Check out this PETA protest

[proud2BlibKansan]

Not sure what to say.







http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2010/05/petas_latest_bloody_naked_protest.php

[Forkboy]

1. There's something you don't see everyday.

How much per pound are they? ;)

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Some of the comments posted at the link are pretty funny

Zac says:

I'll take 98lbs of the one on the left, ground extra fine.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 12 2010 @ 1:46PM


Abe says:

I would like to marinate them in my special steak sauce.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 12 2010 @ 3:38PM


billybob says:

Meat is no more essential for human survival than are methamphetamines for staying awake. I say this as an owner of a one thousand acre cattle farm, running five hundred head of free-range Angus beef.

Gripping photographs. Food for thought.


Posted On: Thursday, May. 13 2010 @ 5:51AM
anonymous says:

Looks like a protest of Showtime's Dexter.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 13 2010 @ 7:55AM


Billybob's a liar says:

@billybob - You do not own a 1k acre cattle farm. But you can keep pretending if it makes you happy.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 13 2010 @ 7:56AM


davelog says:

Get that stuff in the freezer before it turns, you can't leave meat out in the sun like that.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 13 2010 @ 8:13AM


Humor Me says:

@Billybob's a liar- Sure he has a 1k acre cattle farm. It's called Farmville fullscreen in 1080p.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 13 2010 @ 8:16AM

[Chisox08]

66. All I want to know is

Can I trade them to my doctor for health care? :evilgrin:

[flvegan]

2. What about it?

Got to post this too...

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. LOL

[flvegan]

13. Anything else?

[tomm2thumbs]

14. cute

[flvegan]

16. Effective.

[MajorChode]

17. Effective at showing how PETAn are douchbags

Except for you of course.

[tavalon]

21. I think PETA goes over the top some of the time

but I think they hit exactly the right note here. My take home message is that prettily packaged stuff you get in the store is ground up flesh and it's good to actually know that. If you choose to continue to consume ground up flesh, at least you are more aware of what you're doing. It's pretty easy to forget that the stuff in the package used to be a living, breathing creature. To eat other creatures is the way of this world but the way we pretty it up is not mentally healthy.

[MajorChode]

33. I never eat that stuff

I grind it up myself at home.

People with at least 2 synapses actively firing know where meat comes from. This is nothing more than PETA's typical media whore activities that are actually counter productive to their stated objectives.

[tavalon]

55. You would be surprised at how many people can't eat it once they

see the animal slaughtered. I don't think it's okay to hide that part. We are one of the "thinking" species so, even if we have left the skill of hunting or farming animals to others, it's disrespectful to the animals to sanitize the process so much. They give their lives, the least we can do is give that sacrifice some attention.

[MajorChode]

92. I don't think I would

I was raised on a farm and have slaughtered animals myself and know quite a few people who have done so also. Raising animals this way does give one tremendous amount of respect for animals, but I've never seen it turn anyone into a vegan as PETA would like. I generally give people just a bit more credit for being reasonably intelligent to know where animals come from and how they are harvested. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm not even going to say you are wrong. I just can't agree. Many people feel PETA's media whore nonsense is counterproductive to any substantive discourse on animal ethics.

Consider if the worm were turned here. Imagine meat producers in America engaging in a campaign to show the hazards of eating vegetables. They could show how many (if not most) vegetables contain carcinogens. They could show how many vegetables contain high levels of nitrates that have the potential of being very bad for people and especially infants. While all of this might be technically true, it would be nothing more than bullshit designed to provoke a response based on emotion, rather than reason. I just don't believe that appealing to the lowest common denominator's base emotions through ignorance is an "ethical" tactic, or even one that has any chance of achieving its desired objectives.

[tavalon]

105. I have a bit of an agenda here too

I don't care if a person becomes a vegetarian (I'm not), I just want to see people have a bit more of a spiritual connection with all aspects of their lives, especially that which they ingest. Maybe not even especially. I think people are just way too disconnected with the Earth and I think we can see in a thousand ways why that isn't a good thing. I've only participated in the killing of one goat, a few chickens,quite a few fish and I've watched a beloved pet get hit by a car. I eat very little meat partially because I recognize the sentience but also because I recognize those sanitized packages for what they are. I'm not a Christian so I don't say grace before a meal, but I do offer up thanks to the spirits who most likely unwillingly gave up their lives.

I'm also a gardener and offer the same thanks to the plants I thwart from having a full life.

[BoWanZi]

101. I have seen lots of the silly Peta videos and slaughter videos and I still love meat

I have seen the videos. The ones that show how inhumane and unsatisfactory living conditions are and so forth and I still love tasty meat.

Someday I want to go hunting and butcher my own kill just to fully experience the full circle of life first hand.

[Forkboy]

109. You're trying too hard.

[Ignis]

180. Shh, don't break the 4th Wall. He's Method.

;)

[Ignis]

40. At least you've stopped pretending you do anything but fling ad hominems.

So that's progress, I suppose. :shrug:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chef Eric]

62. Thank you for your intelligent and incisive criticism of PETA.

Keep it up; I'm sure you'll convince many people to rethink their support of PETA.

[Ignis]

182. ...

:spray:

You had me going with the post title. Well played, sir. :thumbsup:

[MH1]

84. that's great :)

quite funny

I used to be a vegetarian, still 'meat less' as in much less meat than the average american. I gave up explaining why, just say I don't like meat. Much easier that way. Folks who might be genuinely interested, sometimes I give them a little more info. But I am sure I have heard all of those lines at least once, most many times.

[Coexist]

174. rofl... I am a vegetarian, and I hate to tell people, its like my secret

b/c once they find out, they immediately do several things on that card.

Thank you so much for sharing that!!

[EFerrari]

4. At some point you have to decide if you'd rather feel clever or teach

because the two don't go together very often, imho.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. That's a great point

I'd give these PETA folks an A for effort at least.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. I think this is clever and provocative

and may get some people to hear the message that Peta adherents view animal parts on Styrofoam trays as abhorrent.

To me it's pretty good performance art.

[tblue]

7. Well, it does make a point and gets us posting about it.

If that's their goal, they accomplished it. Will people get it? I don't know. I am veg and I gag at the sight of raw meat anyway, so this is groaty to the max for me..

[skeptical cynic]

8. We're vegetarians

PETA got us going in that direction.

They keep the awareness up.

We support both PETA and Sea Shepherd for just that reason.

[flvegan]

10. Applause.

Anyone that supports PETA and Sea Shepherd...

[Chulanowa]

12. I'm with you on Sea Shepherd

But PETA seems to have devolved into a bunch of idiots conducting performance art that is intentionally dense and meaningless so they can get a kick out of nobody "getting it"

"Dude! Dude! You know what we should, like, totally do? We should, like, get Neve Campbell to like, go topless, right? Right? And she's got fishhooks in her nipples and there's like, goldfish on them, and we'll have, like, a caption saying "How's the sushi" and it'll be totally fucking rad, man!"

[skeptical cynic]

44. I sort of thought that way too, until...

I saw the Alicia Silverstone PETA video.

Seriously, I think PETA keeps the issue in the media. In a nation of apathy and distraction, that's enough of a contribution by itself. The USDA considers them a domestic terrorist organization for purposes of homeland security, which tells me they are being effective, and that the word "terrorism" really means whatever the people who control the money and the guns need it to mean at any particular moment.

[SpartanDem]

9. For some reason I want to eat a hamburger right now

[flvegan]

11. Douchebags get cravings.

Not that you are one. Just saying

[tomm2thumbs]

15. what is everyone eating in their bags? - 2 red, 2 yellow

[dems_rightnow]

23. Popcorn eom

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Topsys popcorn

The store is right around the corner.

[tomm2thumbs]

37. thanks - stood out that they all had a handful

the red stuff almost had a ground-beef color, so thought to ask

[Kolesar]

18. Nice hair! ... eom

[Kablooie]

19. She's hot. Needs a bath though.

[Fla_Democrat]

20. Cute

Cute, gullible, willing to take their clothes off in public. Anyone got their phone number? :evilgrin:

[mopinko]

22. this would have worked on a completely different lever with guys in there.

people are used to seeing women as meat, as the comment so clearly show.

[undeterred]

24. +100

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. ...

:thumbsup:

[Mad_Dem_X]

27. +1. PETA have no qualms about

using women's naked bodies to get their point across. Exploitation of animals? Wrong. Exploitation of women? That's just fine!

Fuck PETA.

[Ignis]

39. Shall we ask these PETA volunteers if they feel exploited?

Or are you here to tell them they're being exploited, whether they realize it or not?

We can't allow women to think for themselves, after all! The horror!

:eyes:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

166. If you see anyone espousing misogyny, I'd click the Alert button.

I recommend the same anytime you see anyone smearing an entire group of people based on the (real or perceived) position of a few members, membership within an organization, ethical stance, accident of birth, etc.

Because bigots of any flavor suck. :hi:

[petronius]

54. In a different setting, I think this would make an effective anti-sexism demo as well

It's pretty artistically compelling, IMO - it wouldn't be out of place at a modern art museum...

[CBR]

153. My brother was a fine arts major. When he graduated

he and his fellow fine arts grads had a gallery showing their senior projects (he did a comic strip). One young woman's project was a freezer filled with meat packages filled with molds of boobs and other female body parts.

EDIT: spelling

[redqueen]

163. Yep. (nt)

[chillspike]

28. Shouldn't they be refrigerated?

They'll spoil.

[TheManInTheMac]

36. Too late...

I'm betting they're already spoiled.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. At least they are not assualting little old ladies this time

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. I believe they did that back in December

It's a seasonal thing.

[Skip Intro]

65. Link? nt

[Gormy Cuss]

31. Heh. Now that's creative.

:toast:

[Brickbat]

32. Doing what they do best:

Using women's nudity and graphic protest to get people to talk about them. And it worked!

[Iggo]

34. .

:applause:

[Ishoutandscream2]

35. Not a PETA fan, but very creative

[Taitertots]

38. I used to think, "why don't people counter these more often"

Then I realized they don't for the same reason I don't. It is because PETA lacks the broad support needed to get anything done. We are all going to continue to eat meat and we know PETA can't do anything about it. Which is why PETA needs these stunts to try and lure in the easily influenced.

[LiberalLovinLug]

50. It is countered every day

In those giant fat oozing from a hamburger billboards

In those countless food chain advertisements on the boob tube.

In the subsidies given to cattle farms

In the lax testing and cover-ups of mad cow disease.

In the sneers and snide comments from the MSM about PETA

In the isolation of PETA and the lack of coverage of daily abuse of animals from the same MSM



It seems many even here on DU are brainwashed into believing that this small (compared to the meat industry), but creative, organization is somehow doing something "wrong" or is "arrogant" or "stupid".

Even if you don't subscribe to veganism or even if you see no problem with cruelty to animals as long as you don't have to be burdened with the knowledge of their unnecessarily gruesome death, I don't understand your opposition to letting the "other" side have a voice; that David is behaving "ridiculous" in even attempting to slay Goliath.

I mean isn't DU kind of like PETA in a way, not in policy but in stature. A news and information site with a liberal bent will NEVER evolve into a news show on the big networks. Democracy Now is a good example.

I think some here don't support PETA simply because their TVs tell them not to. I think others just are angry at PETA for daring to "ruin their lunch" by producing documentaries that reveal where that lunch came from, and resent having to face and rethink their own morality when it comes to their eating habits.

I say all this as a meat eater, but someone who is evolving and learning and appreciating hearing all sides.

[seabeyond]

51. exploitation of animals, bad. exploitation of females, good. hypocrisy.

that is what turned me on peta. they exploit women and the defense is.... there are groups to address women, we arent one of them. fine. then i will have issue with org.

they used racism, dressing in kkk costumes

they ridicule, scorn, sneer at the fat.

in order to pormote their healthy lifestyle

none of that is ok with me.

but in all you openmindedness, and self righteousness, you didnt address a core issue why so many turn on peta.

[LiberalLovinLug]

56. These women CHOSE to be expoited for a purpose

Just like most all choose to be exploited on a daily basis, of sacrificing our time in a job making someone else rich in order to pay the bills. I'm sure there are other examples.

I thought Madonna had cracked that ceiling. She was one of the first to reclaim her sexuality as her own to do with as she chooses.

Dressing in KKK costumes, I assume done in parody to portray a point IS NOT RACISM. Following that logic any protest that uses these costumes in order to villainise them are also racist? The actors in Mississippi Burning and other movies who wear KKK costumes are also racists?

I don't know what you mean by "sneering at the fat".

All of these red herring excuses for not allowing yourself to listen to the core message of PETA is silly IMO.

I gave you reasons why many turn on PETA. You just gave one more. Ignorance as to what is done in parody for a purpose and what is actual wrong behavior.

[seabeyond]

61. whether one chooses exploitation or not, exploitation it is.

whether one chooses to be degraded, demeaned or not, degrading and demeaning it is. whether one chooses to be dehumanized or not, dehumanizing it is.

if you dont know about the KKK event or the billboard on the fat people, then dont argue it.

madonna has backtracked on earlier behavior and shifted her position, as she grew up, matured.

you arent aware of the many things peta has done, but argue regardless; then lecture me on ignorance, lol. women fucking vegatables. condemnation of women that dont trim their fur. that is relevant to animal protection, how? i told you the statement of peta. females is not their issue, animal is. they dont care about humans, others can address that. (so i address it). do some research. if you think it is ok dehumanizing and demeaning women for a cause, then go at it hoss. many of us feel that they can represent their cause without using and exploiting women.

[sabrina 1]

142. What makes you think those women are being exploited?

I'm a woman and see them as two women who have strong opinions about an issue and decided to do something to get attention for that issue.

That takes guts and dedication and intelligence.

Is it because they appear to be naked? Maybe they are not inhibited, as so many are in our culture, by puritanical indoctrination that a woman's body is something to hide.

We live a milder version of the Taliban world where it is believed that women can cause men to sin if they show their bodies.

And we don't even know that it wasn't their own idea, yet are ready to infantilize them and assume someone is using them, as if women cannot think for themselves.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of people in this world who actually view the human body as natural.

I wish people would stop trying to 'protect' women from themselves before even knowing whether they need to be protected or not.

[seabeyond]

149. what an aburd notion this nation is a lesser taliban. beyond absurd

every part of this society, every second of our day has a voyeristic attitude to sex.

what did this accomplish but have men talk about eating, spoilage, a piece of meat, jacking off to bloody naked bodies. these women are set up for ridicule and disrespect. the men (not all) play a game of dehumanizing these women. i dont get why women set themselves up for utter contemp and disrespect and pretend it is positive. i dont know how a woman puts herself out in vulnerability to only have the most ugliest things said about her as less than a human and walk away with shoulders back.

peta came to town. put a bed on the corner of a street in downtown. had to girls in underwear posing sexually. what that has to do with animals, i am clueless. what they got was the attention of a bunch of good old boys making crude, vulgar comments and saying fuck you peta, but thanks for the naked women to get off on. it was cold out, the girls looked and acted ridiculously, and embarrassing for all, even the men acting stupid, and vulgar.

you say we are a taliban nation of puritans as some of our girls feel the only way to be heard is to strip down naked. that doesnt say something to you, that women feel stripping down naked is the only way they are heard. but the real hypocrisy? if naked truly was not a big deal, then these men would not be saying what they say, they would not act like they do. they would not be jumping up and down, clapping hands, yelling bewbies, bewbies. who is making the big deal of nudity?

[Goblinmonger]

155. Anyone who jacks off to those women in the meat trays

has problems that are WAY beyond anything PETA had done. Unless you are saying that seeing that protest is going to make me WANT to jack off to it, in which case I have no idea what to say.

I think your last paragraph about the "bewbies" is actually the point that was being made about our puritanical attitudes toward sex. If we didn't have that attitude, it wouldn't be a big deal.

[seabeyond]

159. look at some of the male posts on this thread. yes, it is offensive to hear men talk about women

in this manner. and to tell women that if they are offended (especially as that is the mens purpose) is ridiculous.

these women are hawt. say what. wtf?

the people yelling bewbies are the ones that point the finger yelling puritan and people making the big deal about naked. yet, inevitably, they are the ones that continually make the big deal in the most offensive, vulgar way and then say, .... quit being a puritan.

i have learned on du, that to be a puritan is a female that doesnt like to hear her gender referred to as a piece of meat, or there for a male to point out he would hit her, or fuck her.... that she is just a thing to fuck

because i have issue with male talking about females in that manner, i am a puritan.

no.... i am offnded by the comment, as men know they are being offensive, then they yell puritan. if not allowed to treat and think and comment about women as things, then we are puritan.

[sabrina 1]

171. Why do you assume that those two women

'stripped down naked' because they thought that was the only way to get attention? My first thought was that they were using performance art to substitute human beings for animals. It would not have been effective if they had worn clothes. Ballet dancers, artists models, people who are involved in the art world, don't think the way you are thinking.

There will always be ignorant men who drool over women's bodies, but should women feel compelled to hide their creativity because of boorish, ignorant people?

Sometimes you have to just ignore the ignorant, they will be there whether women choose to be creative with their bodies or not. They certainly should not be the ones to determine how the rest of us behave.

[Ignis]

186. I'm no stranger to performance art, and nudity definitely brings out the prudes.

I was (peripherally) involved in a theatrical anti-IWR protest in San Francisco involving (brief) nudity.

Well, you would have thought we were eating babies. :wow:

[Taitertots]

53. They want to force everyone to stop hunting, fishing, owning pets, wearing fur, and eating meat

Yes, they are very wrong. No one cares thou, because they are irrelevant. Everyone who wants to, is going to keep eating meat, hunting, fishing, and keeping pets, and we know PETA can't stop us.

"I don't understand your opposition to letting the "other" side have a voice"
What makes you think I don't want them to have a voice? They are free to say what ever they want. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree. It also doesn't mean I would sit idle if they were more than an irrelevant fringe organization. I've heard what they have to say and it is wrong.

David isn't ridiculous for trying to slay Goliath, the reason David has for trying are what is ridiculous.

[yewberry]

59. Staging events and letter-writing campaigns isn't "forcing" anyone

to do anything.

How are they wrong to do that?

[Taitertots]

70. That is not the only thing they do

The advocate legislation that I consider inappropriate.

So yeah, they stage events; they also push for legislation I'm opposed to.

[yewberry]

72. What legislation?

And have they ever pushed for any legislation in an attempt to actually get something passed, or has any of this legislation been simply a publicity stunt?

[LiberalLovinLug]

60. hyperbole

Ok, I stand corrected. I take back that you and those who agree with you do not want PETA to have a voice. What I should have said is I fail to understand how riled up into attack mode you get whenever they DO say something in this fashion or any other, especially like you say they are so irrelevant.

But you are deluded and brainwashed by the MSM, and their cosy relationship with BIG MEAT Corps, if you think PETA is all about forcing people (with who's army?) to stop hunting, fishing, owning pets, wearing fur and eating meat.

This is their mission statement from their website:

http://www.peta.org/about/

PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.

Anything else is hyperbole that you have created thanks to misinformation by the MSM.

[Taitertots]

68. They want to force people to stop through legislation

They clearly state this on THEIR WEBSITE and you quoted it. So stop being brainwashed by the hyperbole PETA is spitting out. They advocate legislation that will force people to stop doing those things. They just happen to be unable to because they are very unpopular positions.

They are irrelevant because people don't share their radical ideology. They are irrelevant because they are unable to bring about the legislation they advocate. Which is why "up into attack mode" is sitting around doing nothing, as opposed to counter protesting them.

[yewberry]

76. Again, what legislation do you object to?

I'd like to know.

[Taitertots]

77. Any legislation which would limit my ability to

Hunt, fish, eat meat, keep domestic animals, or buy and wear furs.

PETA openly advocates these on their website. They simply lack the ability to reach their openly admitted goals. Their failures underscore their irrelevance and demonstrate why continued vigilance is necessary.

[yewberry]

78. WHAT legislation?

Seriously. Find some or stop shooting off your mouth. If you cannot prove your accusations, please stop making them.

[Taitertots]

80. The legislation isn't in congress because no one is stupid enough to introduce it

No one who wants to stay in congress would at least.

They publicly denounce the eating of animals and publicly state the means to stop this includes legislation. You must have a blind fold on if you want to pretend they don't advocate legislation blocking hunting, fishing, eating meat, and buying furs.

[yewberry]

86. So you admit there is no such legislation.

Was that so hard?

Since you're soooo curious, incidentally, the legislation that peta usually backs is local stuff like anti-tethering and making it prosecutable to lock a dog in a hot car.

[Taitertots]

88. There is no CURRENT legislation, not for their lack of trying

Their website declares that they want to use legislation among other things to stop several things I enjoy. There is no legislation currently because they have no wide public support, how can they announce their support for legislation that doesn't exist yet.

Do you trust the Klan on the grounds that they don't have any current racist legislation, but they openly advocate racist legislation? If I start an organization and said I wanted legislation to leave the oil leak alone, would you ignore this because there is no legislation for me to endorse?


There doesn't need to be a specific policy in a bill for a group to support that policy.

[yewberry]

90. PROVE it.

The problem is that you can't.

And please link to and quote the declaration that peta wants to use legislation to stop you from doing something you enjoy (unless you enjoy buying puppies from puppy mills or mulesing, that is. Those are things that peta wants to legislate against.)

And no, I don't trust the Klan. What an incredibly stupid comparison. The Klan's weapons of choice in their campaign are violence and intimidation; peta's arsenal is street theater and letter-writing.

You seem to have bought into the nonsense claim that peta is trying to take rights away from you. They're not, unless the rights you're worried about include animal cruelty.

[flvegan]

91. Right now, there is

a frustrated Google user out there.

:popcorn:

[Taitertots]

96. You must have just fallen off the turnip truck

http://www.peta.org/about/
http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp

Animal liberation and hunting are mutually exclusive. If you advocate one you are against the other. They clearly say they want to use legislation to reach their goals. Those goals are "animal rights" and prevention of animal suffering. They classify hunting, fishing, wearing, and eating animals as animal suffering and a violation of animal rights.

The organization that advocates advancing "animal rights" through legislation calls hunting, fishing, and eating meat a violation of animal rights.

Lets say I'm for "Mushroom rights". Then I tell you that I think eating mushrooms violates "mushroom rights". Then I say I advocate legislation to protect
"mushroom rights". I'm advocating restricting the eating of mushrooms.

[Goblinmonger]

97. So I put "legislation" in the search bar

and found NOTHING that shows them trying to ban hunting, fishing, and eating meat.

Want to try again and find something specific to back up your claim that they are trying to take away your rights? Unless you are talking about their cockfighting legislation.

[Taitertots]

99. Obviously you are not into critical thinking

They advocate using legislation to protect animal rights. They say that hunting, fishing, and eating meat are all violations of animals rights. They advocate legislation against hunting, fishing, and eating meat.

I support legislation to protect the rights of all people to be equal. Racial profiling violates the rights of all people to be equal.

I support legislation to protect the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect. Beating children with reeds violates their rights to be free from abuse and neglect.

I support legislation to protect the rights of all drivers to be free from the dangerous road conditions. Texting while driving creates a dangerous road condition.

Do I advocate legislation against racial profiling, child abuse, and text messaging while driving? How about if they are on two pages of the same website instead of right next to each other.

[Goblinmonger]

107. That's an interesting camel's nose you have there

but it really isn't the point, now is it?

Your claim was that they were pushing legislation that was taking away your rights. You were asked for specific examples. All you have produced is this slippery slope in reply.

I realize you may not "into" argumentation, but when one makes a claim, is asked for the data and warrant (I'm sure you know Toulmin since you make such bold claims of my lack of understanding), and then only supplies a logical fallacy, that is what is called these days as an epic fail.

If you want to provide specific legislation that they have proposed that is aimed at talking away rights that you currently enjoy, I would be happy to discuss it. Until you give that specific legislation, I will hold your claims baseless and write it off as pointless sputtering.

[Taitertots]

112. Go to their website

http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp
They clearly state they are an "animal rights organization". They clearly state that legislation is one of their goals.

"“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”

People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here."
http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

They clearly state that animal rights mean animals are not to be used for food.

It is right there, they support legislation to advance animal rights which means that they oppose eating animals as food among other things.

[Goblinmonger]

116. I did

As I indicated above, if you want to provide specific legislation that they have proposed that is aimed at talking away rights that you currently enjoy, I would be happy to discuss it. Until you give that specific legislation, I will hold your claims baseless and write it off as pointless sputtering.

You made a pretty bold claim that you couldn't back up. Your problem, not mine.

[Taitertots]

122. Obviously you lack the critical thinking ability to understand it

I can't force you to use critical thinking so you will never understand. Maybe if an organization advocates legislation against things you enjoy, you would be bothered to think about it enough.

[yewberry]

123. Maybe if you could come up with a single piece of legislation

that you find objectionable, it might be easier take you seriously.

[Taitertots]

131. I find their "animal rights"(their website) ideology to be inappropriate

Animals should be treated in a way that avoids undue harm but is accepting of humans using animals for food, clothes, and recreation.

To say that they want to see "animals rights" (their website description)is objectionable to me. It encompasses hunting, fishing, wearing fur, and eating meat, as they describe it. Saying that you want legislation to reflect "animal rights" ideology means that there will be restrictions to hunting, fishing, wearing, and eating animals.

[flvegan]

132. It's oft seen as objectionable to the selfish.

Just saying.

"Inappropriate". Just laughable. But, you have the right to your opinion.

[Taitertots]

139. Every body wants something, I'm not going to call you selfish for getting what you want

Just don't violate the rights of people or cause undue harm to animals.

You have the right to your opinion too. If not eating meat, wearing fur, hunting, or fishing is what makes you happy than I want you to do that. Just don't advocate legislation that support the view of "animal rights" that PETA clearly outlines on their website. That view, which as they describe includes the idea that hunting, fishing, eating meat, and wearing fur as not acceptable violations of animal rights.

[flvegan]

140. Undue harm to animals?

Sorry, mate. Can't see a bolt gun or anal electrocution as anything but.

Eating meat and wearing fur, to take your examples, are acts of selfishness. But, we're all selfish from time to time. Some are more than others.

As far as your issue with legislation advocates, your concern with PETA is noted. Laughably. That's not what PETA does. PETA is not a political lobby.

[Taitertots]

144. Instant painless deaths in both cases

Sounds like the definition of killing without undue harm. As far as deaths go it seems like the most painless possible, aside dying in their sleep.

I don't about you, so I'm not going to pass judgment about what you may or may not do that is selfish. Your entitled to your opinion about what actions are selfish, and we disagree.

PETA is not a political lobby because it is unpopular. A good political lobby has support like the AARP. PETA's lobbying is just ignored by the government because it is unpopular.

[Goblinmonger]

152. I think states with the death penalty should go to anal electrocution

since it is clearly the bestest.

Do you think about anything other than the immediate response you want to make. You make claims that just put you in ridiculous situations. You are defending anal electrocution now, you know that, right? You are claiming it is as nice and cool for the animals as dying in their sleep.

PETA is not a political lobby because they are using Marxist and Neo-Marxist concepts to try and change the actions, and thus the beliefs, of the people of society.

But, hey, I'm just an idiot.

[Taitertots]

192. They are not trying to save the pelt of executed criminals

It is the best for killing animals to use their fur. For all intensive purposes they die without feeling much pain at all.

[Ignis]

175. For what percentage of the application of those methods?

You can't just wave your arms and state categorically that these methods of killing are "instant" and "painless" without taking into account the misapplication thereof.

Condoms, for example, are not 100% effective as birth control. Why? Primarily due to application failures.

I could link to a few videos of animal deaths that have gone horribly wrong due to misapplication of these two "instant, painless" methods. Have you thought your argument through to this point, or are you simply going to deny that no one's ever misfired a bolt gun into a cow's skull?

[Taitertots]

191. That is an acceptable loss

If not instant, it is close enough.

I've seen the videos and I'm not deterred.

[yewberry]

133. So no legislation that you find objectionable.

You just don't like their ideology.

That's not really the same thing, Taitertots. Peta has made NO attempts to restrict your "rights" relative to hunting, fishing, wearing, or eating animals, am I right?

You just don't like peta. That doesn't give you the right to lie about what peta is doing.

[Goblinmonger]

151. I would be bothered to think about it enough

IF THEY ACTUALLY ADVOCATED THE LEGISLATION. But I'm not going to go around sputtering hate at a group that HASN'T ADVOCATED THAT LEGISLATION.

You can make all the claims you want about me not being able to critically think, but it was you that made a claim you are unable to back up.

If you want to provide specific legislation that they have proposed that is aimed at talking away rights that you currently enjoy, I would be happy to discuss it. Until you give that specific legislation, I will hold your claims baseless and write it off as pointless sputtering.

[Goblinmonger]

120. In case you forgot your original claim from post 75

"The advocate legislation that I consider inappropriate.

So yeah, they stage events; they also push for legislation I'm opposed to."

You have been asked to provide exactly what legislation that is. You have come up empty handed.

[yewberry]

114. Did you really just use a syllogism to question someone else's logic?

:rofl:

[Ignis]

173. "Obviously you are not into critical thinking"

If something having a lot of gold in it is "goldy," and something having a lot of silver in it is "silvery," then I'm forced to say that that post provided at least 100% of the US RDA for iron.

I mean, c'mon, I'm spitting nails here!

[yewberry]

103. There is no legislation you object to, then.

Thought so.

Remember a couple of months ago, a bunch of yahoos started circling the idea that Obama was going to outlaw fishing? These are the people you're listening to.

Peta uses legislation on a very local level and nearly always against animal cruelty. What peta does in relation to eating meat, wearing fur (gag), and hunting is not legislation and never has been. That would be stupid and pointless, and they know that.

[Taitertots]

111. It is not that a specific bill exists, but that they advocate the creation of one

Didn't Obama advocate health care reform well before there was a specific bill related to it? By your perverted logic Obama didn't advocate health care reform when he was running for President. You couldn't point to a bill that he supported.


You can't say you want to use legislation to protect animal rights, call hunting a violation of animal rights, and not be advocating legislation against hunting.

[yewberry]

118. Uh, so they've been biding their time for the past 30 years

until the time is right to launch some bill that will outlaw eating meat?

Uh-huh. That must be it. And *I* just fell off the turnip truck. :eyes:

[Taitertots]

135. Who is going to launch a bill that would outlaw eating meat?

How can they launch said bill when it would assure the end of the political career of anyone who attempted it?

It would be like asking which bill you supported that would require beet juice baths. If I told you I thought "Health rights" required beet juice baths; would you listen to me if I told you I wanted legislation for "health rights"? Prove I don't want laws requiring beet juice baths.

[Goblinmonger]

154. I will give you that your backpedaling skills are wicked crazy.

Go back and read your post #75. THAT is the claim you made originally. Compare that post to this one you just made. You were wrong about them advocating legislation that takes away your rights. Just admit it and quit looking silly.

[LiberalLovinLug]

165. So you want to outlaw "thoughts"?

You admit that even IF they were proposing legislation that bans eating meat, it wouldn't go anywhere, so it seems you want to outlaw even the thought of a meatless society.

But once again, in the links you provided (same one I did) it explains their Mission Statement. I'll repeat it once again. Read it slowly.

PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.

Where does it say they want to ban animals for food? Where is the hunting ban?
Of course there are some members of PETA who would like nothing better. But you stroke a broad brush on their organization which mainly focuses on cruelty issues where pain to animals can be avoided. This is why, even as a meat eater, I applaud PETA.

You say you are against unnecessary cruelty to animals as well. Well this is the biggest organization that works for this goal. You come off sounding like a pro-cruetly advocate in dismissing the 98% of the work they do.

[Ignis]

179. "This is why, even as a meat eater, I applaud PETA. "

:hug:

[Ignis]

169. I see you've conveniently dropped "owning pets" from your list.

Perhaps that's because you couldn't find any evidence that this is really PETA's agenda?

In that case, perhaps next time you'll know to do a bit of research before making outlandish claims regarding an organization's goals.

Perhaps. But hopes aren't high.

[petronius]

113. In the future, if you ever use a word like "mulesing", I'm going to need

a PM from you telling me not to google it. Thanks in advance. :puke:

:) (Smileyface only to indicate lack of seriousness, not amusement...)

[yewberry]

115. Whoops.

Hope you weren't using an image search. Eek.

[petronius]

124. Google 'helpfully' provided a few images along with the normal search results. "Eek" is right...

:(

[yewberry]

127. Well

at least the next time someone asks why vegans have a problem with wool, a product that supposedly doesn't involve harming an animal, you'll have an answer at the ready.

Cold comfort though.

(You know better than to google 'goatse,' right? If you don't, DON'T.)

[petronius]

187. Thanks for the warning - I did know to avoid that one (and a few others)

I'm always glad to learn a new thing (even if it's somewhat horrible). We have lots of sheep on campus and I've never noticed that particular alteration, but I'll look a bit closer in the future...

[Ignis]

181. On a serious note...

This is one of the things that I think PETA does well: Exposing unnecessarily cruel practices (1) that a significant portion of the (urban) population has no idea are being done to save them pennies at the grocery check-out counter.

PETA's whole bet is that most people will make the right choice--or at least make progress (2) in the right direction--when presented with a real cost-to-benefit analysis that includes the cost of animal suffering.

---

(1) = I propose--in line with the Australian Veterinary Association's recommendations--that unlicensed, unregulated mulesing without the use of analgesics is unnecessarily cruel. If you don't agree, I doubt we have much to discuss.

(2) = I've been accused of being an animal-welfareist rather than an animal-rightsist, because I believe in progressive, small-scale, local steps towards the broader (and maddeningly nebulous) goal of "animal liberation." So sue me.

[petronius]

188. I would agree with that. PETA has had a fair number of campaigns that are so

bizarre that they can't be anything other than PR for the organization, but there are plenty of others that seem to hit the target. And as you say, they call attention to topics that might otherwise be under the radar or just so commonplace that no one thinks about it. For example, I'm convinced that 'cats doing it' will never be topped as a spay/neuter advertisement...

[Ignis]

189. "cats doing it"

:spray:

It only makes me wish this link had more traffic:
http://catsdoingit.tumblr.com/

You were a bad influence in 66 AD, Petronius. :thumbsup: Keep up the good work.

[petronius]

190. Not exactly what I was thinking of, but damn that's funny!

Odd, but mostly funny. :rofl:

I was really thinking of the commercial; I guess the correct title is "Bad Cats"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENRNFq03gTo

[Ignis]

167. Any proof for "They want to force everyone to stop...owning pets?"

Or is this simply yet another episode in the long-standing tradition of "YOU'LL PRY THE BURGER FROM MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS" rants on DU wherein one steadfastly refuses to do one iota of research before spreading lies about PETA?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7407539&mesg_id=7407842

[Odin2005]

41. PETA showing it's misogyny again?

[Forkboy]

43. Do you feel these woman are too dumb to realize they being exploited?

And isn't that a pretty misogynistic stance to assume you know what's best for these women more than they themselves do?

[frogmarch]

45. The only

thing missing is blood-soaker pads made out of sanitary napkin material, like packaged meat has.

Sometimes certain PETA members jump the shark, but so do some members of other worthwhile organizations.

[The Straight Story]

48. Makes me want to eat some meat, do I have to refrigerate them?

:rofl:

[UndertheOcean]

49. Ok , effective , my only complaint , why aren't there men in those things .

[nomorenomore08]

95. Well, as a heterosexual man that would simply elicit a yawn from me.

But I can't speak for everyone here...

[FLPanhandle]

52. No better than anti-abortionist displays

In fact, it looks like PETA just reused a similiar protest from that group.

Of course, all groups that want to impose their morality and choices on others tend to think alike.

[Bill McBlueState]

71. No, it's better.

The anti-choice movement is full of shit. People actually *could* stand to eat less meat.

[FLPanhandle]

75. Any group pushing their morality onto others is full of shit.

Also, PETA's goal isn't that people should eat less meat, it's that people should eat NO meat.

If you are offended by one group pushing a moral choice onto others (e.g. anti-abortionists, anti-gay marriage) then you are a hypocrite for supporting another group doing the exact same thing.

Fuck them all.

[Goblinmonger]

79. So you don't support the "yes to gay marriage" groups?

Or the pro-choice groups? I call bullshit.

[FLPanhandle]

81. Of course, they aren't pushing their moral choices on anyone else.

If someone is morally opposed to abortion, then, it is simple, DONT GET ONE.
If someone is morally opposed to gay marriage, then DONT MARRY A GAY PERSON.
If someone is morally opposed to eating meat, then DONT EAT MEAT.

The bullshit is when people want to push their personal moral choices onto others.

[Goblinmonger]

82. Well

What about those morally opposed to having their tax money going to support abortions to those getting public support?
What about those morally opposed to having tax money going to same-sex partners?
Certainly you can see that allowing gay marriage and abortion is a moral decision and it becomes law when people are morally opposed to it being law. You just are opposed to those that force their morality on you when it is different.

How about de-segregation? That was forced on people.

[FLPanhandle]

85. Those are just additional examaples of assholes pushing their morality onto others

All of your examples are because others want their moral choice imposed onto others.

What about those morally opposed to having their tax money going to support abortions to those getting public support? -- that's just another flavor of people not wanting others to do what they are opposed to.


What about those morally opposed to having tax money going to same-sex partners? Again, if people only focused on their personal moral choice, this isn't an issue. It's only an issue when those people are opposed to gay marriage. Take that away and the money issue goes away with it.


Certainly you can see that allowing gay marriage and abortion is a moral decision and it becomes law when people are morally opposed to it being law. -- Yes, because people want to use laws to push their morality onto others.

You just are opposed to those that force their morality on you when it is different. --- Not at all. I'm not the hypocrite here. I'm against people pushing their morality onto others PERIOD! The hypocrites are those that cheer a stunt like this when they agree with the cause, but would condemn an anti-abortion group doing the EXACT SAME THING.

I'm consistent. Live your life with your choices and stop trying to impose your codes onto others, OR shut up about all groups doing the same thing even if you disagree.

[Goblinmonger]

93. So their morality is somehow unimportant to you?

I know plenty of Catholics that feel it is a sin to support anyone in an abortion. That is their moral stance. I know you dismiss that, but that isn't the point.

I do live my own life. I don't give two fucks what you eat. I wish people would stop eating meat, but whatever. PETA isn't trying to force you to do anything else in that regard either, so I don't know what your point is.

Other than you don't like people who disagree with you and can find ways to make what they are doing "not about morality."

[FLPanhandle]

108. Yes, their morality is unimportant to me and it should be unimportant to you too.

PETA having a moral stance against eating meat and religious people having a moral stance against abortion/gays should be unimportant to everyone except to the believers personal lives. It would be too EXCEPT when some assholes can't be satisfied living their own lives, they have to get out and try to convert others to their morality.

I don't know where you are coming from because of your contradictions. For example "I don't give two fucks what you eat. I wish people would stop eating meat". If you don't give two fucks what I eat why are you wishing I wouldn't eat meat? A Catholic might say "I don't give two fucks if gays get married. I wish gays would stop getting married". It's confusing.

"I don't know what your point is."

My point is simple: If you want to change others behaviors to fit your moral codes, you are an asshole. If you truly "live my own life", you are cool.

Have a good night.

[LanternWaste]

170. Such as political groups attempting to move forward a progressive platform?

"Any group pushing their morality onto others is full of shit."

Such as political groups attempting to move forward a progressive platform (as all legislation is merely codified morality)? Or does your statement only apply to those morals you yourself happen to disagree with...?

[Ignis]

177. Don't bother. Libertarian arguments are infinitely recursive.

Also, dumb as a bag of rocks.

[tranche]

58. Good for a CLIO. Probably worthless for their cause. Or is this now their cause?

[aikoaiko]

63. Its hard to believe such demonstrations do anything but preach to the choir.

I don't want to eat steak any less.

[aikoaiko]

64. I love the tourists munching on popcorn.....

nom nom nom

:popcorn:

[Skip Intro]

67. K&R for PETA!

I think it is absolutely GREAT that we have an organization that knows how to grab headlines and keep the issue of animal welfare a hot topic. Go PETA!

:kick:

[JanMichael]

73. Agreed. I really don't care if they offend the delicate sensibilities of...

...those meat eaters who when presented with the disgusting nature of how the food gets on the plate simply shrug and take a bite.

Realities be damned.

[lynne]

69. Calling DONNER - Party of 45 - Your table is waiting !

You might have to scooch in a bit as the table is bound to be crowded. Enjoy!

[proteus_lives]

74. Sexist bullshit from PETA? What a shocker!

Not.

[Radical Activist]

83. They've done this in other cities before.

But it still gets local coverage, so why not? Few groups are as creative and effective at getting media coverage as PETA. I wish more established progressive organizations would grow a pair and use similarly provocative tactics.

[Kitty Herder]

87. In PETA's honor, I shall now eat a large servng of meat. Fuck those pricks!!

!!!!!!!!!!!FUCK PETA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Goblinmonger]

94. Perhaps thou doth protest too much?

Hope your rage makes you feel better, Hector Projector.

[tavalon]

110. So let's talk about another group that used over the top rhetoric

to get their point across. Act Up. Do they make you want to have unsafe sex and shoot up drugs with dirty shared needles?

You don't have to agree with a group's agenda to let them have their say without getting so pissed off. It makes me wonder what nerve they hit with you.

[Kitty Herder]

126. We're talking about PETA. here.

I hate them with the passion of ten thousand fiery suns. What exactly is the message they consistently send, time and again? That animals are not meat, but that I am. Fuck that shit. I am a human being. All women are human beings. PETA seems not to have gotten that message. They can kiss my feminist ass.

There are other far more moral animal welfare advocacy groups. I used to be a vegetarian/close-to-vegan and I would like to eat that way again. My life is a little complicated as far as that goes right now. But I think PETA drives people away from veg'anism. I wouldn't even be surprised if it turned out that they're sponsored by Cattlemen's Association.

[tavalon]

138. The message is that we're all meat

Yeah, they should have packaged some man meat too. Have you ever seen an arm after it's been caught in a garbage disposal (hand, gone)? I have. Looks just like ground meat, because it is. That was the point they were trying to make and even though I'm a feminist, I am also a realist and I know as well as they do that sex sells.

When Seattle decided to replace their scanners with full body scanners, I came up with a protest (I got sternly talked out of it by my son's father) wherein a number of women, because women get coverage (sex sells) strip and assume the body scanner position with protest signs in both upheld arms. And they do it on the front walkway of the airport. Reporters notified ahead of time, because I took my Wellstone Activist classes and remember them well.

[Ignis]

183. How do you reconcile your beliefs against the reality...

...that female PETA volunteers outnumber male PETA volunteers?

:shrug:

I used to have good friends in my local PETA office, so I'd ask them for the precise percentage, but they've moved. :( Very sad.

I'll bet PETA will tell you the ratio if you call or write them, though. They're surprisingly responsive for a large non-profit.

[Touchdown]

89. They're not wrapped properly. the plastic isn't air tight.

They should be dead from being sealed properly, so message not received.

:hide:

[BoWanZi]

98. I don't think unbutchered meat would have blood on it like that, the ad makes zero sense to me.

I LOVE steak tartare.

[nomorenomore08]

102. dupe

[nomorenomore08]

104. It's pure sensationalism. PETA knows this, and they're fine with it.

So I guess I'm fine with it too. And I'm certainly no vegetarian. :)

[tavalon]

106. I don't think the women were willing to be butchered

I doubt cows much care for it, either.

[nomorenomore08]

100. So eating meat is evil, and so is looking at naked ladies?

Why, what pleasures are left once you Puritans are done? :sarcasm:

[Warren Stupidity]

117. offhand I'd say you missed the point entirely.

[nomorenomore08]

158. Nah, I was just poking fun at this whole thread.

My comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously, by any means.

[Ignis]

184. Yes and No.

;)

[Bonobo]

121. Pleasure looking at butchered, naked women?

Sick, not sexy.

[nomorenomore08]

157. That's not what I meant at all.

Just the general accusation of PETA exploiting women, which, actually, is an argument I can somewhat understand. I was just poking fun at the inevitable flamefests that these thread always devolve into, that's all...

[Bonobo]

119. Dead woman pornography.

I have seen feminists on DU scream bloody murder when they see it used to sell perfume.

Hypocrisy. Blatant hypocrisy.

This is pornography. It doesn't matter what goal it is used to serve.

[Incitatus]

125. That's hot. nt

[jp11]

128. bad subject

I don't buy meat with that much blood on it normally but seeing as how it is laying out in the street for free I'd take it home, oh wait they aren't dead are they?

[seabeyond]

129. look at the crude and vulgar comments made by men on du. turned on by bloody naked women

our progressives.

not a single one even considered stopping eating meat.

but many had a grand time dehumanizing these women

and the other group lectured women why they should not be bothered by the vulgarity from our men or the exploitation of our woman.

maybe if these young women actually heard what men where saying about them, they would not be so gung ho about jumping thru petas hoops. i cant imagine a girl willingly allow herself to be so disrespected.

[Chulanowa]

136. I didn't consider not eating meat

But then neither did I consider dehumanizing the women in those trays. Unless my thinking hte whole spectacle is ridiculous is a from of "dehumanization" - I can never tell, when dealing with people who have more vehemence than sense.

However, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to buy into your brand of feminism, where all women except perhaps you are too fucking stupid to know anything about anything, and so should listen exclusively to you at all times.

Ah well. i'll just keep on respecting that an animal died so I can have easily-digested protein, and I'll keep on respecting women as intelligent human beings, and the rest of you can, like, do whatever.

[Bonobo]

137. I am a man and you certainly didn't accurately represent MY post above.

Please do not paint with such a broad brush.

[seabeyond]

147. by saying look at the mens vulgar comments, you think that is ALL men on du?

if you did not talk about eating that meat, bringing it in before spoilage, or jacking off to a bloody body, then of course i am not talking about you.

how muh more specific must i get than calling out those that specifically made vulgar comments, to assure all men that i am not refering to all men.

and i appreciate your posts and your efforts.

as i do a couple others on this thread, one of which i defended in his position of recognizing misogynism

[jp11]

150. It is a joke because this is stupid, peta the outrage

I've considered and cut down on my meat eating habits and will likely continue to do so over my life, for health and somewhat moral reasons none of which had anything to do with Peta their hypocrisy or shock tactics. The women who pose for these ads are likely, but of course not guaranteed, to be as ignorant or duped as the millions who hand over money to Peta thinking it will save animals or lessen the cruelty that happens to them, for that you'd go to the ASPCA in America and whomever else in your country.

The knee jerk reaction to Peta's shock tactics is as silly to me as their tactics so *I* poke fun at this, it is stupid and ineffectual EXCEPT to make people all buggered and upset which, surprise is what Peta wants, congratulations on giving them what they want. Getting people all buggered and upset is how you motivate them to your cause for or against, and that brings in money. My thinking this is stupid has nothing to do with how I feel towards women but that won't matter because if I say or write anything that doesn't mesh with what SOME people think my thoughts/actions/intentions SHOULD be then I am labeled by them a misogynist et al.

[seabeyond]

160. peta to outrage. supports pissed that people are outraged. what sense does that make.

peta purposely promotes sexism. when called on sexism, supporters yell at the label of sexism. at the least, in honesty, own that they are using women bodies to draw attention. pure, unadulterated objectification.

women, treated as animal. it hasnt been so long in history that rule of law thought women so inferior to be just an animal to use along with the blacks.

really.... lets chain up a bunch of black men..... in the name of vegetarians. oh wait, they already have used KKK

[flvegan]

143. By your last statement, you're suggesting they were forced?

Strong suggestion there. And consider that PETA has used this sort of tactic for years, so it's not exactly a new thing. And they've had both men and women volunteer to do this.

Volunteer. Look it up.

[seabeyond]

148. your interpretation, not my suggestion. nowhere can a reasoned person see

forced in there.

not even what that last paragraph is about, which you ignored and put your own spin on it.

[BoWanZi]

162. I was not turned on by the pictures, I just thought it was stupid and dumb

the pictures aren't going to change anyone's minds about eating meat. The meat eaters will just poke fun at the pictures because they find the acts that the woman did to be silly and dumb (as I do). I don't think that the woman were being exploited, they willingly chose to be in the pictures. To me exploitation is when someone is unwillingly forced to do something they didn't want to do.

Peta tries to shock people but most of the time, they just succeed in making am mockery of themselves.

[SwampG8r]

130. peta proves again

what assbags they are

[slutticus]

134. I don't get it

PETA is into snuff films now?

[Rex]

141. Are those in the steak isle?

[readmoreoften]

145. They look DELICIOUS. So rare to see them whole and not already deboned.

(Sorry I couldn't resist.)

[Pushed To The Left]

146. Why are people flaming each other over eating habits?

If you don't think it's right to eat meat, then don't eat meat. If you don't think people should be vegetarians, then don't be a vegetarian. Make that choice for yourself, and let others make their own choices on what to eat and not eat.

[Goblinmonger]

156. Because apparently, on a progressive website, some people

don't think that PETA should try and increase awareness about the issue. I don't really get it either.

[seabeyond]

161. i have never felt it necessary to dehumanize a person for a cause. i think

some of us are progressively beyond that with our fellow human beings.

[mitchum]

164. Where can one find meat packaged with hair? Spectacle fail

[LanternWaste]

168. Succinct. To The Point. Eye Popping

Succinct. To The Point. Eye Popping.

Nice work, will get even the jaded on DU to talk (with the always concomitant, "I like veal" bit of hubris advertised as cleverness).

I am impressed by PETA's advertising campaigns. But then again, I'm not clever like most of you profess to be...

[Ignis]

185. I'll add an adjective: Discussion-causing.

It probably sounds better in German, though. We're not very good at creating logical adjectives in English. :D

[TK421]

172. Ridiculous...I've never seen my ground meat cover its boobs n/t

[Taverner]

176. Makes its point well. Meat IS murder, after all...

Granted, I haven't changed my omnivorous habits yet...

But I want to, someday...

[Kali]

178. bwahahahahhahahahha

that is pretty fucking funny:rofl: