PETA is, as an organizatioon, not good.

First, I would like to say that his definition of good is in the context of "good news" (that's from Merriam Webster) and, a more agreeable solution to both of us might be another definition from Merriam Webster "Virtuous, right, commendable (which is in the context of a good person, or good conduct). ============================================================================ Rebuttals of rebuttals 1.) Actually, PETA killed 21339 "adoptable dogs, cats, puppies and kittens."[1] Also, it's not an exaggerated claim, otherwise they WOULD. If they couldn't, how would the shelter 4 miles away have a 67% adoption rate while PETA kills an average of 85% of the animals it takes in. Also, where did I say they had many supporters? I said they had a large annual income. 2.) It is not true that "there is no kinder option than euthanasia" because many of these animals were healthy, as shown by the autopsies of the bodies (from the dumping of the corpses, mentioned earlier). Also, where is your source for "a major chunk of the animals are sick and old?" Also, just a small tip, Mrs. Newkirk is a she, not a he. 3.) However, Mrs. Newkirk said they could, did she not? Therefore, seeing as she would most likely have far more information about PETA than either of us, we must trust her opinion. The fact that they have a walk in refrigerator and have a deal with a pet cremation agency shows that they kill animals in such large numbers that they can't even give them individual burials (or burnings, as the case may be). 4.) The North American Liberation Front might think they do good. Overall, they don't, as shown by this website (http://www.elfpressoffice.org...). The website (which is run by the North American Earth Liberation Front) displays how they torched a "slaughterhouse" in Santiago, attacked a Carso cement company, attacked a Carso construction company, sabotaged an Apex drilling site, sabotaged Mainshill drilling vehicles, sabotaged three vehicles in Scotland, torched a Telmex cell phone tower in Mexico State, destroyed construction machinery in Butovo, Russia, torched a bulldozer in Spain, burned two ATM's in Mexico, poured acid on 15 hummers in Portland, toppled a radio station tower in Everett, WA, torched a councilman's truck in Mexico, torched a development water car, vandalized the home of the Bank of America director, sabotaged diggers in Italy, torched a police station in Mexico, burned a paving machine in Mexico, sabotaged 30 Telmex phone in Mexico, torched construction equipment in Mexico, set fire to 5 Telmex phones in Mexico, and burned 7 Telmex phone booths. Also, if I may note, this was all in 2009, while their records go back to 1996 (of deeds like this) [2]. Also, the crimes mentioned earlier (that occurred during the protests) were serious crimes. They were felonies. ============================================================================ A summary of his refuted refutes Argument 1 - They don't euthanize the ones they can't save, they kill most all the animals regardless of whether they can or can't. Argument 2- But I must inquire, do you think the van was purchased without notice? At PETA's headquarters? PETA must have been well aware of what was happening. Argument 3- No they don't. Argument 4- That doesn't mean "Bush, Ford, DuPont, etc" were good. Points about quote Do the numbers from the quote "each dog we spay prevents up to 67,000 dogs from being born in just six years. And every cat spayed prevents as many as 420,000 cats from being born in seven years." take into account that some would die, making it so the progeny would never be born, and the fact that many would die in the litter? [1]http://www.petakillsanimals.com... [2] http://www.elfpressoffice.org...