• enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    If there’s some part of the explanation I’ve provided that you didn’t understand, I’d be happy to clarify it, but I believe I explained that quite clearly.

    Let me maybe give you an example: someone’s companion animal is dying of cancer; they can’t afford to have them treated, and there are no systems in place like medicare that would facilitate treatment. They can’t afford to take their animal to a vet to have them euthanized. What should they do? Make their companion animal suffer a painful agonizing death, or take them to a shelter of last resort, such as PETA, who will euthanize their companion animal humanely?

    • streetfestival@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I tip my hat to you - I think you’ve explained it so clearly that no one capable of using a keyboard and actually applying their mental faculties to this topic could fail to understand it. That includes kids

    • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s not what PETA is doing though. They are adopting animals from other shelters and euthanizing them, not providing a service to the general public.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It’s not like PETA’s kill rate is a secret; their statistics have been public knowledge for years, and they’ve never tried to obfuscate that. If other shelters are sending their animals to PETA, they understand it’s almost certainly for the purpose of euthanasia, and those shelters don’t want that reflected in their own numbers, but in these cases they also understand that the alternative is a worse outcome for the animal.