My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Building a No-Kill Kansas City (part 2) | Main | Toddler dies from dog attack in South Georgia »

March 26, 2009



I think it's a hyperbolic hypothetical at best, at worst it's a great example of what I like to call "silly logic quandaries."

For example, I sometimes get asked if I was on a deserted island and had to choose between dying and killing the last chicken also on a deserted island, what would I do? Go!

That's as likely as me deciding to climb Mt. Everest wearing shorts and a tank top.

It's a silly proposal to ask someone to pick PeTA or Michael Vick for your pit bull. I am probably not going out on a limb by saying no one is going to ever be in that position.

I do appreciate that it's supposed to make people "think" about the irony of PeTA's name and it's statistics regarding euthanasia while also tying in sports. It's hard for me to get past the ludicrous premise, though.


I don't think it was ever intended to be a realistic hypothetical. Of course no one is going to be put in that situation...any more than the whole "who would you rather be stuck on a deserted island with" games we used to play as kids. I'm unlikely to ever be on a deserted island, and if so, I'm unlikely to have my choice of who to spend time there with.

The whole idea was just to create discussion around the idea of, who is more friendly to 'pit bulls', a gruesome dog fighter, or an organization that claims to care about the welfare of animals....and to create the point that unfortunately, the answer may not be what many would exepect.


Not to mention the outrage over Vick when the public is actually FUNDING PETA's slaughter!


Wow, PETA actually found homes for 7 dogs of the 2131 dogs in their "care"? Those must have been the ones that escaped.


Nice comment Fred.

I am happy to see some people learning the facts about Peta.
It's too bad, Peta could be doing so much good with the budget they have, but they are wasting everyone's time when it comes to companion animal welfare. Disappointing, very disappointing.


This is great news - that the NY Times is starting to slam Peta. Hopefully, it won't be long before they are widely viewed for what they are - an unfortunate band of fanatics who support a flawed premise that can't work in reality and who kill pets in record numbers. Gee, that sounds like the pro-BSL crowd, doesn't it? Peta bunnies are like them in many ways.

The comments to this entry are closed.