PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

1. Proof that PETA is affecting the hunting industry http://www.helpinganimals.com... When PETA started throwing blood on furs, people stopped hunting and trapping for fur. Making less people hunt and trap. Because it wasn't worth enough to make a living anymore. Even native trappers that had lived of the land for generations, using the small profit they would get from furs to buy basic supply for the winter, had to move into cities, because they simply couldn't afford their natural lifestyle anymore. Do you think an inuit trapper in Canada leaves a bigger foot print then you do living in the city? They take what they need, they don't use energy, they don't buy things with packaging, and they don't waste any part of the animals. They most definitly have a better impact on the environment then YOU do. And because PETA constantly has demonstrations in front of hunting stores less hunters start hunting, because everyone around them says it's cruel (Because of PETA) and they give into peer pressure and don't hunt. And PETA forces their beliefs on native trappers, buy taking away their industry, and forces their beliefs on trappers by using peer pressure. 2. Proof that without the hunting industry, the environment would be much worse off than it currently is. Hunters make the most money for the environment and for conservation. They also control populations to keep them healthy. If the deer population is to high; which is bad because there wouldn't be enough food (more would starve, because they ones that would have been hunted, still die of starvation; but they eat a large amount of food trying to survive, so the ones that would have survived hunting and starvation, die of starvation as well, because some of the food was eaten by starving deers, making them starve as well), and disease spreads much easier in a large population then in a smaller one. About 100 more of our ducks died this fall, because we failed to remove enough of the population to stop disease from easily spreading, and killing more then what it would have taken to stop the disease. So when a population is high, the fish and hunting officers allow the deer season to start sooner or end later. They also allow hunters to hunt more animals; sometimes they limit. And vice versa, if the deer population is low; which is bad because then the predators start starving and attacking people, going into towns sometimes... if the deer population is low they end the deer season sooner or start it later. Or don't even have a deer season at all. Without this system the populations would go out of whack. And we would have very unhealthy animals. This is of course more natural, would rather have unhealthy and sickly 'natural' animals or healthy and comfortable controlled animals? 2. "Until my opponent can provide logical and factual evidence showing such implications I do not feel required to respond." You can not prove an IMPLICATION. But, it was logical and factual. What other logical reason do you have for PETA spreading around a news story where the person who illegal harmed animals was already placed in jail (The laws were already in place, and the person did not get away with their crimes) then to imply that animals are being harmed to much by all farmers, so all farms should be shut down. Or that all labs should be shut down. It is the same story every time. I would also like to remind my opponent, that as the Pro side it is your job to PROVE your side. And it is my job to disprove it, not prove mine. So you can't just say 'I don't have to react to this argument because there is no proof' (btw there was evidence, all over PETA's website they tell stories of labs and farms that were already shut down and charged for their crimes. And I gave you links to these stories) 3. "I was under the impression that our Congress made the laws in the US?" FINE! Let me reword it, (I hate it when people use technicalities!) It is PETA's job to raise awareness, to get more votes for laws, so they can be passed by congress. 4. "PETA doesn't want to run out of things to do, so they can continue to run as an organization, they try to make it seem much worse then it really is. So they continue to make money" "Referring to PETA, and then in the next sentence using the word "they" implies that PETA is the equivalent of they. Your sentence by this logic would render: So PETA can continue to make money. Which is implicative that PETA exists to make profit." So they can continue to continue operations, so they can continue to collect money, so they can continue to pay their employees, not make a profit, break even so they do not have to shut down. I never directly said "PETA only exists to make money, and they are a commercial business" What I meant in the short sentence YOU twisted into something it wasn't, was: 'The employees at PETA do not want to lose their jobs. So they make up problems, that they try to raise awareness too, so people will continue to donate money to them, so they can break even and not shut down. So their 187 employees do not lose their jobs.' 3.Could you please give me some examples? It is illegal to castrate pigs in some places in Europe. In some ares you can't castrate them at all, in others you have to anesthetize them. Which is more dangerous to the health of the pigs. And the have more chance of dieing from complications of being anesthetized, then having it done with them awake. Not to mention the amount of money it costs to pay a vet to come and anesthetize an animal! Also, you can not put animals alone in separate pens in Europe. So if you had a bull and 5 heifers (Female cows you plan to use for reproducing) you have to keep them together, even if you don't want to impregnate them. Because you certainly can not put a bull with a bull. And if your unable to castrate animals, what can you do? "And additionally how these hurt environmental or conservational efforts? Otherwise this is just opinionated information and is not factual and thus not debatable." Does this look like number number 1, the debates dealing with the environment. Because it looks like number 3 to me. This was an entirely different point, having NOTHING to do with number 1; the debate we are having on the environment. "Furthermore you contend that they do not continue to act as a watchdog for animal cruelty?" They can be a watchdog for animal cruelty, but they don't need 187 employees to 'watch'. Because that isn't their job. Their job is to find cruelty that isn't illegal, raise awareness towards it, and get it passed as a law. Since all forms of cruelty are now basically out-lawed PETA has no reason to exist as such a prominent orginization. The refuse to admit to this and downsize. So they make up problems; like the castration of pigs (the process is not painful, just scary for the piglets); and they force their beliefs on others, like veganism. 7. "Wrong. It is our logic, reasoning, and manipulation of facts along with (in this case) typing skills which influence a debate." Otherwise known as an opinion. 8. "As you have yet to show an example with factual standing, I await this point." What are you talking about? I explained why hunting is good and needed in the environment, and how PETA is bad for hunting. 9. "Perhaps to display their achievements of revealing illegal activity to the authorities, send a message to other farmers who are participating in the similar abuse, and encourage others to aid them in quelling animal abuse?" Except they didn't have to show pictures of injured, starved, and abused animals. They could of just said 'we uncovered this to the police' instead they made ALL pig farms look bad, by posting videos and pictures that didn't need to be posted. How does that send a message to people participating in similar abuse? It only sends a message to kids surfing the web and gu