There's an editorial in today's The Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald that takes PeTA to task on a number of issues, the main one being PeTA's failure to respond to questions posed by the paper.
PeTA is in hiding:
Under normal circumstances, when a question is posed the correct way to handle that inquiry is to supply a direct answer.
Apparently, the situation involving two PETA employees arrested last week in Ahoskie on animal cruelty and illegal disposal charges does not fall under the normal circumstances heading.
Here's our first question -are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals above the law?
Here are some additional brain twisters - how long has this type of "ethical" behavior been going on? Who is responsible for allowing this to happen? Are PETA workers in the field given the green light to take whatever action they deem necessary based on the situation at hand? Are they licensed to administer lethal injections? Are they licensed by the DEA to transport those medications?
The Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald has placed a pair of phone calls to PETA's headquarters in Norfolk, Va. in regards to these questions, as well as other inquires we have. To date, our phone has yet to ring.
Of course, the intriguing and ironic thing here is that PeTA is now subject to the same kind of investigative processes as they would bring to bear on the people and groups they target.
The difference, of course, is that the groups PeTA targets seldom if ever present themselves as the moral beacon of a brave new world. PeTA does.
When you present yourself as being one of a select number to occupy the moral high ground, you'd better make jolly well sure that you yourself are above moral reproach.
PeTA is not: they are an Animal Rights group, not an Animal Welfare group. Their raison d'être is to rid the world of speciesism, the central concept of the AR cult that equates discriminating on the basis of differences between species (human vs dog) to discriminating on the basis of differences in race (white vs black).
In brief, Animal Rights is based on the belief that (as they would term it) "non-human persons" (= animals) and "human persons" are of equal moral worth — that if doing something towards a human is immoral or unethical, it is equally immoral or unethical to do it to an animal.
Once you understand that, you understand this.
Back to the editorial:
However, that has not prevented PETA supporters from across the nation from sending us e-mails.
One, from Washington state, praised PETA's humane way of ending the lives of these animals. Instead of addressing why euthanized pets were hastily tossed into a dumpster by these animal rights activists, the e-mail's author instead pointed the finger of blame at local dog breeders and why we have failed to develop a low-cost spay and neutering program.
Parenthetically, PeTA's letter-writing supporter manages to combine two logical fallacies in one accusation: First, there is the strawman — a distraction away from the central issue of what PeTA did or did not do. What local dog breeders might or might not do is just as relevant to what PeTA did or did not do as is the color of grass.
Second, the reader invoked the Tu Quoque logical fallacy: two wrongs do not make a right (the fact that local dog breeders may be "guilty" doesn't mean that PeTA is "innocent").
Another response, from right here in the Tar Heel State, asked us to investigate why the Hertford County Animal Shelter had not supplied the required documentation concerning the number of euthanizations of unwanted pets.
We did follow up on that and learned all documentation is up to date and was sent to PETA as requested.
Even PETA president Ingrid Newkirk skirted the main issue, saying only the organization would be "appalled" if the charges were true. Part of her focus dealt with the overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats in an area she referred to as "down there."
Of course, the key word in Newkirk's statement is "if." Now, one really should make a presumption of innocence, and I'm all for doing that, but it does sound odd that PeTA, who always infers it's target's guilt (see this for a particularly disgusting example "guilt through inference"), should now fall back into the comfort zone of presuming innocence. Or so I would argue.
She went on to refer to our area of the state as "impoverished."
Translation - we're undereducated when it comes to raising animals. In PETA's thinking, when it comes to the point where we grow tired of our pets, we simply put a .22 caliber pistol to their head and pull the trigger.
Are there cases of animal abuse in North Carolina? Sure there are, and ditto nationwide. Is that unfortunate? Sure it is.
But don't lose sight of what occurred last week in Ahoskie. To kill animals - ones whose health conditions had yet to be assessed by a PETA veterinarian - while riding down the highway and then place their cold carcasses into a dumpster (where health-related issues could affect humans) is just as inhumane as what PETA accuses us "country bumpkins" of.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Indeed . . . killed before being examined by a vet . . . ouch!
But there's more . . .
Reader Tom R. perceptively points to this, which is a PeTA alert with the banner:
TODAY'S PUPPY KILLER, TOMORROW'S SERIAL KILLER? PETA REPORT HELPS LAW ENFORCEMENT IDENTIFY PATTERNS OF ABUSE.
As Tom R. points out: "The inference one could take from this release is that PETA happily employs potential serial killers and then likens them to Mother Theresa."