http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iZiG6OoFPkw
The rest of the series is darling too!
The rest of the series is darling too!
Really cute adoption commerical
- Thread starter Lilavati
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 16,079
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
LOL that was so cute!
The litter box one with the cat is funny too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2iG9NQk9mI&feature=related
The litter box one with the cat is funny too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2iG9NQk9mI&feature=related
HSUS is all for shelter adoptions. So long as they are the "right" type of pet, being adopted by the "right" type of people, after the "right" type of screening, and this all takes place at the "right" type of shelter (namely one that follows their model of a few adoptable pets in a pretty little adoption room and the rest dead because they weren't "adoptable" by HSUS' standards).
Although I have a lot of issues with HSUS, when it comes to sheltering, as far as I can tell, it boils down to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Which is also a problem a lot of rescues have. The problem is that HSUS takes this to the level of "if the animal can't go to what is in our opinion a perfect home where we are absolutely sure that it will be cared for the way we think it should be cared for, well then, its better off dead." In a wierd way, HSUS is right about the No Kill movement . . . the No Kill movement works because it encourages adoptions that are just "good" rather than "perfect." It promotes rescues that, although the vast majority of them are not hoarders, they do always seem to be in just a bit over their heads (and are occasionally idiots. The rescue that now visits our local PetSmart charges $375 for a dog! Sarama was $250, just four years ago. I donated that much for Docket, but I did so voluntarily, and he's purebred. The nearby Welfare League of Arlington (which has a 90%+ live release rate) is $130). It boils down to a difference in philosophy. The No Kill movement values saving lives and giving animals a shot at happiness . . . even if there is some risk that it won't work out for the best. HSUS shoots for perfect, assured happiness and comfort . . . and thinks death is a preferable alternative to even the possibility of suffering.
That's the fundamental conflict . . . "death is better than the possibility of suffering" vs. "where there is life, there is hope."
Anyway, that was a complete tangent. I guess I'm trying to say that it is not fair to characterize HSUS as being against shelters or against adoptions. They aren't. They just have very distinct, and to my opinion, very wrong, ways of promoting those things. But they do promote them, and I can't say they haven't done good. Whether than good outweighs the bad . . . well, that's really off topic.
Although I have a lot of issues with HSUS, when it comes to sheltering, as far as I can tell, it boils down to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Which is also a problem a lot of rescues have. The problem is that HSUS takes this to the level of "if the animal can't go to what is in our opinion a perfect home where we are absolutely sure that it will be cared for the way we think it should be cared for, well then, its better off dead." In a wierd way, HSUS is right about the No Kill movement . . . the No Kill movement works because it encourages adoptions that are just "good" rather than "perfect." It promotes rescues that, although the vast majority of them are not hoarders, they do always seem to be in just a bit over their heads (and are occasionally idiots. The rescue that now visits our local PetSmart charges $375 for a dog! Sarama was $250, just four years ago. I donated that much for Docket, but I did so voluntarily, and he's purebred. The nearby Welfare League of Arlington (which has a 90%+ live release rate) is $130). It boils down to a difference in philosophy. The No Kill movement values saving lives and giving animals a shot at happiness . . . even if there is some risk that it won't work out for the best. HSUS shoots for perfect, assured happiness and comfort . . . and thinks death is a preferable alternative to even the possibility of suffering.
That's the fundamental conflict . . . "death is better than the possibility of suffering" vs. "where there is life, there is hope."
Anyway, that was a complete tangent. I guess I'm trying to say that it is not fair to characterize HSUS as being against shelters or against adoptions. They aren't. They just have very distinct, and to my opinion, very wrong, ways of promoting those things. But they do promote them, and I can't say they haven't done good. Whether than good outweighs the bad . . . well, that's really off topic.
Dunno, Lil . . . considering Wayne Pacelle actually said this: "We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding†and, when asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.â€
Last edited:
Oh, I don't agree with him, and I think he's a nut. But the context he was speaking in was that a policy of universal spay/neuter wasn't an issue, because, in the end, they're human creations, subject to human power and human abuse.
I think his values are screwed up beyond all recognition. But I don't think the man actually hates animals, and I do think he is trying, in his strange way, to protect them. Again, in a sense he's right. If there were no domesticated animals, people wouldn't abuse them. If an animal is dead, its not suffering. PETA takes this to really unique extremes. HSUS . . . frankly, I've always taken that statement as more a "stop telling us that if we s/n all the animals there won't be any more . . . both you and I know that's not really going to happen, and if it did, would it really be a bad thing?"
Let me make clear, I am NO fan of Mr. Pacelle and his policies. I just think that there is more nuance there than they are often given credit for. I also think that it helps in fighting these people if you try to understand them, and that vilifying them doesn't help everyone.
HSUS does some good. Its a shame that good gives them the moral authority they need to advance an agenda that I do not believe actually helps animals, though I understand that they sincerely disagree with me. Which doesn't make me inclined to compromise when the lives of innocent animals are on the line, to be sure.
I think his values are screwed up beyond all recognition. But I don't think the man actually hates animals, and I do think he is trying, in his strange way, to protect them. Again, in a sense he's right. If there were no domesticated animals, people wouldn't abuse them. If an animal is dead, its not suffering. PETA takes this to really unique extremes. HSUS . . . frankly, I've always taken that statement as more a "stop telling us that if we s/n all the animals there won't be any more . . . both you and I know that's not really going to happen, and if it did, would it really be a bad thing?"
Let me make clear, I am NO fan of Mr. Pacelle and his policies. I just think that there is more nuance there than they are often given credit for. I also think that it helps in fighting these people if you try to understand them, and that vilifying them doesn't help everyone.
HSUS does some good. Its a shame that good gives them the moral authority they need to advance an agenda that I do not believe actually helps animals, though I understand that they sincerely disagree with me. Which doesn't make me inclined to compromise when the lives of innocent animals are on the line, to be sure.
Dunno, Lil. I have a hard time cutting someone who runs an organization that insists that 5 week old APBT puppies cannot be rehabilitated and must be seized from the homes that have taken them in and killed, but puts Michael Vick forward as a spokesperson and backs his return to the limelight.
No, I don't think they get any quarter here.
No, I don't think they get any quarter here.
Oh, I understand their rationale for all of that. I think they are flat out WRONG, but I do understand it.
One, they bought into the "pit bulls are vicious from birth" crap . . . keep in mind that was widely believed, and unfortunately still is
Two, they really DO want to wipe out pitties. No pitties, no dog fighting. Dog fighting is horrible and terribly cruel, so the best thing to protect dogs from dog fighting is make sure the dogs used for fighting go extinct.
Three, anyone who wants a pittie isn't the right "type" of person. They are by definition suspect because they want a "fighting dog"
Four, Michael Vick is famous and popular (still) with young black men. He's an ex-dog fighter. He got caught and says he's sorry. It sort of like having ex-crackheads speak out against drugs. But for him to work as a spokesperson, he has to STAY famous.
As I said, I think they are flat WRONG on all points, and in the case of Michael Vick, are too wrapped up in their own "outreach" to see the obvious, which is that he's not sorry at all. But understanding them is more useful than just vilifying them as monsters and hypocrites. They are arrogant, ignorant, and have values concerning animals that are in many cases diametrically opposed to mine. They are masters of propaganda and manipulating public opinion, as all large organizations involved in policy are. But that doesn't mean its a waste of time to understand why they do what they do, or that, in many cases, they mean well, or even to concede that sometimes they are on the side of the angels. Yes, they are the enemy, but it cheapens the debate to just vilify them. (this is not to say that there isn't also some genuine rot in there . . . they've got more than their share of control freaks and lunatics)
And no-kill people and pit bull advocates are increasingly winning . . . by proving HSUS and its allies wrong on the facts and wrong on the ethics. Heck, the taking the puppies back and killing them was a HUGE blunder on their part and people were able to play it against them to the hilt . . . not just because "HSUS kills puppies" but because their fundamental excuse "they can't be rehabilitated" didn't ring true to most people's experience. Its a lot easier to prove someone wrong if you understand their argument . . . and therefore how to attack it. And it makes you look like the reasonable one if you are willing to concede that your opponent is well-meaning, but misguided and mistaken (while they accuse you of being radicals).
One, they bought into the "pit bulls are vicious from birth" crap . . . keep in mind that was widely believed, and unfortunately still is
Two, they really DO want to wipe out pitties. No pitties, no dog fighting. Dog fighting is horrible and terribly cruel, so the best thing to protect dogs from dog fighting is make sure the dogs used for fighting go extinct.
Three, anyone who wants a pittie isn't the right "type" of person. They are by definition suspect because they want a "fighting dog"
Four, Michael Vick is famous and popular (still) with young black men. He's an ex-dog fighter. He got caught and says he's sorry. It sort of like having ex-crackheads speak out against drugs. But for him to work as a spokesperson, he has to STAY famous.
As I said, I think they are flat WRONG on all points, and in the case of Michael Vick, are too wrapped up in their own "outreach" to see the obvious, which is that he's not sorry at all. But understanding them is more useful than just vilifying them as monsters and hypocrites. They are arrogant, ignorant, and have values concerning animals that are in many cases diametrically opposed to mine. They are masters of propaganda and manipulating public opinion, as all large organizations involved in policy are. But that doesn't mean its a waste of time to understand why they do what they do, or that, in many cases, they mean well, or even to concede that sometimes they are on the side of the angels. Yes, they are the enemy, but it cheapens the debate to just vilify them. (this is not to say that there isn't also some genuine rot in there . . . they've got more than their share of control freaks and lunatics)
And no-kill people and pit bull advocates are increasingly winning . . . by proving HSUS and its allies wrong on the facts and wrong on the ethics. Heck, the taking the puppies back and killing them was a HUGE blunder on their part and people were able to play it against them to the hilt . . . not just because "HSUS kills puppies" but because their fundamental excuse "they can't be rehabilitated" didn't ring true to most people's experience. Its a lot easier to prove someone wrong if you understand their argument . . . and therefore how to attack it. And it makes you look like the reasonable one if you are willing to concede that your opponent is well-meaning, but misguided and mistaken (while they accuse you of being radicals).