I'm curious as to what PETA says. This article is explaining that the members of PETA are lazy, I'm wondering if it's something else.
Extreme PETA members believe that it's wrong to own pets, maybe there are some sick people who believe it's better for an animal to die before they become a "slave" to a master.
It's odd how they can think that. Without being "owned/enslaved" these animals will live much harder lives and many of them will die a lot sooner than they would had they been "owned." By keeping these animals from being "owned" they kill them. One ideology keeps them out of harms way (fences or homes to keep them off the streets and away from the wild animals that would kill them)... while the other says that if they can't live free then they are better off dead. The former effects a happy animal, while the latter just results in death. Can someone tell me why the latter is better? ...I'm a little lost on that issue.
The later is not better. Anyways, to add on to your post, having an owner could prevent untimely deaths due to. say, cars, as the owner could prevent it from running into the street. What is also concerning about them is their links to the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. It never looks good when you link yourself to groups that are considered domestic terrorists.
One ideology keeps them out of harms way (fences or homes to keep them off the streets and away from the wild animals that would kill them)
Imagine if Hitler used that excuse for the Jews... "We kill them quickly and orderly so they don't get shot or bombed in the war and come to harm that way. They're in less pain now."
I'm not sure you quoted the right part of my statement as an example... The quoted part is meant to talk about the loving home that keeps them safe... and alive. I think you maybe meant to quote the part about peta killing them b/c of the ideal of a dead animal is better than an enslaved animal?
while the other says that if they can't live free then they are better off dead.
