| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

Terminology

Page history last edited by Miss Capri 7 years, 11 months ago

Humans are classified in the animal kingdom because we have more in common with many animals than we have with any plant or mineral. This classification is not meant to put humanity down on a level with other animals and advance animal rights and other radical anti-human movements.

The animal kingdom is divided into various groups such as vertebrates and non-vertebrates, mammals and non-mammal species. Once these lines have been drawn, it is considered a gross error and possibly even dangerous to assume a species belongs to one category particularly when care of that species is involved. Of course, there are many more classifications within the animal kingdom, a rat is not a pig, is not a dog, is not a boy.

On this basis, it is time to establish another line which must never be crossed if humanity is to have a chance against the dangerous anti-human sentiment that is animal and environmental activism.

People (humans) VS animals.

Animals are animals, and people are people.

Animal rights and welfare activists claim we are all animals, and there are many activist groups and individuals who wish to put animals above humans as deserving of even the most basic of rights.

Language is one very important tool they are using to attempt this goal.

In an article titled Watch Your Language, Charlotte McGowan, Newton, Massachusetts, calls attention to this disturbing trend:

"I would like to make some observations about language. The animal rights people want to change language to help them in their quest to give animals legal standing and we are helping them. Time to stop."

The following are animal rights/welfare terms that have managed to be picked up and believed by the general public thanks to shoddy media publicity that touts animal rights dogma as fact, and the sentimental tendency for pet lovers to anthropomorphize, not wanting to realize the truth about how dangerous this cutesy trend actually is in advancing the animal rights agendas. It is in your best interest to reject all of these.

explanations below.

1. "adopt" - Acquiring animals from another person, breeder, pet store, or pound. Animals are not people. They are bought, sold, given away, and acquired. Human children are adopted...

Ms. McGowan addresses the misuse of this term in her article, saying:

"Adopting - this is a term used for humans. We don't adopt animals. Sorry, rescues don't offer animals for adoption either. They offer them for placement. They re-home them. But they aren't adopted. If money changes hands, they sell them. A shelter here in Mass grosses over $700,000 a year selling imported shelter strays, mutts and feral street dogs. They go for $350 a pop. They don't rescue in my opinion, they keep product in the store! They have a big so-called not for profit 501(c)3 business. If we start calling it like it is (and I do) believe me you are going to feel so much better. †Now if a purebred rescue collects money from someone for a dog, they are taking money as a placement or re-homing fee or they are asking to be reimbursed for expenses related to the re-homing."

McGowan gives a call we all need to heed if we are to maintain the right to have our own animals in our own homes, and have a choice in which animals we may keep as pets.

"Let's drop adoption. Animal rights people love us if we help them. Let's stop helping them."

2. "Foster" - Taking in an animal,again using a word meant to apply to children - fostering is for children, not for animals.

Charlotte McGowan agrees. Though she mentions dogs specifically in the following statement, it holds true for all animals.

"Fostering - This is a term used for children taken by the state and put in the care of people not their parents. We don't foster dogs. We provide temporary care for displaced dogs. Sorry if you find that awkward but we can all benefit by retraining ourselves."

3. "Referring to animal(s) as "Child" "furkid" "furchild" "four-legged children" "furbabies" "*insert animal species)-child/kids" any reference to an animal as a "child" "son" or "daughter" "little sister/brother" or "big sister/brother" if the animal came along before the child, and even as "grandkids" if your pet has given birth, or your grown children have acquired pets - This is an attempt to remove the words "pet" and "owner" from our vocabulary, and our rights to keep and see animals for what they are - animals.

This trend is extremely common among pet lovers, but it's a push to give animals equal status to humans, a very large part of the animal welfare/rights agenda.

"What we must do is start viewing every cow, pig, chicken, monkey, rabbit, mouse, and pigeon as our family members." Gary Yourofsky, Humane Education Director, PETA, The Toledo Blade, June 24, 2001

This is the same Gary Yourofsky who says:

"Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever." Gary Yourofsky, "humane education lecturer" employed by PeTA, published Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008 in The Shield, the student newspaper of Indiana Southern University. Yourofsky is a convicted felon that spent 6 months in a maximum security prison in Canada. Click here to read article.

Referring to humans as "skinkids" and "two-legged children" is implying that there is a belief that animals are children that have fur, scales, fins and feathers.

Ms. McGowan has this to say:

"Words that do not belong in the language at all - furbabies, furkids, fur children.†All of these terms make animals into children who (gasp) need guardians, adoption and fostering."

4. "guardian" "pet parent" "mommy" "daddy" "care-taker" "steward" of animals - the animal owner. Unfortunately, many people think it's kind, warm, fuzzy, and cute, failing and often not wanting to realize this is helping out the animal rights in their goal to have us view animals as children, and eventually give up the right to keep animals at all.

On the subject of animal "guardianship" VS. animal ownership, Ms. McGowan says:

Guardian - legal term used for the legally responsible person caring for a minor child or incapacitated person. I think we get this one. We have to fight Guardian language in animal ordinances tooth and nail because a guardian takes away ownership from the owner. If you own a dog it is yours. If you are a guardian, you are not an owner. You are a person or entity with legal care responsibility. If dogs have guardians instead of owners, we no longer have ownership rights.

5. "owned by" or "slave to" - As opposed to "I own." Many people think this is cute again, but animal rights dictates that we don't own anything, we are intrudors tresspassing on land the animals own.

6. "companion animal" - Pet. The term 'companion animal' was coined by none other than Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of the animal activist group PEta, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, because she wants to get rid of pet ownership. She shuns the word pet and we shun the word 'companion animal'. Read her statement, she uses several animal welfare/rights extremist terms in this little diatribe alone:

"I don't use the word "pet." I think its speciest 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 vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" -New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." -PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Washingtonian, August 1986

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." -Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles -- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." -John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, PETA, 1982, p.15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." -John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they pets are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." -PETA's Statement on Companion Animals

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals Dogs would pursue their natural lives in the wild." -Ingrid Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. Dogs would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

7. "Forever home" a rescuer's way of '"screening" people from owning animals. If you can't absolutely guarantee that you and your home will be here or that you won't become sick or otherwise unable to care for the animal for the rest of its life, you're not a 'forever home' and not good enough to own a pet. The truth is nobody can or should be expected to make such guarantees, life happens and sometimes things change and are beyond our control.

8."Responsible" this word is often used in conjunction with "pet owner" "breeder" "farming" in exactly the same way other disclaimer words are meant to point out an abaration. What talking about "responsible" pet owners does is accusing most ownership of irresponsibility by default while claiming a select few are the "responsible" ones. It also gives the aw fundamentalists any excuse to call anyone "irresponsible" for any and all subjective opinions held against you.

9. "Ethical" and "Reputable" are used in conjunction with 'breeder' in exactly the same way. Oddly enough, 'reputable' is even used by "rescuers" to judge one another as well.

10. "Rescue" - acquiring animals to either keep or place into new homes. This term is particularly nasty toward any previous owner because every time you claim to have 'rescued' an animal, it is insulting the previous owner. For it to be a true rescue there has to be some serious and immediate danger involved that the animal is being saved from. I.E. A kitten up a tree or puppy down a deep hole. Most pets aren't in danger except for sicknesses and accidents, and that should be no reflecction on the owner. Too many people buy animals from others who for whatever reason can't keep them any more, then turn around and claim to have 'rescued' the animals.

11. "Refuge" - Placement home. Like the word "rescue" "refuge" slanders the previous owner as something the animal needed to seek "refuge" from.

"12. screening" Animal welfarists who have animals to 'adopt out' screen by asking millions of questions that, if not answered exactly to their satisfaction, they brand you as a terrible person and do their best to barr you from ever getting a pet, all based on their erronious beliefs that everybody is more likely to neglect or abuse rather than take care of and love their pets. It's their way of 'saving' the animal from going to the new owner who didn't measure up to the demands of the pound or rescue that has the animals. Some animal welfarists even go as far as to demand you will your animals to someone else upon your death, and if you don't do this, you're not fit to own a pet.

13. "backyard breeder" - The term "backyard breeder" is particularly nasty, because it is very anti-family and anti-pet. It's designed to make people think of the slob who keeps his dogs in the backyard, constantly breeding dogs and keeping them in bad conditions. In truth, a real backyard breeder is nothing more than a family that has a dog or cat which has a litter. So, animal rights/welfare people are actually against anyone owning pets that breed even once, unless of course they are the pet owners themselves.

14. "puppy mill" - A term made up by the animal rights and welfare activists, especially the so-called Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to slander all dog breeders and kennels.

Ms. McGowan states:

"Puppy Mill- There is no such thing. Puppy mill is a slur, like the "n....." word. Let's stop using it. We hate substandard kennels. We want all dogs to be kept well. Well kept dogs are well kept dogs whether they are in kennels or in homes. It isn't about how many dogs there are it is about how well they are kept.

15. "Factory Farm" - a farm. It could mean anything from a small family farm to a commercial farm, if they want to smear any farmer, they call it a factory farm

Ms. McGowan observes:

"HSU$ calls all farms factory farms. When have you ever heard them talk about or care about family farms? †Now they call all breeders puppy mills. They try to mumble in a remote footnote that there might be some good breeders but for them it is all about shelters and if not shelters rescues. Do you get it? They use language to slander all animal use and all dog breeders.† Their mumbled lip service doesn't fly with me."

Other terms designed to stir up hatred against anyone anywhere who owns and breeds animals:

16. "broker"

17." Collector"

18. "horder"

19. "Roadside Zoo"

All these terms are meant to paint any individual who is a victim of an animal welfare/rights smear or misguided, naive person's zeal to be an animal hero, in the worst light possible. If you have too many cats for your neighbor's liking, they can call you a 'horder'. If you breed your dog even once, you could be smeared as a 'backyard breeder'. If you are an animal breeder, they call you a 'mill'. Even people who don't otherwise buy into the animal rights agenda, jump at any and all chances to call the next animal owner one of these intentionally derogatory ar-invented terms. Everybody loves to tell and believe animal abuse stories, true or not. Some people gossip and hurl these terms around in order to try stomping out their competition. 'I'm selling this animal. Whatever you do, don't go and buy from Breeder b. He's a mill.' Others do it to make themselves feel taller than the next person. 'I love my animals. But look at Owner C, she's a horder and abuser!' 'Look at me, I just RESCUED 1000 horribly abused and neglected animals from Person D.' 'A warning about buyer E: she's got too many animals, she's a collector and can't possibly take care of any more.' 'Don't sell to her!' You can even get slapped with the 'mill' term if so much as one of your animals has an infirmity or a condition. A 'rescuer' could slander you as a bad breeder or owner if one of your cats has an eye or ear infection. "Shut down H's operation, he's a roadside zoo!"

The animal welfarists don't want you to question this and realize that they are actually pushing to get rid of pet breeders and ownership altogether, and they are slandering the family as a place to raise a pet.

20. "Spay/neuter/fix" something strongly urged as part of the ar agenda to end pet ownership. They push to get animals 'fixed' by exaggerating and distorting tales about 'pet overpopulation' and tell lies about health hazards of not 'fixing' your animal.

21. "innocent animals" - Highly emotional term used by animal welfare/rights activists stricken with a distorted sense of pity for animals. Animals don't come 'innocent' or 'guilty' these are human atributes.

22. "wild animal" - Yes, even this term has been corrupted for use in the anti-exotic animal ownership agendas.

In reality, a wild animal is an animal that is born and living in the wild, and would certainly act wild if caught, and have less of a chance at thriving in captivity as a result.

Exotic animals which are not born in the wild may not be considered technically domestic, but that doesn't make them wild in the true sense. There are exotic animals that are tame and friendly, and make even better pets than some domesticated animals. The only difference between an exotic pet and a domestic one is that exotic animals generally lack a long history of being so commonly born and bred in captivity.

23. "Shelter" - the pound. Shelters as in those for the homeless and battered women are for people. The pound is for animals.

24. "Rainbow Bridge" and 'Rainbow angel' - Animal has died. Some of these people actually believe their animals are angels watching out for them and they will one day meet across the "rainbow bridge" and let's face it, they just can't deal with the fact that animals die.

25. "Angel" This term has two meanings in the animal welfare world, one to describe a person who has reached the coveted status of animal hero by "rescuing" and especially sacrificing a great deal to save an animal. You won't be considered an angel for having an animal put down that is living an unnatural life in pain that will only worsen if it is kept alive. You would be considered an angel if you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on medications, surgery, or other treatments that are not necessarily even cures, for a sick hamster, feril cat, a 30 dollar rabbit or stray mutt.

"Angel" also refers to any and all animals, because every animal is considered practically a deity or at least as precious as children, often more so, by these people.It is always pure and innocent, and without any faults, therefore, must be saved at all costs, regardless of the toal that takes on the human or the animal itself.

Animal angels are sometimes referred to as "rainbow angels" after they die. Then, they have reached the equivalent of sainthood to animal welfarists, and must be mourned very publically for years to come, especially if there is a belief there was any suffering or abuse involved. Animal welfare people are seen talking about how hard they cry and how they just can't carry on after their animals die. They are comforted by their peers, who express nearly as much traumatization, whether or not these friends have ever had any physical contact with the animal during its life. By contrast, the death of a human receives very little recognition or mourning, unless the human in question perrished in the act of trying to save animals, or was known as a staunch animal advocate. If a human who is judged as an animal abuser dies, there is no mourning, instead, there is great glee from animal welfare activists.

26. "vivisection" and "vivisector" - surgery, surgeon, animal research and researcher. Medical history throughout the ages is barbaric but the animal researchers of today have means of making themselves as well as their animals as comfortable as possible. Ancient surgeons didn't have these means. Nor are they anything like the truly cruel quacks of the past such as Mengel. But ars want people to believe that if you work in animal research, you are a sadist just like Joseph Mengel. Here is an interesting write-up that summs up the [history of vivisection] very well.

Vivisection can even mean a spay or neuter. It means surgery on a being....

27. "speciesism" - Looking out for our own species. Animal rights claim this is as bad as racism, but every animal species looks out for its own species first, it is not racism, it's natural.

28. "dog fighting" "cock fighting" and "blood-sport" "bait-dog/animal" Way overblown, highly emotionally charged terms to plant images in people's heads of dogs and roosters being torn apart for entertainment. "blood-sport" implies blood is always shed in a recreational activity involving animals, even when there isn't any blood being shed. "bait-dog" caters to the animal welfare myth that small dogs, especially strays are being snatched up by "dog fighters" to be used as training prey for large breed dogs to kill. This myth has grown into a paralell one that is equally bogus.The claim is that when you have your animal put down, you must stay with it or else the vet will not kill it, and instead, send it to a research facility, where it will live out the rest of its life in sheer agony. Even more convoluted is the myth that the vet is actually a broker who sells animals meant to be put down to dog fighters, or to rendering plants where your pets get turned into pet food.

Not true.

Cock and dog fighting is illegal and practically non-existent. But animal welfare groups know the size of the emotional wallop from a "Stop the dog fighting!" campaign is massive enough to dupe the public into clammering to get a so-called anti-fight bill passed, which doesn't stop any real fighting. Instead, it only punishes innocent animal owners with ridiculous restrictions. You may not be allowed to keep your birds in a certain type of flight, because the anti-cock fight bill deemed it a flight used to keep fighting roosters, so the environment itself might make you a fighter, and therefore, it's bad. The outlawing of treadmills for dogs to run on by anti-dog fighting bills would hurt kennels that use these treadmills to give the dogs their exercise. You may not be allowed to own a smaller dog if you own a pitbull or rotweiler, because you could be accused of using a bait dog. That is no different from making it illegal for cat owners to keep pet mice.

This is big brother on steroids, mascarading as compassion for animals.

29. "canned hunt" - an animal rights/welfare myth about shooting animals in cages and the like. If you own a vast amount of property and you shoot a coyote to protect your livestock, you could be guilty of the 'canned hunt'. Or killing your own excess animals could mean that as well. But the animal rights radicals would have people believe that canned hunts as they describe them with animals being put in cages and shot for entertainment is a reality, and a common one.

30. "trophy hunting"

31. "poaching"

"Trophy hunting" and "poaching" can almost be used interchangeably. It is a slag against all hunters. The intent of these terms is to stir up hysterical kneejerk reactions from the public, by making them believe hunters are running rampant in the wilds, killing everything in sight for proffit, and that hunting activity is always slobbish, illegal and irresponsible.

Chances are excellent that if you encounter any referrence to "trophy hunting" and "poaching" eco-animal zealotry is involved. If not directly, it has influenced the media source, the law, the politics somewhere down the line. Keep in mind these are the same forces that wish to ban animal ownership, aggriculture, and the use of animal products.

32. "Encroachment" - This term is used by environmentalists and animal rights/welfare activists who believe the earth belongs to the animals and that humans are a blight of invaders.

33. "Earth raper" - A most offensive term used by eco/animal-activists who claim to love the planet and everything on it except their own species, the human race.

"We encourage others to find a local Earth raper and make them pay for the damages they are inflicting on our communities... Furriers, meat packers, bosses, developers, rich industry leaders are all Earth rapers ? We must inflict economic sabotage on all Earth rapers." Craig Rosenbraugh, recipient of PETA funds, Spokesperson for Earth Liberation Front (ELF) statement, August 1, 1999

The liberal misuse of the word "rape" by these activists is disturbing and suggests they definitely have pervurse, ill intent on their minds.

If you keep bees, you are guilty of be rape according to Peta. They see it as forcing the bees to breed and make honey for you, which equals rape in their eyes.

Not only is this an insult to beekeepers, it is also an insult and trivialization to people who have been raped or know of others who have.

Peta has a terrible track-record for this sort of behavior. Its "Holocaust on a plate" demeans and trivializes the lives of anyone who suffered directly or indirectly because of the holocaust.

One of the most infamous quotes from Peta:

"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.

34. Zoofile" or "zoofilia" - A term for beastiality, an abaration in human behavior, but some if not most animal activists would have the public believing it is rampant. Just as you don't have to be cruel to get accused of animal cruelty, you don't have to engage in the sick behavior of beastiality to be accused of it. If you are in charge of animals, and you happen to see them having sex, that is enough for activists to accuse you of zoofilia, animal prostitution and whatever else they can come up with that makes you sound as sick as possible.

"Dog breeders are pimps" - a HSUS magazine article

35. "global warming" - animal rights/eco/environmental climate myth designed to scare people and put the blame on humans as usual for the terror of the so-called greenhouse effect.

36. "Climate change" Same as above, only designed so they can blame any dire weather predictions on humans whether they come true or not.

37. "greenhouse effect" 'greenhouse gases' - All part of the global warming myth touted by animal rights and environmental extremists. All too frequently believed by the general public, thanks to the media eating right out of the hands of the radicals again.

38. The "murder" of animals - 'murder' is a human killing another human. Only people get murdered, animals get killed.

39. "cannibalism" - when referring to humans eating meat. This is one of the more laughable terms because it's only cannibalism if you eat your own species. But to the vegan animal rights activists, it's cannibalism if a human eats any animal species. Animal welfare/rights activists does not call it cannibalism if an animal eats a human or some other kind of animal. So, we're 'cannibals' for eating chicken but chickens aren't 'cannibels' when they eat grasshoppers.

40. "dead animals" or "dead animal flesh" or 'carcass' - Meat. This is designed to make meat eating sound inhumane and gross. Again, it's natural behavior for omnivores, and humans are for the most part, omnivores. There are those who choose to eat only plant matter, and that's their choice, but they should mind what's on their own plate and let other people eat what they like.

41. "jail" or "prison" - A cage.

42. "concentration camp" - Any facility that houses animals being targeted for a very bad smear campaign by animal rights/welfare extremists

43. "slavery" - This is a particularly malicious smear against farmers, pet owners, working animal owners, and also a terrible insult on any actual slaves and their human descendents today, just as is any reference to concentration camps, and comparisons to the holocaust is very tastelessly insulting on people who lived through and died in WWII and Hitler's hell.

44. "those who can't speak for themselves" 'silent victims' or 'innocent animals' - Terms used by animal rightists designed to villify any human in any human/animal association, but especially where any animal death is involved. They only care about human death if it can be used to tout their agenda of stopping the ownership of animals.

45. "cruelty-free" - Much as the general public wants to stop cruelty, most good people are definitely against real cruelty, beware of anybody spouting how 'cruelty-free' they are, because it means they are animal rights radicals. And ars love to tell everyone, though they are very short on actually demonstrating this, how 'compassionate' 'caring' 'cruelty-free' and 'anti-cruelty' they think they are. This is also a put-off as it assumes the rest of us are not anti-cruelty.

The trick is to determine what is real cruelty. animal rights/welfare activists will call you cruel for many things, what you wear, what you eat, what animals you keep and what environment you keep them in. People routinely get their character ripped to shreds with false accusations of being "cruel" and "inhumane" for simply feeding the wrong kind of pet food according to pet activists. You can even be called "cruel" and "irresponsible" and worse if you have to give up an animal due to sickness, or someone developing an allergy to the pet in your home. So 'cruelty-free' for them may mean the ending of pet ownership, meat eating, depending on which branch of the ar agenda the particular person or outfit is talking about. Animal welfarists commonly blacklist anyone they believe should never own an animal, and rarely is it because of genuine cruelty. Mostly these crusades come from misunderstandings and very subjective judgemental and misguided calls to action against innocent people by animal welfare activists.

Sincere anti-cruelty and compassionate people never boast about how compassionate they think they are. Honestly caring and decent people hold human rights as precious to them and to others, and only seek to stop real cruelty where it exists. They do not go around trying to dictate how others live and interact with animals based on vegan and non-vegan animal welfare agendas.

46. "humane" - same as above, if anything involving animal activism is calling itself "humane" it is deceptive, and working to end human rights regarding animals.

Where do you think all these racist campaigns against Asia for eating dogs and cats, horrendous false animal abuse accusations and animal ban proposals calls to speuter all pets, change the word "owner" to "guardian" and "pet" to "companion animal," outcries to save the animals whenever a natural disaster hits and many people including children and infants are in danger of losing their lives, calls to end any and eventually all aggriculture, fishing, hunting, the use of working animals, come from?

Activist groups and companies touting themselves as "humane"

47. "You don't care about the animals!" - Typical ar browbeating of someone who disagrees with them, proves them wrong, or even dares to doubt any horrid tale of animal hell they tell.

Raids and lies about animal abuse occur far more frequently than any real animal abuse, and people have had their lives ruined by these accusations, hate campaigns and even death threats by animal activist groups.

PEta might stop slandering KFC - if KFC paid them enough money to shut up. But the company refuses to pay PEta to stop lying, so PEta continues to attempt to infiltrate, stage, and lie about KFC's abuse of chickens.

The internet is teeming with false animal abuse tales, along with photo-shopped pictures, or even very manipulative wording by the animal activist telling the tale, doing their best to make the reader see or not see whatever they want them to see.

Those sad animal abuse commercials with the sad-eyed puppies come from organizations that would take away your pets and call you an animal abuser in the blink of an eye. Those posters and commercials are staged, outdated, and organizations such as PEta and HSUS regularly victimize and dupe people in the name of saving animals. They play on ego as well, using words like "angel" to describe anybody who "saves" an animal, especially when appealing for you to get animals from the pound instead of buying one from a breeder. What this actually does, is promote their agenda to eventually end pet ownership altogether. No breeders, no more pets...Except for the pound imports from other countries to keep up the myth of "overpopulation" going and the pound proffits coming in.

The media plays into the public's fears of exotic pets, every time a tiger bites someone, that one story is hyped all over international TV, while the millions of other positive experiences with exotic pets get shunned from publication. The animal welfarists don't want the public to think about what they're really supporting when they are scared into screaming for animal bans. Exotic animals are not just tigers, they are pet fancy rats and mice as well as anything else other than a domestic dog or cat.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.