via. Nathan Winograd ~ How would you feel if the animal rights - TopicsExpress

via. Nathan Winograd ~ How would you feel if the animal rights group you supported was using your donations to poison animals they themselves described as “healthy” and “perfect” and “adorable”? How would you feel if the group you sent in money to assist with a rescue had the animals taken to a facility which gassed them to death? How would you feel if the group you were donating to because they promised to be there for the animals actually sent the neediest ones to a place which neglected, abused, and then killed them? Would you be upset? Would you feel sick to your stomach? Would you feel betrayed? If you donate to PETA, HSUS or the ASPCA, that is exactly how you should feel. PETA: huff.to/XZQ0n6 and huff.to/H1tszO and whypetakills.org HSUS: bit.ly/OW9dWG and bit.ly/1dk6fXI and huff.to/1bVdcxD ASPCA: bit.ly/15GjdIg and bit.ly/1fYHiSa and bit.ly/1l4aHJD Some will argue that we should overlook this harm or that these groups should not be criticized because they do so much good for animals.” In effect, they are arguing that because some of the money donated to these organizations may actually be used for its intended purpose, that they have earned the right to cause harm to other animals themselves—terrible, irreversible, life-ending harm. That is, as long as the harm is being done by the right people or balanced by a counterweight of good, there is no harm that is in and of itself inherently wrong or unacceptable, effectively eviscerating the philosophical foundation of the cause. Moreover, by arguing that we should ignore or overlook certain forms of animal abuse or killing as “payment” for some perceived “good,” the door is opened to condone all manner of animal cruelty and exploitation. By this same logic, were a slaughterhouse owner to donate a percentage of his profits to a vegan advocacy organization, or a dog fighter to donate some of his winnings to a companion animal rescue group, the killing and cruelty they inflict upon animals would therefore be rendered acceptable, the harm being cancelled out by the good. Though an obvious absurdity, this is what they are arguing, but in the reverse. And not only does this argument capriciously surrender the welfare of animals, this argument promotes the defeatist mentality that we have no right to expect or demand that our animal protection organizations be what they claim to be in practice as well as rhetoric, when of course we absolutely do. The corruption at these organizations is neither inherent, nor inevitable. Some animal suffering and some animal killing are not and never have been the price we must pay to end other animal suffering and killing. Please help me educate others by sharing widely, because one thing is certain: It is a generous and animal-loving American public that pays their salaries. And the more Americans hinge their donations on an organization’s sincerity, integrity and performance rather than its superficial label, the sooner our nation’s large animal protection groups will be forced—by sheer necessity—to start building, rather than blocking, the road to a brighter future for America’s animals. Photo: PETA has called for the killing of every pit bull in every shelter in America.