Peta and Animal Rights

Remove all ads!

Judging by a rep comment, someone wants me to address in more detail my problem with the link NOG provided. Fine. I not only read NOG's link, but I checked its citations. After confirming that the sources cited didn't actually validate most of the article's assertions, I discounted NOG's source. This was more research than I really needed to do, anyway, since I am already familiar with the National Animal Interest Alliance. The NAIA, his source, is actually a front group and industry funded lobbying organization for animal commerce and agribusiness. It was founded by an AKC board member* and a biomedical researcher in 1991. They are not an animal rights organization -- and their entire raison d'être is to smear organizations like PETA. NOG's source was just another corporate smear site.

* It may seem counter-intuitive at first that the AKC would have a vested interest in opposing animal rights activism, but animal rights activists are actually a thorn in the side of the AKC. They oppose breeding (and, by extension, the AKC) because shelters are already forced to euthanize 3-4 million adoptable animals per year.

 

Drew, maybe you didn't look at the same citations I did. Specifically, look here. It is a copy of the government's sentencing memorandum in Coronado's case. Not a summation of it, an actual photocopy. Specifically look at page 9, at the bottom. Coronado prepped Newkirk for the reception of two packages from him before the MSU attack. The second at least contained stolen goods from the MSU attack. This report alone establishes a link between an admitted and unrepentant ALF arsonist and the president of PETA, who herself is unrepentant about their connection. These aren't opinions or wild claims, these are facts documented in trial papers which I have linked you to.

In short, you may not like the messenger, and I'll agree that NAIA is definitely biassed, but the message has been proven with evidence.

 

Sorry, but no. That Coronado made plans to send packages to PETA of what was by his estimation damning evidence against MSU to PETA is inarguable. PETA members mail documents and video evidence to the organization all the time, so this on its own means nothing. If the FBI had any real evidence that PETA conspired with Coronado to commit a crime or even that they merely knew in advance that Coronado was going to commit arson without saying anythings, charges would have been pressed against Ingrid Newkirk or PETA. No such charges were pressed. No conspiracy, no obstruction of justice -- no charges.

The FBI did, however, get a warrant to see exactly what it was that Coronado sent to PETA. The NAIA used the fact that Coronado communicated with PETA and pre-arraigned those mailings related to the MSU lab to present a worst-case scenario version of events, arguing that PETA not only knew in advance about the arson, but that they conspired with Coronado to commit they arson. More damning, they took it yet one step further, purporting their conclusions to be hard fact rather than merely one of many possible interpretations of the actual facts as we understand them. Maybe PETA did know in advance exactly what Coronado was planning -- after all, anything's possible, right? The problem is that the evidence doesn't support that assertion. If it did, Ingrid Newkirk would have been charged with something. As you said, NOG, evidence matters.

This is a guilt-by-association smear, and you know where I stand on those. Whether directed at Republicans, Democrats, Catholic Priests, Branch Davidians, Mohandes Ghandi, the Salvation Army or NAMBLA, this type of smear is at worst dishonest to the core and at best a meaningless waste of time. It has no place in honest debate.

 

I'll agree that it isn't all the NAIA tried to make of it, but this is a little more damning than 'guilt by association'. This is more like 'guilt by prolongued, willful, informed association'. That Obama's pastor preached hate doesn't really reflect too poorly on Obama himself. If Obama were seen in the front row nodding while he did so, it'd be a different matter, but he wasn't. PETA getting a package from Coronado doesn't reflect poorly on PETA. PETA funding Coronado's defense afterward is a little more damning, especially since Coronado plead guilty, but still not too bad. PETA's repeated praise of Coronado afterward, and even after his admition of other arsons, is a direct indication that they approve of his tactics, which are extreme, which is what I wanted to prove. Furthermore, while there's no evidence that Newkirk new Coronado's exact plans before the MSU arson, it is certainly a creadible belief that she knew who Coronado was and what he did. Again, nothing that can be proven as criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly enough to prove a more-than-casual association beyond most doubt.

I'm not trying to get Newkirk convicted of anything, I just want to show you that she keeps some extreme company.

 

NOG, no one is debating that Newkirk keeps some extreme company. I'd like to know, however, when exactly it was that Newkirk praised Coronado's arson. I've not seen it. Calling Coronado "a nice young man" is a far cry from praising him for committing Arson. To quote Newkirk:

It is clear that she likes and agrees with the goals of the ALF. I've never debated that. It is also clear that she even feels she understands why they do what they do. If her words are to be taken at face value -- and without evidence to the contrary, they should be on an issue like this* -- it is also clear that she doesn't support their methods. Knowing that Newkirk feels she understands why the ALF does what it does and is at least sympathetic to their goals, it becomes less surprising that she would be willing to provide for the legal defense of a few of them. Whether or not that legal defense amounts to tacit approval of ALF activity on the part of PETA is highly debatable -- and I have no interest in changing your opinion on this matter. You'll only see me intervene in this thread when I feel you've gotten your facts wrong.

* ...since PETA has such a high profile. They have no "in" with the government, and law enforcement has always watched them very closely. Simple logic would indicate that if PETA really did any of the stuff they are constantly accused of doing, Ingrid Newkirk would be in prison. Were PETA really getting away with committing crimes and supporting terrorism because they're really, really crafty, the Coronado arson wouldn't really fit the narrative. If PETA is constantly committing illegal acts and has never been caught despite the fact that they are constantly being watched by law enforcement, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to have conspired with a man you purport to have been a known arsonist. Then again, Coronado wasn't a known arsonist -- you were wrong about that, too. He's a known arsonist now, but the MSU arson happened in 1992.

 

Drew, you may want to consider your position on PETA's relation to law enforcement considering what happened to the two who were arrested for dropping animal corpses locally. Originally, they were convinced of several offenses in relation to the event. Later, through appeal, they were reduced to just one lesser offense. That may be friendly judges, or just good lawyers, or some combination of the two. From reading about the appeals, it seems at least one of them had real merit (i.e. they should never have even been charged that way). Finally, the Governor pardoned them for what they were finally left with.

More on point, though, PETA's years as serving as a voluntary press office for ALF and funding the 'defense' of a man who admitted to arson do kind of point to support for the actions as well as the ideals. That's more than a 'their heart's in the right place' response. Less than criminal, though. Add to that repeatedly hosting Coronado as a guest speaker, wherein he gives detailed instructions for a home-made timed bomb such as he used in the arsons, really says something.

 

Actually, the cruelty charges were dropped because euthanizing an animal by lethal injection is not animal cruelty. Think about it for a second, NOG. If euthanizing animal were animal cruelty, wouldn't nearly every pound and shelter in the country would be closed down for it? No-kill facilities are the rare exception, not the rule. The only crime any PETA members actually committed was the illegal disposal of a carcass. A simple misdemeanor, this may have merely been the result of some of PETA's unpaid volunteers being ignorant of local statutes, which could well explain their acquittal.

EDIT: Regarding the pardon, I initially took your claim at face value, and answered your claim as if the thrust of your argument were factual. This was a mistake. Something initially smelled funny in your post, and I couldn't quite place my finger on it, but it eventually hit me. Better late than never, right? After doing about 2 minutes of research, I was able to determine that the pardon you referred to never happened.. No pardon was issued, and no pardon needed to be issued, since the PETA members were acquitted on all charges without any involvement from the governor's office. I'm honestly embarrassed that I didn't catch you on this one sooner. Lesson learned. Going forward, I'll just have to be that much more skeptical of any and all of your factual claims.

PETA has never had Coronado as a guest speaker*. He was allowed to write a column in 2004 for an issue of "GRRR! Kids Bite Back!" -- PETA's monthly periodical for kids.. Surprisingly, he made no mention of bomb construction, eco-terror, or arson in his article. He did talk a lot about the evils of the dairy industry, and if you want to fault PETA for that, knock yourself out.

* ...but it is clear that the sources you are using for information want you to draw that conclusion. One of the things I've noticed is that they rely on taking factually accurate statements completely out of their context, mixing events that happened 20 years ago with events that are happening today, omitting location or time and stringing together individually accurate statements in a sequence that implies a series of events that never actually happened. I searched for instances in which Rod Coronado made guest appearances for PETA, but the only result that remotely pertained to that particular search criteria to it was a link to this thread. After further investigation the only public involvement he's had with PETA after his release from prison that I could turn up has been that kid's column. If you can turn up something else, feel free to post the link.

** I don't even like PETA, NOG. If you would keep your criticism of the organization tethered to reality, you'd get no resistance from me. Frankly, I'm getting tired of correcting you on matters of empirical fact.

 

I rather thought the animal cruelty charge came from killing animals that didn't need to be killed. Are you saying that I could get a dozen happy, healthy puppies from the local animal shelters, slaughter them all, and as long as I've done it 'humanely', I haven't broken any laws? I'm really asking, I'm not so familiar with these laws. And the claim that they were keeping down the strap population is complete BS because these weren't strays, or animals likely to become strays. These were pets taken from shelters with high odds of being adopted.

As for the PETA Coronado link, I can't find the link that connected his speach to PETA any more, which doesn't bode well for it's accuracy. The speach was in 2003 at American University in DC, but the link in question (a news link) said it was set up by PETA. Again, since I can't find it again, that doesn't bode well for it's accuracy.

 

Yes, you could. When I was young, my cat started peeing on the carpet. Rather than examine their options, my parents had the cat put down. They weren't arrested and neither was the vet (and no, I never got over it). I never said I liked PETA's decision to euthanize those animals, but pounds euthanize 3-4 million healthy, adoptable animals every year. Why is it so different when the people doing the euthanizing work for PETA? If I had my way, every shelter would be a no-kill shelter, but until the underlying reality that dictates it's necessity changes, the euthanasia of these animals will continue unabated.

Bull****. These were adoptable animals, but your assessment of their odds of adoption is just conjecture. Perhaps they had decent odds of being adopted, perhaps not, but so do the other 3-4 million healthy, adoptable animals that get euthanized each year because pounds and shelters don't have the space for them. We are forced to hold a perverse kind of lottery every year -- a lottery with 3-4 million losers. It sucks for them, but we'll be forced to continue euthanizing 3-4 million healthy, adoptable animals every year until people finally begin to understand that their decision to buy from a breeder or to let Bruno keep his balls directly causes the problem.

Your statement about strays and pet over-population is so far from reality that I barely know where to begin. One of three things happens when a pound or shelter is over-crowded. Animals get euthanized, researchers seize them (in states where pound seizure is legal), or they start turning animals away. It's usually a mish-mash of 2 or 3, and no-kill facilities turn away far more animals then they take in. A substantial percentage of the pets that get turned away are simply released by owners who can no longer care for them. As is often the case, these new strays are unaltered, and unaltered strays breed like, well, unaltered strays. It's particularly bad with cats since animal control has a much harder time catching them, but most cities have some kind of stray dog problem, too.

 

Actually, no, Drew. My assessment of their odds of being adopted comes from the people that PETA got them from, who are professionals in that area and testified to it in court. They were quoted in about 1/2 the news articles I found. That's back a few pages now, though.

And yes, I know all about the stray problem, as well as what happens when shelters get overcrowded. PETA's case had nothing to do with that, though. PETA took the animals on the pretense of having families ready to adopt. If the shelters in question decided they were too over-crowded, they could have put the animals down (with licensed professionals, I seem to recall one of the complaints was that the people who did this weren't licensed to). For more info, though, most animal shelters have an adoption rate of about 80%, meaning they euthanize about 20%. PETA's adoption rate, though, is only 20%, which means they euthanize 80% of the animals they take in.

As for the law, I'll take your word for it. I guess they're just hypocritical rather than criminal.

 

Hypocrisy? I don't see it. You greatly over-simplify what was actually happening in North Carolina at the time. The criminal proceedings began when PETA started euthanizing animals from some rural shelters after determining that their conditions were substandard and that their euthanasia (if you can even call it that) methods were inhumane. Those North Carolina shelters were little more than "shacks where dogs drowned during floods -- and workers killed animals with a .22 rifle or gassed them in a leaky, rusty, windowless metal box." Real humane. There were few adoptions, giving North Carolina the second highest kill rate in the nation.

People may have testified that these animals were adoptable, but adoptability and adoption aren't the same thing, and the metrics of those rural North Carolina shelters don't bear out your much vaunted "high chance" of adoption for any of them. These animals weren't taken from a clean and sterile environment where they were well cared for and likely to be adopted the next day. They were taken from a ****hole that was at its maximum capacity where the animals weren't well cared for, and where the animals that were killed (sorry, but a gunshot to the head or being gassed in a dark box doesn't qualify as euthanasia in my book) didn't see a humane end. Knowing this, it is no shock that PETA volunteers would prefer to do the euthanizations themselves, since every animal from one of those counties euthanized by PETA would be one less animal killed under those conditions.

PETA is opposed to the no-kill movement, and I'm forced to agree with their conclusion. In the end, all no-kill shelters really do is force the shelters that do euthanize animals to euthanize that many more of them. If we had reasonable oversight of breeding and spay/neuter laws with teeth the no-kill movement might be sensible and practical, but that isn't the reality in which we live. It is upsetting for many people to see PETA decide pre-emptively whether to terminate the life of an adoptable animal. After all, while many of us may be well aware that 3-4 million healthy, adoptable animals are euthanized every year, none of us want it to be our (former) pet that gets the axe. It is therefore easy to understand why people are upset about it.

Reality, though, shows that it matters little whether the decision is made pre-emptively as PETA did or based on some external metric like how long an animal has been at your shelter -- or even based on a lottery system. The end numbers -- the final by region tally of animals euthanized -- will be exactly the same no matter how you do it. PETA has chosen to do the unpopular thing -- euthanizing animals in areas where they deem the shelters and their euthanasia methods substandard, but their doing so does not change the fact that there are far more animals in needs of homes than there are homes for animals -- and they willingly pay the price for doing so. Nevertheless, their actions do not adversely affect adoption statistics in these regions. Shelters aren't closing down in these regions because PETA euthanized too many of their animals. Were PETA euthanizing more animals then there were homes for them or causing shelters to run out of adoptable animals by euthanizing too many, you'd have a point, but that is not what is happening. In the end, the same number of animals would have been put down either way.

 

Drew, the hypocracy I see is this: killing animals for fur is murder, but killing animals for no good reason is acceptable (and here I'm not just talking about the NC case, but PETA's overall 80% kill rate).

As for the conditions of these shelters, I think you may be confusing cases. The case I'm talking about, PETA took animals from perfectly fine shelters, including SPCAs, all of which were up to par with all regulations. As for the accusations, dogs drowning durring severe flooding is an unfortunate reality in any coastal area. I'm sure it surprises PETA, but we put the preservation of human life above the preservation of animal life.

Lastly, I'm a little confused as to what you (and often others) consider a 'humane' form of execution. Why is lethal injection more humane than gassing? Why is it more humane than being shot in the brain? All three produce a very fast and painless death, and gassing is the only one that doesn't require the animal to be strapped down or otherwise distressed beforehand. Of all of them, it seems to me that gassing is the most humane.

Lastly, though, it seems quite callous to me that PETA would seek to execute animals because their living conditions are 'substandard'. It's a highly charged comparison, but compare that to the NAZI camps. The prisoners there definitely lived in a 'substandard' environment, but I'll bet the vast majority of them would prefer living like that to being gassed, shot, or even injected with a lethal cocktail. Likewise, there are billions of humans today that live in slums, ghettos, and other 'substandard' living conditions, but I'm quite sure you'd see world-wide uproar if anyone proposed killing them off.

 

The animals aren't killed "for no good reason". The reason 3-4 million healthy, adoptable animals are euthanized each and every year is that there simply aren't homes for them. Whether PETA does it or the shelters do it, the end number of euthanized animals will be the same. A certain percentage of all animals taken in by shelters are put down. If a higher percentage is put down by PETA, the only real result is that a lower percentage gets put down by the pounds and shelters, themselves.

NOG, given the long, long list of other facts you've gotten wrong in this thread, you're going to need to show me the money. Give me a link. Since it is impossible for me to prove a negative, the onus is on you to prove the positive. When you fail to find the "other incident" that fits the sequence of events you've described while conveniently not matching up with the only documented incident like it that I was able to find, I'll take that as proof that we are talking about the same event -- and that you either made up the details, hoping I wouldn't check, or that got your information from one of those front groups that employs the tools I talked about in post #107. Oh, and incidentally, dogs died in floods not because of lack of evacuation or a greater concern for people than for animals, but because the shelters in question were on low ground and had no roof. In one instance, a dog was caught eating one of the cats, which indicates neglect, or possibly lack of funding, more than anything else.

So the gas chambers were humane, NOG? The animals gassed were gassed in a dark box. To make matters worse, the box leaked, meaning that it would take them longer to die. Would you be OK with euthanizing a pet you can no longer care for in this manner? Is this a debate you really want to have with me?

 

Please provide a link showing this. I understand the logic behind it, but it's flawed. It assumes conservation in the system (income - outflow = change in system) that isn't guaranteed by reality.

Actually, here, it's you that should be providing proof. You claim that these shelters were 'substandard'. I claim they weren't. I'm claiming the negative. If they were substandard, by any reasonable definition, there should be news articles about it. It'd be best if you could also find one that defined 'substandard'

Again, do you have a source for this, Drew? Especially one that detailed what the gas was? If it's cyanide, then that'd still be pretty humane. If it's wood-smoke, then it wouldn't.

 

NOG, this is basic logic. Adoption figures are constant, as are the reasons for the euthanization of shelter animals. Shelter's don't euthanize animals "just because". Less animals in the shelter directly leads to less animals euthanized. If you want to argue that PETA is wrong for following that logic, knock yourself out. I'll no longer waste my time on such a pointless issue.

NOG, that wasn't your claim at all.

You claim here that we must be talking about two different instances. We are not. We are talking about the rural North Carolina shelters from which two PETA volunteers took and euthanized animals. You insisted that the two PETA volunteers were pardoned. They were not. They were, in fact, acquitted on all charges. I find it insulting that someone who got these and so many other matters of empirical fact so completely and utterly wrong is still insisting that the onus is on me to cite my sources.

You insisted that the animals were healthy and adoptable. I don't know where you got that information, because I couldn't find anything of the sort in my searches, but that isn't what PETA had to say. Nor is it what SourceWatch had to say. The SourceWatch page even has a few pictures of the shelter conditions. It's a good read. Here's a picture of the Bertie County gas chamber. Here's an interesting article detailing what actually happens with no-kill facilities. Here's a more local source, complete with a video, detailing the conditions found in North Carolina shelters and their euthanasia methods. Of particular interest is that four government employees who operated those gas chambers on a regular basis and have since died in recent years from heart and lung problems thought to be related to exposure to carbon monoxide. There's also the shelter worker was asphyxiated to death unloading dead dogs from a gas chamber after being exposed to carbon monoxide, and the fun fact that at least 3 gas chambers in NC shelters actually exploded. Fun stuff.

Several. See above. I'd give you more, but I doubt you'd read them.

 

Here's the thing: neither adoption statistics nor shelter capacity are necessarily constant. Both can increase or decrease, and at least the first (the important one) often does.

Unfortunately, I can't find any sources on the conclusion of the trial at the moment, but the news article I read (a NC news paper) said they were ultimately convicted on the three charges of obtaining property by false pretense (everything else was overturned on appeal). Secondly, I claimed that we must be talking about two different incidents because you're description of things was so vastly different from anything I had seen. If we are talking about the same case, again, please provide a source. Beyond that, though, you can't excuse yourself from needing to support your claims by anyone else's failure

Now this is what I've been talking about. Not the PETA site, because of course they're biassed and thus untrustworthy (your own logic here), but the rest of the links. They starkly contrast the reports I've seen:

Spoiler

“They came to the office last Wednesday and picked up the cat and two kittens,” he told the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald shortly after their arrest. “So imagine my surprise when I learned they allegedly dumped dead animals in a trash bin later that same day.” Barry Anderson, an animal control officer from neighboring Bertie County, confirmed to Dr. Proctor that a cat and two kittens were found among 13 dead animals in the van. “This cat and two kittens I gave them last week were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens,” said Dr. Proctor, who was called in by police to examine one of the dead animals. “The animal that I found was a very healthy six-month puppy that had been killed that day,” he told TV station WNCT Channel 9. “PETA will never pick up another animal from my practice,” he said.

Of course, PETA explains that their kill numbers are reasonable because the pets they take in aren't 'in search of new homes'. Except, the problem with that is that PETA's license as an animal shelter means:

Spoiler

"a facility, other than a private residential dwelling and its surrounding grounds, that is used to house or contain animals and that is owned, operated, or maintained by a nongovernmental entity including, but not limited to, a humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals."

A facility operated with the intent of killing animals requires a different kind of permit. As an aside: Some state data and more state data. Please note the grand total of 12 animals who's 'disposition' is adoption in 2006, compared to the thousands of animals taken in. Also note from the second link the grand total of 0 transferred from other facilities in the state,

 

Whatever. Shelter capacity is constant, because they aren't constantly building new facilities. Adoption rates aren't constant, but shelters don't start euthanizing animals just because they can. The start euthanizing in earnest when they are at capacity. It bears pointing out that the pounds in North Carolina, not exactly a big state, euthanizes 250,000 animals a year, more than 7% of all animals euthanized in the US. PETA euthanizes a total of 17,000 animals a year across the entire nation -- they barely even scratch the 250K from North Carolina, let alone the 3-4 million annual tally.

Whatever, NOG. I mean, sure, I'm not the one who has made several empirically false claims in this thread. I'm not the one who claimed that PETA recieved a pardon in an animal cruelty case without having even a shred of evidence to back it up, but it is still my credibility that is tainted. After all, why should you have to back up your sources, anyway?

You initially said they were pardoned. Re-writing history again? Why aren't you alarmed by your inability to turn up your own sources when asked to provide them? You should be. Your inability to track down these sources when asked should be telling you something. It's like I tell me son -- when you can't find find your glasses under the dresser, it's usually because your glasses aren't there.

I already did. Did you read the sourcewatch page or didn't you? Hell, check wikipedia. The only cruelty case they mention is the NC case, and while wiki is hardly perfect, if they got a pardon from a governor the article would at least frelling mention it. You are the one who has provided no source for your assertions. I did my research. I found all the information. The legal chain of events you are talking about simply isn't anywhere to be found. If you want me to believe that it did, then it is your burden to prove it. I can't prove a negative, and it isn't my job to do your research for you. If you really found this information from real, honest to god web sites, you'd be able to produce a link. Until you either back up your claims with a real source, show me the disinformation site that led you astray, or simply admit your error we have nothing more to talk about. If you really can't show me where you got your information, the only thing that I can assume is that you made it up, and I get enough of that from my 6 year old son.

 

That just means that PETA doesn't take in many animals.

I'm just holding you to the same standard you hold me to. I'd expect you to expect that.

Umm, no. You have to be convicted before you can be pardoned, Drew.

I am, believe me. It's worrying enough when you can't even trace your own trail through things, but it's even moreso when I can't seem to find a single article on the trial that was written after it. Everything keeps talking about the two as 'expected to face trial in November 2007. Wait, just found this. Sorry, they were convicted of littering, not obtaining property under false pretense. Ah, and of course now that I start looking for the appeal records, I find articles about the convictions, but not the appeal. There's something wrong with this. Although I did find this. Some photos of the crime. Funny, I liked the gas chambers better than those cages they had the animals in.

Umm, please read my response to your posting of sources. It came after this.


EDIT:
Oh, and for the record, I don't consider gassing with CO in a leaky chamber to be inhumane. Substantial CO poisoning makes you tired, puts you to sleep, and then you don't wake up. Whether the process takes 1 minute or 5, it's not inhumane. The leaky chambers aren't particularly safe for the workers, but it's not inhumane to the animals.

 

Ok, I feel the need to post something of a re-summary of my positions, including changed positions from the beginning of this thread thanks to Drew and others. For starters, my overall position on PETA hasn't changed much. I still think that, while they do a lot of good work, they also often go too far and have ended up hurting their cause as much (if not more) as they've helped it. Thanks to this thread, I've seen their association with eco-terrorism isn't what I thought it was at the beginning, but I do think it's more than what Drew has recognized. The evidence is circumstantial, I'll admit, but I think it at least points to a philosophical approval of them, especially with statements like "thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out." coming from their president. Their euthanization of animals may be defensible, but their aquisition of those animals with a promise to 'find them good homes' is not, given their record. Of course, I don't know how often they actually make that promise, how often it's simply assumed, and how often the people giving up the animals know what PETA is doing. I don't think the general public realizes that PETA kills the vast majority of animals it is given, though. Their tax-exempt status seems pretty justifiable to me.

Overall, their ideology is extreme and their methods are often distasteful and even offensive, with some verging on the downright creepy (handing out comics to kindergarteners entitled "Your Mommy Kills Animals" and the like). They seem eager to walk a thin line with the law, but it does seem my accusations of them crossing it were at least partially misinformed.

 

OK, NOG, I'm rested, refreshed and back. We'll go at this one more time -- line by line.

This completely misses my point. I was addressing your assertion that PETA's kill rate was causing a larger number of animals to be put down over the course of a given year. It is not, since pounds aren't in the habit of putting perfectly adoptable animals down when there is plenty of room for them. Every animal put down by PETA -- over the long haul -- is one less animal that the pounds will themselves put down.

No, NOG, you really weren't. In this thread, you've made countless blatantly false assertions without providing any sources. In countering those assertions, I usually cited my sources, but often simply stated the facts, knowing that I could provide sources if asked. The essential difference is that, when asked, I was more than capable of providing you links. We both have the same internet. I didn't really have to ask you to provide sources, since I already knew from my own research that they simply weren't there.

I don't accuse someone of lying lightly, and your failure to produce anything that I hadn't already seen myself only confirmed what I already knew. If you can somehow prove that you found and posted that misinformation in good faith, I will retract my accusation. Hell, I might even apologize.

Nevertheless, your post about the (nonexistent) PETA pardon was conveniently timed -- brought up right after I asserted that PETA has no special pull with the government. Looking at the timing of that post, I'm forced to conclude that you made up the pardon on the spot because you felt it would neatly discount my assertion. In other words, you placed rhetorical convenience above factual accuracy.

This isn't actually true*, but that is entirely off-topic. You again missed my point entirely. I'm not the one who said they received a pardon. That was you -- and you have been unable to provide even a shred of evidence that you acquired that misinformation in good faith. Since you appear to have missed what I viewed to be the obvious implication of my point the first time I made it, I'll put it more succinctly. When you said that the PETA members received a pardon, you were making it up.

I'm well aware of the chronology. It doesn't change the fact that the source-watch link provided the exact information that you claim I failed to provide -- gift-wrapped, pointing directly to the relevant section and complete with a trail of citations that can be followed from the bottom of the article. I shouldn't have to post the same exact link twice just to cover two different points.

You really need to re-visit the source-watch link. I gave you two different links providing ample detail about how those animals died in those chambers, and they most assuredly didn't just "go to sleep". The details are quite graphic and I refuse to re-post them.

Really? I haven't disagreed with you on a single point of fact about PETA's actions. Moreover, I've even expressed disapproval of their providing legal defense to those ALF members, just as I expressed disapproval of their earmarked donation to send an ELF spokesperson to congress. I draw my line in the sand at the idea that PETA specifically supports eco-terror. They are clearly more sympathetic to the cause than you or I, but that doesn't mean they endorse or even support their methodology. You're entitled to your own opinion about PETA, and I'll respect that, but I deserve to be credited for my objectivity. I don't even like PETA, and I hate that I've been forced to defend the organization. Please, in the future, stick to the facts so that I won't have to.

* When Ford pardoned Nixon, he hadn't even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted.