I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would NO LONGER ALLOW BREEDING.. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s President, quoted in The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223. “
I coudl not belive this when I read it. This woman is nuts and so is PETA
2006-08-12
11:13:07
·
7 answers
·
asked by
raptor89107
1
in
Pets
➔ Dogs
she also thinks killing chickens for food is the same as what the Jews went thur;
“Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses. — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s President, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983. “
2006-08-12
11:15:26 ·
update #1