People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

"-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 So unless you are accusing ASPCA of lying about their own purpose, then this point is no longer valid." Are you aware that on ASPCA's website, on the front page it says "Together we'll work to end animal cruelty and find loving homes for all adoptable pets." The key words here are adoptable pets, which are pets and domesticated animals. Also at the top you will find a link to their adoptable pets, which are cat and dog. So as you see this point is vaild, because if you look beyond the simple headline "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States" you will see that ASPCA is about protecting pets and domesticated animals. "-I got this statistic from MSNBC. Nice attempt to attack me on lack of sources when you also have cited none." In your first argument you also failed to cite your sources also, so since you brought it up in your second arguement, I find it fair that I should also. I got the definiton from my first arguement from(http://dictionary.reference.com...) "-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. " Can you tell me where on this site or anywhere else there are rules for debates on debate.org ? I was not aware of this, however, I would like to say that that PETA does not influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. To me their campagins seem to have a great strategy, and effective. Being overdramatic can help get the word out and show people what is really happening to these animals that are put up to animal cruelty. Additonaly, with the " Holocaust on Your Plate " advertisement, PETA clearly apologized saying "When "Holocaust on Your Plate" was originally launched, we knew that it would be emotionally charged and intellectually provocative. Even if we had used more conventional tactics, people don't like to have it pointed out to them that theyï¿½re causing unnecessary pain and suffering by eating meat. We did aim to be provocative. We did not, however, aim simply to provoke" As stated on israelinsider.com. "-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?" Wow it's sad to see someone take somebody elses words and completley twist them, the actual quote is "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … 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. " — Bruce Friedrich To people reading this debate Bruce Friedrich is PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, and said this at the "Animal Rights 2001" conference. Why my opponet used this in their arguement I am unsure.