PETA are ethical

First off allow me to argue the point about Auschwitz . My problem is that they trivialize it. They took one of the darkest points in history and used it as a marketing strategy. That IS disrespectful. Granted my argument needs me to enter the argument of 'Why is a human life more important than an animals.' Well here's the thing, we kill animals because the killing of animals provides us with resources such as meat to feed, Fur and pelt to provide clothing and fibers and products that are used in musical instruments, building materials etc. Humans have the capability to do so much in life. Knowledge, strength, determination. Animals can be tame and trained to do tricks and when in the wild can do so little other than survive. To me, humans are superior. This point can be argued but if we go by pure potential, humans are superior. This does not justify unnecessary violence in the creation of meat, I grant you but at the same time, the view of animals being superior does not give anyone the right to trivialize the death of over six million people. If you wish to find an Auschwitz survivor or his/her family and tell them that they were/are just like cows in livestock farms by how they were treated, well you go right ahead. I have a little more respect for those humans who were killed for no good reason. On the point of P.E.T.A being the middle man. Here is my argument. If you support a group that commit actions deemed unethical by all rational humans, you are unethical no matter what the reason for your support is. If you support the BNP because they'll collect your bins every week, you are choosing to overlook the racism because they share a similar view on one point. This of course is an example. I don't want anyone to think I'm calling P.E.T.A racist. I'm just using a comparison but I digress. I will grant you that I can't blame P.E.T.A for the actions of the A.L.F but I never did. My point is that they are unethical because they looked over the unnecessary & potentially fatal violence because they both share one view. This is unethical and hypocritical bearing in mind that one of the leaders of P.E.T.A actually uses medicine derived from animal products. I ask you, how can you be against animal research whilst benefiting from animal research? On your third point that I can not prove that they approve of violence. Well: PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich has said: "I think it would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and 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, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." The New Yorker noted in a 2003 profile of PETA founding president Ingrid Newkirk that "officially, PETA does not engage in violence, but its leaders wholeheartedly defend and encourage guerrilla groups like the Animal Liberation Front." "We do not condemn nor condone it but we do understand it." Three quotes from the vice president, facts retained from a profile of the President and a former employee of PETA. Put simply (by The Center For Consumerism) "As long as national animal rights campaigners fail to openly, publicly, and unequivocally renounce violence, the threat will remain." Continuing the rebuttal, I will agree with you that ethically they have the moral right to view killing animals for meat as bad but they also have the moral responsibility surely to show correctly run abattoirs? Granted it would make no difference because people would still be repulsed by what they saw but I bet they'd still have a burger. Sorry to quote you but: "PETA see the dogs as rightful to freedom as a human and despite this ethic not matching your ethic it has absolutely nothing to do with PETA being unethical, it merealy is a conflict between your perosnal choice of ethics and PETA's choice of ethics. Both of you are ethical but your ethics themself differ." I'd like to explain my view upon this. Are the dogs being tortured? Are the dogs being treated unfairly? Are they being beaten? In the vast majority of cases, no. If they aren't in any danger, why take them away? If it's because you want animals to be equally free, well, you're going to have to give animals responsibilities. With rights come responsibilities. Let me ask you. When the animals are free, what will you do if they bite people? What will you do if they kill one another for food? You give animals freedom, you become responsible for their responsibilities if that makes sense. So what will you do? You can't kill lock them up because that kind of defeats the point. If anything, taking animals away from loving homes is more unethical. I will grant you it's sad when animals are abused but If you take away the loving home and nurturing that most animals have, well you're subjecting them to the will of other animal and I guarantee you, they won't be as loving. I would like to say to you 'OpinionatedMan' that I like you. As a person I like you. You are standing up for what you believe in and trying to not offend whilst doing so which is honorable, I am trying to do the same so no, I didn't think you were being rude but here's my issue. P.E.T.A are killing animals whilst attacking those who kill animals. They attacked a man who ran a shelter, one Jerry Greenwald and claimed that he was pointlessly killing animals but what they didn't report was the countless hours of work he spent trying to save the sixty three thousand strays/abused pets that he took in and he ran campaign after campaign locally to increase adoption and make pet owners aware of spaying etc but still he was attacked and threatened. On the subject of Rodney Coronado - During his prosecution a federal prosecutor stated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk had foreknowledge of that crime. Even if she didn't have prior knowledge, why trust a man who openly confessed to thirteen arsons? That's either disregard of ethics or foolishness.