like camels. Can't win with everyone.
PETA needs to focus on real issues. It's not like those cameras were tremendous burdens, or that the camels were abused.
Google feeds their employees dead cows and chickens on a regular basis. They should have used plants. These days, quinoa is in common use in foodservice, as are beans and eggplants, and lentils could also have been easily used instead. Google should leave beef out of its activities altogether.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
When did "News for nerds, stuff that matters" disappear from the Slashdot homepage?
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
I hope that everyone gets a good chuckle out of this story and then moves on. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church, PETA keeps pulling stunts designed to incense rational people and get free advertising (I know that the point of WBC is litigation rather than advertising, but I still see parallels). Remember how PETA protested the game "Super Meat Boy" with a "Super Tofu Boy" parody? Don't fall for the trap - keep your emotions in check - smile & keep scrolling.
So they prefer that Google use large vehicles that consume fossil fuel, emit greenhouse gases and may damage fragile desert ecosystem with their tires? Way to go PETA. I hope a few environmental groups take you on on this one.
It's not so much that they're scum, it's that they mistake "ethical" with "imaginary line-in-the-sand absolutist moral law based". Ethics are difficult and nuanced, and sometimes raise questions you don't have the answer to. Those sorts of things aren't especially convenient for large groups united for the sake of ad campaigns and political lobbying.
If you actually asked the question of "what does ethical corporate usage of beasts of burden look like?", you'd end up with a very complicated answer.
You'll see this symptom with every political group that's actually genuinely grassroots and purpose oriented.
if google had done that, they'd be criticized for not caring about carbon emissions
Put this in Politics where it belongs.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Not quite true - PETA is okay with using animals as long as VP MaryBets Sweetland can get the insulin shot. Everyone else should avoid anything to do with animals.
"leave camels out of its activities altogether." If not being herded around in the desert, handled by camel herders, then what are camels for? Advertising smokes I guess. And more importantly, won't somebody please think of the dromedaries?
Wow, just wow. "Instead of doing minimal harm to a few pack animals that were specifically bred for this job, you should have used a vehicle that destroys the desert ecosystem because we have no idea how animals actually work."
There is nothing even that consistent with their thought process. They are closer to a terrorist group looking for reasons to justify violence. At least at the top.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Remember? Rule #1 of the internet? PETA wants attention, positive or negative. Just ignore them. Please.
Do you have ESP?
I swear, they must do this because they have a moral imperative to remind everyone just how completely batshit insane they really are.
Is animal-sourced insulin even used anymore? I was under the impression that it was cheaper to produce it using modified bacteria.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
srsly
No, they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals. Which is impossible. But they insist on it anyways.
And they're not terrorists. Stupid, yes. ALF-like-terrorism, no.
This part of PETA's doctrine is particularly amusing. It displays such a rudimentary view of how nature works. If all domesticated animals were to just die off over a few generations, think about the ramifications up and down the food chain. Domestication has been around for so long that it's an integral part of our ecosystem - an ecosystem that is precariously balanced and would be quite disrupted by such a sudden and dramatic change.
Please think of the bacteria!
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Animal Abuse - Sure a no brainier.
Fur Coats - I can see that we don't need Fur Coats anymore as there is a big selection of cheaper and effective other sources for coats. (Fur as in they need to kill the animal)
Food from babies - Veal and Lamb. Tasty but the animal is so cute I loose my appetite when I think of it that way.
Food meats - Sure people are happy being vegetarian. I tried it myself my body hated me for it. (I will need to add leather although it isn't food, but a product from the animal from the processing of the rest of the food)
Anything made from animal - Wool, Egg, Milk products come to mind. Now we are going to the crazy zone. These animals although are in sub-human conditions are still much better off then if they were out in the wild fending for themselves. Efforts should be towards improving their conditions not stopping their usefulness.
Pets and worker animals - These are like family to us, and are treated extremely well often much better then most people who care for them live. Pets like Dogs have evolved (threw breading) to really like being around humans and helping us out. To say the dogs should be wild is actually making go against their nature.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
*sniff* *sniff*
Excuse me sir. Your algore smells like an asshole.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Nope, it hasn't been used in ages. It was largely obsolete even back when I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes close to 2 decades ago.
I'm not sure if it's cheaper, but human insulin IS more effective than pork/beef insulin. Also, pork/beef consumption was going down and insulin demand was rising decades ago, which is why insulin-producing bacteria are one of the first genetically modified organisms ever created.
These days, human insulin isn't actually that common - there has been a move to modified insulins that have slight differences from human insulin to achieve certain goals. (Lispro/aspart aka Humalog/Novolog reduce insulin's tendency to "clump", which greately speeds up the time to take effect when injected. Insulin glargine, aka Lantus, is designed to provide a very long "peakless" baseline effect for 24 hours.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
No, they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals
I'd have more sympathy for them if they were PETP - People for the Ethical Treatment of People. A cause I can get behind is the "leave me the fuck alone" cause.
We make sure we hire a Jeep with leather seats, burning beef tallow based diesel fuel to keep the AC going and make sure we staff the car with hamburger eating Google engineers wearing natural fur coats. Attach a trailer with a nice BBQ and make sure to hand out as much tasty meat as can be obtained, cooked and dispensed along the way to any hungry persons who asks. THEN we make sure to get a number of camels to pull the jeep along and make meat deliveries. Attache a big sign that says "People Eating Tasty Animals" too.
Any other ways we can anger the PETA folks?
These people are fruit cakes... WITH too many nuts. Go back to rescuing abused pets....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They have been caught funding ALF like stuff.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
"they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals" - I'd have to say outright killing +90% of the animals they take in for "adoption" is affecting those animals, wouldn't you? They're scum.
Fuck PETA. And why do you give it airtime?
Maybe if anyone besides PETA cared about what PETA thinks this would be news, otherwise I have to quote John Oliver on this: "Hey everyone, we can just ignore them!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"...and satellite images could also easily have been taken instead,"
I don't think that works quite the way she thinks it does. Oh well, this is the same group that was recently up in arms over over Mario 3 because Mario transforms into the mythical Japanese tanooki.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Camels are slow, tempermental, and require constant supervision during data collection to ensure they dont decide to just wander back to the starting point or destroy the expensive rigging on them. And while they can survive for months without food or water, their human caretakers cannot and should be considered the abused animal, not the camel.
Google should have used an autonomous vehicle; it is after all one of their strong suits. Strap solar panels on it and guide it with satellites, make a youtube series on it and sell advertising revenue, then give it a google plus account and let people 'friend' the rover, allowing the company to garner more personal information on thier users. Finally, sell the whole thing to national geographic.
Good people go to bed earlier.
PETA wants attention like a 3 year old with a tin whistle.
There is no such thing as negative attention; as long as they are in the news, they will be happy.
Humans are animals obviously, it follows that all human exploitation should cease immediately. Quit your jobs and live a peaceful existence!
Sadly, they see that as consistent with their philosophy. In that putting those dogs in loving homes would be exposing the dogs to human contact for years versus a quick, one-time human contact that ensures that dog won't have to deal with humans ever again.
When people's beliefs get this twisted, there's no reasoning with them. Just back off slowly and keep a good distance from them.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I agree with parent. PETA thinks: 1. Domesticated animals are exploited by people so domesticated animals shouldn't exist anymore. 2. Pets need a health care plan that rivals human health care, so nobody can afford a pet anymore. 3. Nature with its predators and parasites is so cruel that wilderness should be eliminated too. They've been talking about eliminating the horse drawn carriages in NY central park and replacing them with electric cars because 2 horses have been involved in traffic accidents in the last 30 years. The horses will be sent upstate and live out retirement just grazing in a pasture. But that's not without danger either. they could bet bit by snakes, hit by lightning, or break a leg in a gopher hole. To eliminate all suffering, its better if they just euthanize the horses now.
Being a Type 1 myself, these things interest me as well. The FDA has a nice write-up on it:
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/Resou...
"The manufacturing of beef insulin for human use in the U.S. was discontinued in 1998. In 2006, the manufacturing of pork insulin (Iletin II) for human use was discontinued."
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.
This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.
Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Maybe if they were grinding up the camels live (legs first) for fuel for their streetview vehicle. Or were dragging the camels behind the streetview vehicle, then they would have a point.
I see PETA about the same way I do see camels, ornery, biting, spitting, smelly, animals
But what about those poor bacteria's feelings !?!? They're slave labor!
"If two PETA members are fighting, do we still call it a beef?"
#include bier;
It is hilarious how these "ethics warriors" like peta and greenpeace always piggyback onto "hot" company names in their headlines. When anyone else is using a camel, seems like they don't care. If they can get a name like "Google" or even better "Apple" into the headline, oh then they jump right into action!
Same with Greenpeace, the headline would be "APPLE datacenter directly burns the ozone layer" when actually Apple, amazon and a few others are sharing that new data center and the data center turned out to be using a surprising amount of renewable energy.
This clearly shows how manipulative these so-called "NGOs" are and when you point this out you will quickly hear the self-proclaimed "ethical people" argue how the ends justify the means and "that's just how you do it" in the flood of information these days.
So here is a nice headline like that: PETA murders more pets a year than any industry in the world! Oh and Hitler was a vegan, do you really want to be in THAT company?
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
I had sympathy during the short time when they were known as "people eat tasty animals"
bickerdyke
The headline could have stopped after the first four words.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Holy shit, man... I believe that might very well have been the most astute, intelligent and objective I've seen you post yet.
Use a drone -> Told you! They produce equipment for the military or CIA.
Use a plane -> You know how many birds die to props each year? Murderers!
Use a jeep -> Ohh gawd the environment!
User solar powered vehicle -> WTF? You never get the energy back!
Use a camel that is probably better cared for then dogs in PETA kennels -> Think of the animals!!!
You just can't win.
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
If you actually asked the question of "what does ethical corporate usage of beasts of burden look like?", you'd end up with a very complicated answer.
On the other hand, why should there even be the concept of a "beast of burden"? The real question is "what does ethical interaction with animals look like?", and PETA seems to have taken the position that there is practically no such thing. To the PETA fanatics, any deviation from an animal's natural life is cruel. To an extent, they have a point - where mankind once relied on animals to provide capabilities humans do not possess, technology has now progressed to the point where there is little need for domesticated animals.
Like in so many cases, the madness is perfectly reasonable from a particular perspective.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Oh, wait, the camel already beat them to it.
The original article doesn't link to any kind of article on PETA's web site. In fact, the only reference I can find to this issue is from Mr. Clint Davis of Scripps.
This is clearly troll-bait for people unhappy with PETA, whether PETA is engaging in a coverup of sorts, or Mr. Clint Davis has falsely attributed a quote to Ms. Newkirk.
Try this mental experiment. What if the article described Microsoft using camels for Bing map service? Would it change your view?
The rest of the title was superfluous.
It took a little while, but I knew we could count on him to promote another "look at the silly liberals" article to the front page. It had been almost a full week, so he was clearly due.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are an embarrassment to most people who are for the ethical treatment of animals. They are the intellectual equivalent of anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, and people without celiac disease who won't eat gluten.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
My pets have always had medical insurance. I have never had it. True, I'm in UK where it could be argued that I do because of the NHS, but they don't fund *everything*, unlike my pet's insurance, which is comprehensive and includes palliative care. My pets have better coverage than I do. So fuck you PETA.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
PETA out to destroy the environment. Suggests using carbon spewing modes of transport over greener options.
"These days, jeeps are in common use in the desert, as are light planes and even dune buggies, and satellite images could also easily have been taken instead," she said. "(Google) should leave camels out of its activites altogether."
Aaaaand this is the part where we find the Royal Union of Camel Jockeys refused to allow Google to use anything but their approved methods of transport across said desert.
Ironically, this has been a camels job for a few thousand years now, so I fail to see any inhumane treatment here. I'm assuming Google also should refuse the use of donkeys when documenting the grand canyon as well, or did they?
In other words, When in Rome...
This is actually one place that I have to actually say PETA does buck the trend. Newkirk only makes about 38k a year through PETA as the CEO. Now, that doesn't preclude her from cashing in on lucrative speaking engagements all over the place.
PETA is *never* happy. No matter what you do.
Take care of animals? You're enslaving them.
Leave them be? You're allowing them to be killed and eaten by other animals
Bash their head in with a rock?? You murderer. Oh wait...that's OK.
Is this even true? I did some goggling, and could not find *any* official or otherwise direct statement from PETA.
In any case, I think PETA badly dilutes its message by frequently saying borderline ridiculous statements.
No living being should be subject to the kinds of torture in medical tests, period!.
That begin said, there is no problem with animals and humans cooperating. Camels carry a load, and in return they are fed and cared for. Whats wrong with that. Its called a *symbiotic* relationship in case you forgot sixth grade ecology. If farm animals are well cared for, and killed instantly for meat, well, I guess I'm sort of essentially OK with that.
It relies on the premise that "killing is superior to interaction".
"Don't ride horses: kill the horses to make way for an automobile factory and roads. That's more ethical"
Since any position is going to be arbitrary (theirs or mine), I can't really dispute the conclusion (unless there's inconsistancy); but it seems a rather dumb one.
To super-smart aliens. I'd rather you interact with me in a kind way than kill me.
In the particular case of dogs, I'd argue that having contact with humans is their natural way of living. Over ten thousand years of contact with humans has shaped the species. There is no way you can consider any dog to be not exposed to humans: it's in their genes.
On the other hand, why should there even be the concept of a "beast of burden"? The real question is "what does ethical interaction with animals look like?", and PETA seems to have taken the position that there is practically no such thing. To the PETA fanatics, any deviation from an animal's natural life is cruel. To an extent, they have a point - where mankind once relied on animals to provide capabilities humans do not possess, technology has now progressed to the point where there is little need for domesticated animals.
I guess that at least would make their killing of animals consistent with their ideology. For all of these species that only exist because of humans, they have no natural life, so the only solution is to eliminate the species. I still completely disagree with it, but maybe that's their end goal.
But a camels got to make money to put food on the table for his family. Why is she trying to take that away?
The only places the PETA president's quote can be found are Scripps media outlets, and they're all by the same author, and they all use the same friggin web template.
"Google has no business using camels to 'cutesy up' its data-collection imagery," said Ingrid E. Newkirk...
It was scheduled camel service; a re-positioning caravan back to the regional hub.
You can easily search Camelaware for deadhead trips starting with 9xxx.
To paraphrase Arianna Huffington on her private-jet travel (all while she was loudly decrying fossil fuel use):
"The camel was going there anyways".
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management
Oh definitely. I absolutely don't subscribe to PETA's views. It's a shame really. I'm for the humane treatment of animals and hate seeing animals abused. However, PETA takes this reasonable position and then continues into Crazy Territory of "Any contact with humans is abuse." I grew up with dogs in our house. They were like members of the family and weren't abused at all. They led wonderful, full lives and were loved. If it weren't for various reasons (allergies, financial constraints, living space issues), I'd probably have a dog now also.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church...
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation [huffingtonpost.com] found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.
Are you kidding me, Barbara???
Yow!!! As someone who still has nightmares about the two pets (dogs) I have had to have euthanized, one with Osteosarcoma at 17 years old in 2009, and the other with Cronic Renal Failure and Adrenal Gland Cancer at age 13 just last July, something like that makes me insane...
At the risk of getting flamed for "Godwin-ing", I just thought they were a way-over-the-top animal protection group; not the ones who had the "Final Solution" to animal cruelty...
A lot of people are noticing the similarities between the two. Crazy over-the-top behavior and a holier-than-everyone-else attitude.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No one cares what PETA thinks except PETA. This is because reasonable people still outnumber the idiots, even though it doesn't seem that way most of the time.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
I would imagine that many groups that started out fighting for what they felt was a good cause, eventually reach this point as they grow in numbers, strength and financial backing. I suppose they reach a point where they need to get into the limelight in any way that they can to keep the money coming in to fund the bloat. Not to mention to keep the fanatics within the ranks satiated.
.... they get everything they ask for and they no longer have a place in society.
I would imagine that deep in the tombs of PETA headquarters is a document that shows the worst outcome that could arise due to the organization
Yuck. I wouldn't want to eat a Camel. That's it, the PETA sticker has to go from my car.
Camel is a nasty tasting meat.
google should have used a different animal that is far tastier.
Wait, PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals....... right?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They remind me of a certain person I know who, rather than give away a pair of cats she could no longer keep, had them euthanized. Her logic was along the lines of: No one could love them, or give them a better home than me, so they're better off dead.
In terms of what they do with their funding, i.e., pay out very nice salaries, PETA is no different from other charities. The biggest beneficiaries of most charities are the executives of that charity.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Put both groups in a sealed room with a puppy, a gay baby, and enough cudgels to go around.
The problem will solve itself.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I do not know any camels personally but I grew up with horses and I can tell you they like to work. Sure, they would always rather be eating, like pigs but with longer legs. Yet some of them seem to enjoy the company of people and are eager to please. Imagine a large vegetarian dog. Camels are a different species but the point here is that there is no basis a priori to believe that the camel was abused or even inconvenienced by taking a walk in the desert with a camera on its back. Sure, it seems miserably hot and dry, but we are anthropomorphising;Camels are adapted to the desert.
Some animals do suffer terrible abuse in the hands of people which makes it especially unfortunate that an organization dedicated to their rescue and protection is governed by batshit crazy people like Ingrid Newkirk. Unfortunate both because their antics discourage mainstream donations and support, and because the donations which they do receive are often misdirected to this kind of bullshit. (or camelshit.)
That is the problem with "good causes." They can be perverted or hijacked to serve any end and are impossible to oppose successfully. Who strongly defended Bill Clinton's serial molestations and ignored Bob Packwood's? Women's rights activists. What group works hardest to trap poor children in failing schools by blocking reform? The National Education Association. What legislation encroaches on the rights of patients, guarantees profits for insurance companies and is making health insurance increasingly unaffordable for the middle class? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And remember the Patriot Act?
Self promotion of your own virtue is a gambit. A good cause is a power grab. If you want to succeed in acts unpopular, illegitimate, or harmful, first enshrine yourself as a public symbol of virtue.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
To super-smart aliens. I'd rather you interact with me in a kind way than kill me.
If they're super-smart, they'll avoid interaction with the criminally insane primates who rule this planet all-together.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I will never understand why people euthanize cats instead of at least driving them out into the middle of the woods and setting them free so that they have a shot at life. Cats are APEX PREDATORS. They can do just fine without you. Let the kitten grow a month or two until it is a decent size, then set it loose.
If PETA's problem with this is "cat overpopulation", then they are being quite hypocritical because it's nothing more than a human invention; the most natural thing to do is just let wild cats be and let nature take care of the population dynamic.
Put them in a sealed room with a gay puppy and enough cudgels to go around. Problem solved :)
Where's the study on what PETA does with the animal corpses? I'm forced to wonder who benifits from a policy that exterminates 94% of the charges in their care, it certainley isn't the animal.
Seriously, PETA sounds stupider and stupider every time I see them mentioned in the news. They are actually upset that A CAMEL WAS ALLOWED TO WALK IN THE DESERT! The Onion couldn't have come up with a better headline to make fun of PETA with. Does anybody actually take PETA seriously anymore?
Don't worry PETA, I'm sure they killed the camels like you do with all the animals in your shelters.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
PITA is always unhappy. PITA is misrable. PITA is a scew ball org. that can not discern the difference between cruelty and reality. No sane person wants animals mistreated. But the nature of PITA is such that tossing a frisbee to my dog would be seen as an assault on the dog. They are simply sick old women with amplified sensitivities many of whom seek a career with a pay check and some power. Did they ever bother to think about how many camels would exist if they were not working animals? How many chickens would be alive if we gave up eating chicken and eggs? In my area if race horses and polo horses and show horses were banned we would never see a horse. PITA simply fails the sanity test.
Any living creatures are going to evolve from simpler species that needed to struggle with each other for resources to survive. Any species which has some way to maintain knowledge for advanced scientific study is going to have to evolve/learn to work together more recently in their past, or else knowledge dies with individuals.
The reality is that while morphological and chemical and genetic differences with extraterrestrials will doubtlessly be profound, the inevitable common backstory of evolution will give them some behavioral similarities. "Criminally insane" is our modern, cooperative brains examining our more competitive behavioral roots and seeing the innate conflict.
Can we just stop giving PeTA any attention? They're 100% trolls. The sooner we all ignore them the sooner they go away.
it was a horse designed by committee.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
No additional comment necessary.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.
This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.
Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster
I'm not a fan of PETA by any stretch but I can't criticize them for this.
I'm sure PETA would adopt out all of the animals they were given if there were enough people willing to adopt them. But the fact is there simply aren't that many people looking for pets, and the people who are looking generally don't want the kinds of pets who are given up for adoption.
So given there's no one to adopt those animals what do you propose they do with them? Pets require a lot of food and care, you basically have a choice between storing them in conditions that are slightly expensive and really horrific, really expensive and somewhat pleasant, or cheaply euthanizing them. Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?
I stole this Sig
Because most house cats are actually unable to live that well in the wild. Though they have the hunting instincts natural to their species, it actually requires some experience (usually learned during kittenhood and young adulthood) to put those instincts to best use; most cats cannot hunt well enough to sustain them long enough to gain the necessary skills.
Obviously cats which have lived outdoors - farmcats or free-roaming pets - have a better chance at survival than indoor-only house-cats, but even free-roaming pets fare poorly compared to feral animals that have lived their lives entirely on their own wits.
Cats also aren't safe from predation; owls and hawks won't pass them by when they are young and even after they achieve full size, coyotes and foxes are known to go after them. Housecats also have a poorer chance at finding good shelter in bad weather, and usually have to fight feral cats for territory, which further hampers their chances.
Putting a pampered house cat into the wild and expecting it to survive because "it's a cat" is thoughtless; it will likely live a very short life before dying miserably in a ditch somewhere.
Whether that option is better than euthanizing the animal is debatable and probably dependent on the beliefs of the owner. The proper option is to spend the time and money to get the animal properly placed, but dumping the feline is cruel and shouldn't even be a consideration.
Sad caveat: the ferals and strays in my town are very well cared for by well-meaning locals; many are fed daily, and have had their shots and been neutered. Unfortunately, this care just encourages more people to dump the animals in our neighborhood.
Your opinion has been noted. I argue that human behavior in general (ie, as a species) is not confluent with the aforementioned belief, and submit pretty much every news broadcast I've seen in my lifetime as evidence.
Agent K said it best: a person is smart; "people" are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it.
The only attribute he left out was "violent"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I've got my mutt (who's now also getting old), and a couple of dogs from two neighbors (one who thinks he lives here, and one who wants to live here :-) So sorry for your loss, because I know what it's like.
Anyway, gotta go walk the dogs ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What you say above is absolutely not backed up from what I read. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
A long-term study of a trap-neuter-return (TNR) program in Central Florida found that despite widespread concern about the welfare of free-roaming cats, 83% of the cats studied had been present for over six years, with almost half first observed as adults of unknown age. These time spans compared favourably to the average lifespan of 7.1 years for pet cats reported in a 1984 study,[8]:45 and to the finding that only 42% of the pet cat population in the U.S. is more than 5 years old.[9]:1358
Adult feral cats without human assistance have been found in surprisingly good condition. In Florida, a study of feral cats admitted to a trap-neuter-return (TNR) program concluded that "euthanasia for debilitated cats for humane reasons is rarely necessary".[10] A further study of over 100,000 community cats (feral and stray) admitted to TNR programs in diverse locations of the U.S. resulted in the same 0.4% rate of euthanasia for debilitating conditions.
They remind me of a certain person I know who, rather than give away a pair of cats she could no longer keep, had them euthanized. Her logic was along the lines of: No one could love them, or give them a better home than me, so they're better off dead.
^ THIS.
We were discussing the killing of his two children by cardiologist Guy Turcotte yesterday (found not criminally responsible, now under appeal). I was arguing with my sister, saying that you'd pretty much *have* to have something wrong in the head to kill your own kids - even if it doesn't rise to the level of insanity. She was saying, No, she could see how some people just get really pissed off and kill.
I guess if people can think this way about defenseless pets, it might be the same for their children. But it still seems royally messed up to me. If I were a juror on that case, I would want to hear the experts before making a decision, because that whole way of thinking just doesn't compute.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
More nuance than you might think?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
A camel seems really inefficient. I'd say eat camel for lunch while riding your jeep around the desert.
Come on, putting down an animal just hours after you get it? Not using their network of supporters to say "here, we have these animals that need homes?"
Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?
They took in just under 30,000 animals. $35 million pays for a LOT of pet food (and pet food manufacturers are big donors to shelters, so even that expense can be mitigated). And shelters use volunteer staff, which, last time I volunteered, didn't cost them a penny.
Fostering animals out to temporary homes usually costs just the food, while the animal waits for a placement - and a lot of times those foster homes end up keeping the animal rather than let it go back to the pound.
$35 million a year, to place less than two thousand animals annually? Really? That's a pure for-profit business. Disgusting.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They can talk to me about animal cruelty when they no longer hold the record for most animals killed in a shelter.
-Myke
Come on, putting down an animal just hours after you get it? Not using their network of supporters to say "here, we have these animals that need homes?"
Sure, if you know from experience that the particular animal will be almost impossible to place.
Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?
They took in just under 30,000 animals. $35 million pays for a LOT of pet food (and pet food manufacturers are big donors to shelters, so even that expense can be mitigated). And shelters use volunteer staff, which, last time I volunteered, didn't cost them a penny.
Fostering animals out to temporary homes usually costs just the food, while the animal waits for a placement - and a lot of times those foster homes end up keeping the animal rather than let it go back to the pound.
$35 million a year, to place less than two thousand animals annually? Really? That's a pure for-profit business. Disgusting.
First PETA doesn't take in $35 million a year to place less than two thousand animals. They take in $35 million to do everything that PETA currently does which includes paying 300 employees.
And yes, they'd get some food donations and volunteers, but do you realize how much food donations and volunteers would be required to care for 30,000 animals? And that's just for one year, animals typically live longer than that and with a no-kill policy they'd soon end up housing over a hundred thousand animals. Unless you expect them to have a small city dedicated to caring for those animals euthanasia is your only option.
I stole this Sig
To PETA, "somehow unadoptable" translates into "Oh, we can't sell this mutt or this mixed-breed cat to a pet store for big bucks like we could with a pure-bred, so put it down."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No. Taking the worst of the worst shelter practices is a bogus argument. Passing laws against animal cruelty (both in shelters, breeders, and owners), along with enforcement, is the proper way to fix the problem. Not "OMG look at how bad THEY are" when PETA is just as bad in it's own way.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If the 90% euthanization rate within ONE DAY is true, then do you really think that is a fair amount of time to wait for someone to adopt the animal before putting it down? _one_ _day_.
If they have enough experience to know the animal won't get adopted then yes.
Think of it this way. PETA is the most extreme of the major animal rights organizations, they're staffed by people who are so passionate that they're willing to endure ridicule and crappy pay to work for them.
Now either these animal rights nutbags who won't even drink milk because it enslaves cows are at the same time committing a completely unnecessary massacre of pets every day. Or, you've completely underestimated the necessity of euthanization.
I stole this Sig
I make it a point to not use camels* at all. For they are, in actuality, exceedingly nasty creatures. If Google (for some unfathomable reason) did choose camels over Jeeps, it must have been done because all of the Jeeps in the country had been rented for the weekend. Why the hell would they otherwise want to deal with such an obstinate, unruly, hateful creature as that**?
*Or, in fact, any camelids.
** Well, other than Eric Schmidt, and to be fair, he is CEO after all.
That is all.
They do NOT need to take care of 30,000 animals year-round. Most adoption centers place their animals as quickly as possible. They use their networks of contacts, TV and radio, the internet, the newspapers, to place animals.
The local SPCA takes in 14,000 animals a year, and places 90% of them. They're not the only shelter in the area either. Now when you consider that PETA takes in just over that nation-wide, there's a problem.
So, the facts say otherwise. PETA is there for the benefit of PETA, first, last, whatever.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Umm, no, cat's are categorically NOT apex predators. They're just above rodents on the food chain, and prime prey for a whole range of medium-sized predators: coyotes, large owls, eagles, etc. And they know it - ever heard the phrases "scaredy cat" or "skittish as a cat"? You're not that skittish as a species unless you're in real danger. Look at elk as a counterexample - aside from hunting season when they've rediscovered that humans are dangerous they're pretty much fearless - we've long since eradicated all the large predators that could seriously threaten them - even a mere handful of elk have little to fear from a large wolf pack.
Dump a domesticated cat in the woods and you're not giving them a new life, you're sentencing them to a short, exciting adventure that rapidly ends with them as an entree. Now dump them in a back aley someplace and things may be different - they have to survive against stray dogs and the occasional urban coyote, but by and large the potential predators are all well fed, the rodent population is booming, and the environment is something they're basically familiar with. Unless they were raised as strictly indoor cats, in which case it's a question of how fast they can learn to fend for themselves.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not really. How prevalent are dogs, horses, cows, domesticated pigs, chickens, etc,etc,etc, in the wild? Not very - they were bred to be useful to humans and tend to not survive long except in places thoroughly dominated by humans - where predators are few and the scavenging is good.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
They do NOT need to take care of 30,000 animals year-round. Most adoption centers place their animals as quickly as possible. They use their networks of contacts, TV and radio, the internet, the newspapers, to place animals.
The local SPCA takes in 14,000 animals a year, and places 90% of them. They're not the only shelter in the area either. Now when you consider that PETA takes in just over that nation-wide, there's a problem.
So, the facts say otherwise. PETA is there for the benefit of PETA, first, last, whatever.
Well according to the source:
The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.
So according to PETA the reason for their outsized euthanasia rate is their population of incoming animals is highly atypical.
Now you can assume they're lying and misleading, and the most extreme of the pro animal rights groups is also killing animals for fun, or you can consider the fact they're euthanizing those animals for a very good reason.
I don't understand why you're so convinced that these people who are so zealous they'll work for next to nothing are also killing animals for no cause.
I stole this Sig
It's not often that there is too much information packed into a /. headline, but this is one.
Thing is, "PeTA Is Not Happy" would not be news. They're never happy.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Feral cats are cats that grew up in the wild, know how to hunt, and can survive. They never lived with humans, on the whole cannot become house pets, and are quite capable of surviving.
Stray cats are cats that used to be pets that, for various reasons, are not. Most cannot hunt on their own, as this is a learned behavior that is unlikely to happen with a cat that has always been a house pet, and should never be released out into the wild.
This is not a strict rule, but a very good rule of thumb; my family did have a cat that was quite able to hunt, but his mother had been a feral who had successfully transitioned into being a house pet who had made sure her kittens learned. (There were many live crickets released into the house by her for the purpose of hunting instruction of kittens, so it's not necessarily something you want to live through and is something you are likely to notice happening.) If you don't know the cat's origins and the cat is doing quite well as a house pet, assume that the cat doesn't know how to hunt.
The local group that deals with feral cats is pretty damn clear about the differences: TNR for life-time ferals, strays and kittens adopted out. In some areas, managed semi-feral cat colonies are used for rodent control--most commonly in the form of barn cats, who seem to think of humans as being large animals that generally don't hurt them but do annoyingly tend to scare off food.
Peta actually hate and kill animals they "rescue".
Peoples Democratic Republic countries are neither run for the people or democratic.
Democrat parties are not very democratic.
Libertarians seem to want a lot of laws enshrining "gay" rights for some reason.
Progressives are not very progressive as they seem to hate free speech, protection of individuals rights of those they disagree with and seem disinterested in the needs of the poor and homeless.
Small "l" liberals are not willing to standup for values such as democracy, freedom of speech, freedom from being killed for being the wrong gender or religion when the perpetrators are muslim and start accusing those who do speak out as "racist" when Islam is a religion and not a race.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
... there won't be any more camels.
Let them fight it out.
The real news will be when PETA likes something.
We get it, dude! You fucking work for PETA so they can do no wrong. You and the tranny can quit your bitching!
On the contrary I think PETA is completely ridiculous in their view of animal rights.
What I'm arguing against is bone-headed criticism of them. Of all the things PETA is guilty of being callous towards animals is not one of them.
I stole this Sig
I've found that, for me, when I'm finally able to admit it's time to help them on, they really do need my help for that, because as much as they want to stay with me, they're also in a bad way. Cancer is not pretty when it spreads and leaves a once-proud friend a hurting shadow of themselves, just skin and bones and fur.
I've stayed with every one while the needle went in, and in every case I was losing a best friend, a family member, and (because they were/are all instrumental in helping me deal with ptsd on a daily basis), real life-savers. And writing this makes me cry again, because I know that there is no way that I deserved such good dogs, no matter how much I tell myself that they turned out good because of the way I treated them. They're special, and I'll always remember them.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Where I'm from (Aotearoa - New Zealand) we have endangered native birds and dumping imported predators like cats in their habitat is very irresponsible behaviour.
The cheese stands alone...
I wonder how many healthy camels live WILD in the middle east? If they weren't useful animals (to humans) I bet they'd be an endangered species.
...where they will be killed by traffic or poachers or people who want to use their land for something else or real wild animals or starvation or natural f***ing selection because they've been bred to live in captivity for 100s of years.
It seems PETA won't be happy until they release all the cows, sheep, pigs, chickens etc into the wild to live a 'natural' life...
I can't speak for the rest of the world but if there was no money to be made breeding cattle (for example) in the UK then cows would become extinct within a year.
"Anyone who has read about or visited that area knows that camels have a hard lot in life." Ingrid Newkirk, you retarded monkey, camels live in the desert.
And it's not just dogs. There is ample evidence that dogs, cats, and several other animals have us humans well trained in their care. Some could even argue that it is the dogs who domesticated us as much as we have them.
Now if you will excuse me, the Master and Mistress of the house have determined that it it time for a lap and attention.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Documentation:
https://www.petakillsanimals.c...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
quantaman says: "Of all the things PETA is guilty of being callous towards animals is not one of them."
Really??
https://www.petakillsanimals.c...
This isn't something that was made up by their detractors. It's cold hard facts PETA left in a dumpster for all the world to see.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
PETA is angry about [very sensible and barely arguable thing] because it [involves animals in some way].
As a result, [insert lame pun/play on words here]
quantaman says: "Of all the things PETA is guilty of being callous towards animals is not one of them."
Really??
https://www.petakillsanimals.c...
This isn't something that was made up by their detractors. It's cold hard facts PETA left in a dumpster for all the world to see.
And I've already discussed it previous comments in the thread. The only thing you seem to have added is criticism over how they dispose of the bodies, which raises the question of how you propose they dispose of the bodies, and why the body disposal method really matters in the first place.
I stole this Sig
It has nothing to do with the bodies, or the fact that they disposed of them illegally. It has to do with the deaths that provided so many bodies to dispose of.
An average dog pound euthanizes around 10% of their intake. Explain why PETA euthanizes over 90% of theirs.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It has nothing to do with the bodies, or the fact that they disposed of them illegally. It has to do with the deaths that provided so many bodies to dispose of.
An average dog pound euthanizes around 10% of their intake. Explain why PETA euthanizes over 90% of theirs.
As I said previously PETA claims that they focus their intake efforts on animals that are generally unsuitable for adoption.
Could PETA be lying about this? Of course. I wouldn't trust PETA about a load of other stuff.
But let me turn the question around, why do you think PETA euthanizes over 90% of their intakes?
PETA members are about as hardcore as you can get when it comes to animal rights, I don't understand what you think is driving them to needlessly kill animals.
I stole this Sig
There's all sorts of documentation on the fact that PETA collects every pet they can lay hands on, not just the "unadoptables". This whole story came to light because they scammed someone into placing a nice pet, and that person then followed up...and discovered a whole bunch of nice pets being solicited for adoption then killed, rather than being placed. PETA actually went to pet owners and veterinarians and talked them into handing over their pets -- these weren't just strays and turn-ins.
What's driving them to kill these nice pets instead of rehome them? As someone above pointed out, PETA believes animals are better off dead than associating with man. They don't love animals, they hate people.
They're like the serial murderer who believes he's sending his victims "to a better place".
"Animal rights" isn't about rights for animals. It's about making sure humans have no rights over animals. If you define an animal as equal in rights to a person, then owning an animal is slavery, and the animal has the right to sue you in court (albeit represented by a human...selected by an AR interest). That makes owning an animal too dangerous from a legal standpoint, and THAT is the goal of all these attempts to achieve legal "personhood" for animals.
But for the benefit of animals? Not hardly.
Incidentally HSUS is just PETA in a nice suit. Same beliefs in a more socially-acceptable wrapper and armed with better lobbyists.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And writing this makes me cry again, because I know that there is no way that I deserved such good dogs, no matter how much I tell myself that they turned out good because of the way I treated them. They're special, and I'll always remember them.
My feelings exactly. And I cried too when I posted my previous Reply. So I know...