Another funny point is most Vegetarians I ever met hate PETA.
2007-11-03 16:53:50 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
"[No-kill] sounds very good, but the reality is that it will probably leave some animals to suffer," says PETA’s companion animal spokesperson Daphna Nachminovitch.
2007-11-03 17:04:51 · answer #1 · answered by Albertan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most no-kill animal shelters turn away a lot of animals once their shelter becomes full. So, even though they don't kill the animals in their possession, they turn away a lot of animals that will most likely end up in a 'kill' shelter. I can't speak for PETA, but I'm pretty sure that's why they're against no-kill shelters.
My opinion - PETA could donate some of their millions of dollars to no-kill animal shelters so that they could take on more animals. No-kill animal shelters eventually have to start turning away animals because the majority of those shelters are under-funded. It's not like they turn away animals because they want to, it's because they don't have the money. Instead of PETA attacking those shelters, they could try to help out. I've noticed that PETA likes to do a lot of talking, but how much good have they actually done for animals over the years? They need to spend less time attacking people and organizations and more time trying to help animals in need.
2007-11-05 02:53:04 · answer #2 · answered by candy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
PETA is a classical example of
'reducto ad absurdium`.
2007-11-03 17:04:26 · answer #3 · answered by Irv S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hypocracy abound!
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai0g_fDO72sJtgSxCuBsHBv44gt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071104130613AAA0SiA
2007-11-05 02:34:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋