none of this is ban worthy. especially so because this bandwagon is being pushed by the "i hate women" gamers
"spitting vodka in cat's mouth" is a massive reach too. she literally just lets the cat lick it off her mouth. does that absolve her? no of course not but the former sounds like some heinous crime
is it stupid? yes. probably also needs a telling off from the SPCA
.....wait, what? W-what do you think peta does? Have you been watching too much South Park?People have been using a peta hashtag which is so insane to me. We're not trying to get her (and her cat) killed, guys.
Are they not as notorious of a group as I thought?
Peta is just attention seeking at this pointPeople have been using a peta hashtag which is so insane to me. We're not trying to get her (and her cat) killed, guys.
Are they not as notorious of a group as I thought?
.....wait, what? W-what do you think peta does? Have you been watching too much South Park?
Jesus christ
No, I think you can. A streamer I watch gets drunk a lot, unless he's joking.
Oh ok, Twitch rules seem pretty lax.You're just not aloud to do drink related donation goals though if you get drunk to the extent that you could potentially harm yourself/others you could face a ban.
.....wait, what? W-what do you think peta does? Have you been watching too much South Park?
Jesus christ
PETA have done some real shitty things, but they aren't going to go around killing herPeople have been using a peta hashtag which is so insane to me. We're not trying to get her (and her cat) killed, guys.
Are they not as notorious of a group as I thought?
PETA have done some real shitty things, but I think you are massively overstating how terrible they are.
This is not the place for it, but as I understand it those stories are mostly all from a website called petakillsanimals.com, which is a website run by Richard Berman (or more accurately Berman & Co). Someone who has made an entire career lobbying aggressively against basically everything good. Including running hitpieces against workers unions, environmentalists, and a lot more.Taking and euthanising otherwise healthy family pets isn't terrible enough?
Are there any sources of that old claim which do not come from a site he runs? Because he is not a trustworthy source.
PETA have done some real shitty things, but they aren't going to go around killing her
It's as puzzling as some of the posters defending her in this thread!I don't know what's worse. This animal abusing demon or the fans supporting her.
Other people have phrased it as a question as well, and not been banned. Obviously throwing a cat like that is not okay, but the vodka thing is even worse as it is like poison. The folks being banned are outright trying to defend how she threw the cat.I love how tons of posts with this exact sentiment have been banned for downplaying animal abuse but this one slides through. Wonder why............
I love how tons of posts with this exact sentiment have been banned for downplaying animal abuse but this one slides through. Wonder why............
From the mouth of forum favourite, theguardian, a legally settled court case...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down
The facts appear be that PETA was asked to help when an adjacent landowner reported that they should see how his cow with her udders ripped up from abandoned and stray dogs in the trailer park area amounted to a menace not to be tolerated. He complained to PETA that the abandoned and stray dogs attacked his livestock, injured his milking cow, killed his goat and terrorized his rabbits. Abandoned and/or stray dogs and cats have appeared to have been considerable in what is known as Dreamland 2. PETA responded and the trailer park management encouraged their efforts in an attempt to gather stray/abandoned cats and dogs. Additionally the leases provided that no dogs were allowed to run free in the trailer park.
Approximately three weeks before Mr. Cerate's dog [Maya] was taken by the women associated with PETA, Mr. Cerate asked if they would put traps under his trailer to catch some of the wild cats that were in the trailer park, and traps were provided to him as requested. Additionally, parties associated with PETA provided Mr. Cerate with a dog house for two other dogs that were tethered outside of Mr. Cerate's home.
On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained. Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.
Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, [they] had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth, it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing the property of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.