Lately I have been doing research on PETA and in doing so I began to wonder something and I am really new here so I apologize if this has been brought up before. PETA is completely opposed to declawing cats and their reasoning is in part that if the cat was asked to consent to the declawing operation the cat would say no. There are also adverse physiological facts that I cannot truly affirm or refirm, so I will take PETA’s completely biased word for it. PETA does however strongly support the spaying and neutering of cats. My question is would cats want this operation? I feel that the answer would be once again a very strong no. PETA however disregards that fact saying that it is better for the feline species. Well when did PETA become God. If animals have the same rights as humans don’t they have the right to choose when they get busy just as we do? If PETA’s ultimate goal is complete animal liberation then why are they meddling with the genitals of other species? If animals are our equals then we have no right to control their sex lives. It could be easily argued that it would be better for the human race for all of the people with an I.Q under 70 be sterilized, but we all know that is wrong. Is it so different with cats then? If PETA says that we are obligated as a superior species to take care of animals how can they attack the fact that cattle in a feedyard are treated better than if they were a wild species. Also wouldn’t taking care of the animals give us complete rule over them anyway something PETA wants to stay away from? PETA needs to think about how much their beliefs conflict with each other. I hope someone can sufficiently prove to me that I am wrong about this otherwise I am going to hate PETA even more than I do now.

quote:

Thus, they should be kept indoors to avoid this.

Yes, but with feral cats it is a different story. Since they're wild, they cannot be kept indoors unless they are tamed, and that can take a lot of time. Take this from someone who's had a lot of experience with feral cats.
And feral cats do fight, with each other. And they can get hurt pretty badly.

quote:

What other use are cats these days than to warm laps and lower blood pressure?

Well some people keep them for their mouse/rat catching abilities, in fact that's what they were first domesticated for.

quote:

Do you even know why we declaw cats? So they don't scratch us.

I'm not that stupid. I know why people do it, I just don't think it's necessary in all cases. I've been scratched by cats many times and I'm still alive.

quote:

Did I type some? No, I typed all. Any animal will do this.

But you said in the soul post that apes don't do this.

quote:

Even a golden retriever, one of the most intelligent animals on Earth, barks at its reflection.

"one of the most intelligent animals on Earth"? Where did you get that? I've heard that the poodle is the smartest breed of dog, based on how long it takes for them to crawl out from under a sheet.
You should have used a different animal for that example than a dog. A parrot, for example, would have been a little more impressive.

quote:

Animals have gotten along nicely for a long time without PETA getting all riled up about their rights.

How so? People have wiped out whole species of animals, experimented on animals while they were fully conscious (this was long, long before PETA existed and the scientists then thought that animals could feel no pain), slaughtered animals without humane considerations (before the Humane Slaughter Act was put into place for mammals), have had a multitute of chemicals and compounds tested on them, and they were just abused without a care (before any animal cruelty laws were in place).
Of course, you'll probably say that this was all taken care of by the animal welfare movement, not the animal rights movement, but just so you know, here are a few things that the just PETA alone has accompished for animals:

-PETA first uncovered the abuse of animals in experiments in 1981, launching the precedent-setting “Silver Spring monkeys” case. This resulted in the first arrest and criminal conviction of an animal experimenter in the United States on charges of cruelty to animals, the first confiscation of abused laboratory animals, and the first U.S. Supreme Court victory for animals in laboratories.

-PETA was victorious over the General Motors Corporation, which ended crash tests on animals.

-PETA’s undercover investigation of a huge contract testing laboratory in Philadelphia and our subsequent campaign led to Benetton’s permanent ban on animal tests—a first for a major cosmetics company. Other leading companies, such as Avon, Revlon, and Estée Lauder, followed suit. Gillette announced a moratorium on animal tests after PETA’s 10-year campaign. PETA now lists hundreds of companies that do not test products on animals.

-PETA released undercover photographs and videotapes showing ducks being violently force-fed on a foie gras farm in New York, resulting in the first-ever police raid on a U.S. factory farm. After learning the gory details of foie gras production, many airlines and restaurants dropped the so-called “delicacy” from their menus.

-Undercover investigations at pig-breeding factory farms in North Carolina and Oklahoma revealed horrific conditions and daily abuse of pigs, including one being skinned alive, leading to the first-ever felony indictments of farm workers.

-After two years of negotiations and more than 400 demonstrations worldwide, McDonald’s became the first fast-food chain to agree to make basic welfare improvements for farmed animals. Burger King and Wendy’s followed suit within a year’s time, and within two years, Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson’s had also agreed to adopt stricter guidelines in order to improve the lives of billions of animals slaughtered for food.

PETA has been responsible for such breakthroughs as the closure of the largest horse-slaughter operation in the United States, the shut-down of a military laboratory where animals were shot, and stopping the use of cats and dogs in all wound laboratories. USAToday.com reported, “Could we imagine a world without PETA? ... [T]he organization has inspired a few people to take action instead of lounging in their living rooms, wondering who let the dogs out.”

Not to mention that now since less people are buying fur then before PETA's campaign, less animals are killed for pelts.

So no, I don't think the animals were "just fine" before PETA came along.
And like I said before, animals and humans cannot have equal rights, like the right to vote, marry, have a fair and speedy trial, etc. What PETA is saying is that animals should have basic rights, like those afforded to an infant. (that's my comparison, not theirs).

quote:

And in doing this, the cat cannot defend him/herself in a fight or whatever when they're outside and they are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in one of those situations.

Thus, they should be kept indoors to avoid this. What other use are cats these days than to warm laps and lower blood pressure? Do you even know why we declaw cats? So they don't scratch us. They are called housecats for a reason. Domesticated cats wouldn't stand up in a fight even with claws, we've bred too much out of them. But before I go to far, please read the latest National Geographic article on invasive species for I cannot accurately debate you on this issue if you don't know what I'm talking about.

quote:

It could also mean that some animals just aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, not that they're emotionless automata.

Did I type some? No, I typed all. Any animal will do this. Any. Even a golden retriever, one of the most intelligent animals on Earth, barks at its reflection. However, most animals ignore their reflections due to limited attention spans, but I have proven that they will react.

Whatever the case may be, animals still aren't the equals of humans and don't need the rights thereof. There is no need. Animals have gotten along nicely for a long time without PETA getting all riled up about their rights.

quote:

By declawing cats, we take away their ability to easily kill these animals, such as birds.

And in doing this, the cat cannot defend him/herself in a fight or whatever when they're outside and they are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in one of those situations.
And besides, human activities have killed way more birds than domestic cats have. And no, that isn't from an AR organization, it's from Defenders of Wildlife.
http://www.defenders.org/defendersmag/issues/spring03/plightsongbird.html
Here's something else on cats and wildlife predation: http://www.neighborhoodcats.org/about/about_essays_old_4.htm

quote:

I know this because of a simple experiment. Place a dog (or any animal for that matter) in front of a mirror. The animal will react to its reflection as if it was another animal, i.e. bark, scratch, leap at, whatever. This proves that the animals don't recognize themselves. Humans of any age will recognize themselves in a mirror because they know it is they in the mirror. The lower animals don't know it is they because they don't know that they exist. No one can tell just what animals think, but it is most likely instincts, not organized thoughts.

It could also mean that some animals just aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, not that they're emotionless automata.

quote:

And you picked out specific verses just for fun?

What did I just tell you? I copied and pasted that whole thing from the link at the end of it, I didn't pick out bible verses for fun.
I just hate it when people make assumptions like that, that's all.

Oh yeah, and I forgot about this:

quote:

If animals our equal to humans than humans should be able to marry animals.

Animals will most likely never have the exact same rights as people so that wouldn't be possible. And it wouldn't be acting in the animals' favor. I don't think they would enjoy it very much :/

This is somewhat along the same lines. Domestic housecats are classified as an "invasive species", meaning that they invade the natural habitats of other animals killing and forcing those animals out of their homes. By declawing cats, we take away their ability to easily kill these animals, such as birds. Birds live in trees. Cats can't climb trees without claws. Thus, the birds are safe. And by spaying or neutering them, we take away their ability to reproduce, so there are even less cats around to kill birds and the like. This whole deal was in the latest issue of National Geographic if you doubt my facts.

quote:

And you know this because you've personally had a conversation with an animal...?

I know this because of a simple experiment. Place a dog (or any animal for that matter) in front of a mirror. The animal will react to its reflection as if it was another animal, i.e. bark, scratch, leap at, whatever. This proves that the animals don't recognize themselves. Humans of any age will recognize themselves in a mirror because they know it is they in the mirror. The lower animals don't know it is they because they don't know that they exist. No one can tell just what animals think, but it is most likely instincts, not organized thoughts.

quote:

Tell Tabb and pARTYGiRl that. I was just responding to them.

And you picked out specific verses just for fun?

I think that "meddling with the genitals of other species" is fine. If I went and got my dog spayed it'd be my decision. I take care of it, feed it, and give it a home. Its just like your parents telling you not to have sex. Or the person you are sliving with asking you not to have sex. Honestly I don't think it really bothers the animals that they can't reproduce. If we stop allowing people to spay and neuter their pets the population of dogs and cats will skyrocket, and doesn't the US have ENOUGH stray animals as it is?

That whole thing about animal souls that started with that question was a copy-and-paste job from the article I listed the link for at the end of it. I didn't feel like typing one long paragraph listing the reasons why I don't think what Tabb said was true.
So that wasn't me posing the question.

quote:

Animals aren't self-aware. They do not think of themselves in terms of "I" and "me". Therefore, they do not rank up by humans.

And you know this because you've personally had a conversation with an animal...?

quote:

Finally, do not use the Bible as your source.

Tell Tabb and pARTYGiRl that. I was just responding to them.

quote:

But human beings have immortal souls. Doesn't that mean that we have rights that animals don't?

Yes, therefore we shouldn't be raising non-sentient beings--aka animals--to the level of humans. A very basic explanation is the food chain. Humans are the more dominant predator because we can adapt easily and use tools to our advantage. Thus, humans are at the top of the food chain and are "better" than mere animals such as cats or deer. A more modern and philosophical explanation deals with the soul. And you can discuss the existence of the soul in my post here.

The soul's main purpose is to give self-awareness. Animals aren't self-aware. They do not think of themselves in terms of "I" and "me". Therefore, they do not rank up by humans.

Finally, do not use the Bible as your source. It is only a book and an old and outdated one at that. Perhaps I should dig out a 17th century science book that says animals don't feel pain. Then I'd be able to use that as my base in an argument that animal cruelty is a non-issue since animals don't hurt. However, that would be completely false since it is apparent that animals do indeed feel pain. Similarly, the Bible was written hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago by people who had no sense of science as we know it now. For all we know, they thought the world was flat and one could fall off the edge. Therefore, one cannot take what they say as truth, their word having been skewed by their particular era and worldview.

Wow, I can't believe this board is featured on the YN homepage. Well now you can't blame me for reviving it!

quote:

God gave Adam and men and women the power to protect. That doesn't mean that we have to right to misuse that power by any means.

Now that I agree with.

quote:

When animals get busy, they really don't have an emotion tied to it because they don't have a soul.

Uh huh....right.

But human beings have immortal souls. Doesn't that mean that we have rights that animals don't?

In humans and animals alike, it is the mundane creature that suffers and dies, not the immortal soul. Therefore, it is wrong to inflict suffering on any being who is capable of experiencing it, whether that being has an immortal soul or not.

Furthermore, if animals do not have immortal souls, and this life is all they have to look forward to, isn't that all the more reason why we should not turn their only fleeting chance for joy into hell on earth?

Having said that, it is important for us to realize that nowhere does the Bible teach that animals do not have souls. One passage in the King James Version (KJV) that is widely cited in support of the view that animals lack souls is actually a misleading translation. In Genesis 2:7, the KJV tells us that God breathed life into the man God had created "and man became a living soul." A few verses later God creates the nonhuman animals, whom the KJV describes as "every living creature," apparently drawing a distinction between human beings and other animals (Genesis 2:19; emphasis added in both cases). In the original Hebrew, however, the same term, nephesh hayah, is used in both instances, making no distinction between the nature of the living spirit with which God endowed humanity and that with which God endowed nonhuman animals.11

Recognizing this, the New English Bible, which was published in 1970 under the supervision of the Church of England, corrects the King James' editorializing by rendering nephesh hayah both times as "living creature." But unfortunately, many of the most popular modern translations perpetuate the King James' bias, usually by saying "living being" in verse 7 and "living creature" in verse 19. These include the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the New International Version (NIV), which are all Protestant sponsored, and Tanakh: the Holy Scriptures, which is the translation of the Jewish Publication Society. The New American Bible for Catholics is more circumspect; it renders nephesh hayah in verse 19 simply as "them," and so avoids an overtly misleading translation while still concealing the identical nature of the life force in humans and animals.

The prophet Isaiah tells us that in the coming kingdom of heaven, "the wolf shall live with the sheep, and the leopard lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall grow up together, and a little child shall lead them; the cow and the bear shall be friends, and their young shall lie down together" (Isaiah 11:6-7). This popular passage is usually quoted for its depiction of the "peaceable kingdom." What often goes unnoted is that animals will participate in the coming kingdom of heaven as fully as human beings.

Although some claim that the animals in this passage are merely symbolic and that no actual animals will be present in heaven, there is nothing in the text to support this view; it is an unsubstantiated claim put forward by people who wish to ascribe a uniqueness to humanity that is not taught in the Bible.

The literal participation of animals in the kingdom of heaven -- and by extension, their possession of souls -- is described even more clearly in this passage from the prophet Hosea: "Then I will make a covenant on behalf of Israel with the wild beasts, the birds of the air, and the things that creep on the earth, and I will break bow and sword and weapon of war and sweep them off the earth, so that all living creatures may lie down without fear" (Hosea 2:18).

Based on these and other Biblical passages, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, taught in a sermon titled "On the General Deliverance" that nonhuman animals have souls and will be present in heaven.

(source: http://www.fundforanimals.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=640&table=documents)

quote:

Who says its wrong to declaw cats. why does PETA say that if the cats had a choise the answer would be no? I'd like to know were they came up with this answer considering the fact that humans and cats cannot communticate. and if they have found some cat or animal that can converse why haven't we heard about it.

Whoa, you went out on a limb there.
Haven't you ever heard of the pet psychic? http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/petpsychic/petpsychic.html But that's beside the point. What they're trying to say is that with all the things involved with declawing; losing the ability to climb, defend him/herself, pain and infection after surjery, etc, that if a cat could choose, they would most likely prefer not to be declawed. I mean, wouldn't you? Sure, it's an assumtion, but it's a pretty good one. It's giving them the benefit of the doubt really.
Also, don't pro-lifers also make the same kind of assumption when talking about fetuses? I mean, there's no way one can communicate with a fetus, so we can't ask him/her/it if they wanted to be aborted or not.

I'm not exactly an expert on the whole pro-life/pro-choice issue so don't start attacking me on that.

Who says its wrong to declaw cats. why does PETA say that if the cats had a choise the answer would be no? I'd like to know were they came up with this answer considering the fact that humans and cats cannot communticate. and if they have found some cat or animal that can converse why haven't we heard about it. here i would say something bad about PETA but won't so i don't cause a ruckus. as for the whole controlling the sex lives of animals, in the Bible it says that God gave man the domain to oversee the animals and protect them. don't you think its better to not have a world overrun with cats and dogs. besides how would we feed them all. most would probably starve and die and if they ended up in the pound...well lets just say thats not a happy ending either considering they only keep animals about 2 weeks before killing them. so i would say that playing God so to speak with the sex lives of animals isn't that bad of thing considering the options.

When God created Adam, he gave Adam rule over the animals. He told Adam to take name them and make sure that they are alright as a whole I believe. God gave Adam and men and women the power to protect. That doesn't mean that we have to right to misuse that power by any means. PETA has a point in wanting to neuter cats and I believe dogs. I really don't know that much about the PETA, but I do know this. When animals get busy, they really don't have an emotion tied to it because they don't have a soul. So for a cat to live on a street and have six little kits with a six mother because she can't find food to feed her and her kitts then they may all die. I'm not saying that animals aren't can't love. I do believe that they within themselves can love, but keeping as many animals off the street is keeping them safer in the end. Animals are not out equal according to the Bible, but that doen't mean that we have to right to misuse them. We have been given the power to protect so we try to protect.

If animals our equal to humans than humans should be able to marry animals.

quote:

All I can say to that is eating meat was so terribly bad then why doesnt our government outlaw it along with all of the other countries all over the world.

I can't really speak for other countries since I don't know what goes on in them but I cna speak for mine.
Meat is worth a lot of money to the US government. The USDA has both the job of promoting meat eating and ensuring it's safety, and sometimes those two jobs collide in a bad way, as the many food poisoning outbreaks have proven (deregulation in slaughterhouses to increase profits has lead to this).
Keep in mind how long the regulations in cigarette promotion and sales took to be put in place. Even with all the proof, the government hasn't even outlawed cigarettes yet, so it would be too much to expect out of the government to ban meat at this time. Sure, there's a chance that it may happen, but it's not likely at this point and time.

quote:

I am also sorry if you thought that I zinged you by not reading that whole article; I just simply did not have time to read that thing lol.

Actually, it had more to do with your choice of words:

quote:

I just wanted to provide a little different perspective.

quote:

I was just providing a different perspective, that's all. Made ya think, didn't I?

I guess I was the only one who found that funny.

quote:

I would assume more people work in the animal sector of production agriculture than PETA's entire membership.

Well, there are around 800,000 members of PETA in the world, so I guess you would be right, but have they attacked as many organizations as the CCF?
Actually, I'm not sure of that either... :/

Sorry, bookie, I'm not here to prove you wrong. Quite the opposite in fact. According to a 1992 National Charities Investigation Bureau report, PETA spent 42% of its expenses on fundraising and only 20$ on research and investigation into animal cruelty. Also, more recent tax reports have show that PETA donates as little as 1% of its nearly $14 million revenue to animal charities. The 2001 tax filings show one donation to as being $11.11. They also spend more money on advertising than on saving animals.

And when you look between CCF and PETA, choose the lesser of the two evils. In other words, go with the one that isn't funding domestic terrorists.

Alright well I can't even begin to comment on the whole vegetarian health issue in an educated way. All I can say to that is eating meat was so terribly bad then why doesnt our government outlaw it along with all of the other countries all over the world. I am not going to say that being a vegetarian is unhealthy, because any deffiency that a vegetarian might have can be overcome by supplementation. I am also sorry if you thought that I zinged you by not reading that whole article; I just simply did not have time to read that thing lol. I do however feel that PETA has attacked a lot more people than the CCF has. PETA has taken on the whole animal sector in production agriculture. This is quite a bit of people worldwide. I would assume more people work in the animal sector of production agriculture than PETA's entire membership. I think that is about all I have to say this time. Talk to ya when you reply Slewinca!

quote:

Well I cant really comment on the article, because I did not read the whole thing lol. I just wanted to provide a little different perspective.

I think I've been zinged.

quote:

I do believe that consumer deception however is a little bit biased towards the groups that Berman was attacking. He has a certain interest and he is trying to protect it by attacking others. I am going out on a limb here, but doesnt PETA do the same thing?

Perhaps, but the difference here is that PETA isn't motivated by greed like the food and drink corporations are. Plus I'm pretty sure that PETA hasn't attacked nearly the amount of people/organizations that the CCF has. (the consumer deception site lists 60 people and organizations that the CCF has attacked, although I'm sure there's more than that)

On a side note to that article, the guy mentioned research that compared human digestive systems to that of sheep and dogs. The result was that the human digestive system more closely resembles that of a dog's than a sheep's.
First off, why a sheep? There are many other herbivores that they could have used. Like a horse for example. They are not ruminants nor do they have more than one stomach. They would have made a better example for comparison in my opinion (an herbivorous primate would have been even better).
Also, here's the funny thing about the dog part (actually, it's more ironic than funny), domestic dogs are omnivorous and can be, if fed the proper food, vegetarian! In fact, the one of the world's oldest dogs is vegan: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_659722.html?menu=news.quirkies
Here are some links on this:
http://www.helpinganimals.com/h-vegcat-meals.html
http://www.helpinganimals.com/h-vegcat-survey.html
http://www.helpinganimals.com/h-vegcat-comments.html
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/petfood.html
www.vegancats.com
www.vegpets.com

I just thought that was worth mentioning.

Well I cant really comment on the article, because I did not read the whole thing lol. I just wanted to provide a little different perspective. I also realized that they were a food