People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

"- Simple. ASPCA is about protecting PETS and DOMESTICATED animals." I find extremely odd that you say that because on ASPCA's own website, their purpose is cited as being, "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States." No mention of only pets. So unless you are accusing ASPCA of lying about their own purpose, then this point is no longer valid. "- Where did you get this statistic ? Are you aware that euthanized means - 1. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment." I got this statistic from MSNBC. Nice attempt to attack me on lack of sources when you also have cited none. "Do you consider this cruel ? Is it not possible that the animals they "rescued" could possibly be suffering. It is cruel to let an animal live who is in pain, do you not agree ?" Considering that also according to MSNBC, PETA members involved in this euthanization were charged with cruelty to animals (under laws that were created as a result of the work of ASPCA) I'd say I do consider this cruel. Futhermore, PETA stated their own purpose for this and many other euthanizations not being able to find room for them with various shelters (also known for euthanasia of healthy animals) or members. They never mentioned that these animals were suffering so this argument is also null and void. In addition, PETA has in numerous instances advocated euthanasia for animals that zoos were releasing back into their natural habitats. Please explain to me how freedom is, according to your definition, "a terminal illness or an incurable condition". "Someone should support them if they are obviously against cruelty towards animals." A few things on this one. First, with this statement, you accuse key animal rights activists of not being against cruelty to animals. This is because both The Center for Consumer Freedom and Fox News report that key animal activists disagree with PETA. Second, you say we should support PETA but never refute that they are a corrupt organization. According to this, we should support any organization that says it has a good cause, not matter how corrupt it is. Want someone brought to justice? Why not round up a group of vigilantes? A corrupt organization is corrupt no matter what their purpose is. We should never support corruption. Third, as I've shown previously, the American judicial system feels that even PETA's own members aren't always against cruelty to animals. Additionally, you never refuted the fact that PETA uses fear-mongering or any other means they deem necessary to accomplish their goals, meaning that according to the traditional rules of debate you agree with these points completely and can no longer address them. To elaborate on these points, some have even gone as far as to call PETA a terrorist group. Looking at some of PETA's actions, it is not very hard to see why. According to Fox News, PETA shipped a 1,500 dollar gift to the Earth Liberation Front shortly after this group was found guilty of terrorism. A more example, however, can be found in the trial of a man by the name of Rodney Coronado. Coronado was found guilty of burning a research facility to the ground. What does this have to do with PETA, you may ask? US Attorney Michael Dettmer presented evidence during the trial that Coronado was working closely with PETA on the planning of the arson. Furthermore, PETA member Bruce Friedrich had this to say, "I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." Why do you still defend this organization? This is not a debate about animal rights. If it were, I would without hesitation argue in affirmation. This is a debate why an animal-killing, fear-mongering, corrupt organization merits our support.