Is PETA proposing the abolishment of all utilization/exploitation of animals...

[MrScorpio]

Such as Livestock and entertainment purposes?

I don't know what they ultimately want.

What's the point of "freeing" Punxatawny Phil?

[Berry Cool]

1. Um, yeah.

They regard everything humans do with animals as naturally exploitative.

Nice people, huh?

[NYC Democrat]

2. I don't think anyone really knows what they want.

[Vincardog]

3. No, everyone who has been paying attention knows that PETA wants to end all ownership of animals

No ranch animals for food or milk.
No poultry for eggs or meat.
No Fur or wool use at all
And No pets or work animals.

The PETA fools do not want people to own or use animals or animal products at all.

[MrScorpio]

6. Wait a sec...

I don't think that I'm wrong here, but human civilization wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the ownership and exploitation of animals, right?

From beekeepers to shepherds and beyond.

Don't they know this?

[Brickbat]

4. They want you to talk about PETA.

That pretty much sums it up.

[CBR]

5. +1 exactly right nt

[superduperfarleft]

7. Does anyone really think that a decent discussion on animal rights/animal liberation

could ever happen on DU? Seriously?

[MrScorpio]

8. I'll try to do my part

Fingers crossed for everyone else

[superduperfarleft]

9. Well, your OP was an honest question.

I wasn't taking a swipe at you. It's the "people for the eating of tasty animals" idiots that will be along shortly.

I'll see how this thread plays out before I bother, though. I may not have a ton of time to devote to this today. Feel free to PM me if you're truly interested.

[seabeyond]

10. yes. but not about peta because that is not what this org it about. nt

[superduperfarleft]

12. Agreed, but probably for totally different reasons than you. n/t

[LeftyMom]

14. +1

Arguing about animal issues with people who find peta hopelessly radical is really funny though, when I'm in the right mood.

[Statistical]

11. Yes they believe even household pets is "animal slavery".

PETA end game = humans having no interaction with animals.

No zoos, no aquariums, no animals for food or clothing (wool), no hunting, no raising animals for milk/eggs, no animals used in industry, no animals for entertainment, no working anumals (seeing eye dogs), no personal pets ("animal slaves"), etc.

Basically animal liberation. Where animals live and die with no contact with humans. Maybe some national geographic (video & photos) type stuff but even that would be limited as to not disturb them.

[salguine]

13. Punxsutawney Phil wouldn't make it in the wild. He's like a sandbag with feet.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Animals deserve excellent treatment

PETA deserves nothing but contempt.

[kestrel91316]

16. YES. They are. Ingrid Newkirk has explicitly stated that she wants

even an end to the very concept of PETS.

PETA is basically working to end the existence of my profession.

[flvegan]

17. Yes, PETA has proposed precisely that.

And end to the exploitation of animals. IIRC, they are not opposed to certain "uses" of animals, such as service animals. And, as much as folks try to spin it, PETA isn't trying to abolish having pets. Simply stated, PETA's stance against breeding animals for profit and for spaying/neutering brings about more of an attrition of pets until there were none. Personally, I couldn't imagine life without a pet and it's likely to never happen, but it's consistent with their Mission Statement. Not that you'd ever guess, considering PETA HQ is like one big doggie daycare during the week.

[seeinfweggos]

18. will i still be able to

put those little antlers on my beagle at christmas?