# New PETA Save the "Whales" Ad



## madisonaikers (Aug 18, 2009)

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/...lboard-has-the-intertwitter-fraternal-council


My jaw literally dropped when I opened the article!


----------



## triniroti (Aug 18, 2009)

ya I was going to start the same thread however I am shocked.


----------



## comaseason (Aug 18, 2009)

Wow.

That is offensive on so many levels, where would I begin?


----------



## IwannabeVERYfat (Aug 18, 2009)

that billboard is totally uncalled for


----------



## fffff (Aug 18, 2009)

What!!!! Peta did something in poor taste?!


----------



## JerseyGirl07093 (Aug 18, 2009)

Funny thing is not all vegetarians are thin. I've seen overweight vegetarians before. :doh:


----------



## mossystate (Aug 18, 2009)

And not all thin vegetarians are all that healthy...but, PETA would rather not be smart about things. Encouraging people to eat less animal product...not a bad thing. Lots of thin vegetarians load up on all kinds of crap ( and sometimes yummy ) food. But, lets not care about reality. PfffftPETA. I am not so much offended anymore by this stuff...just amazed at the ignorance.


----------



## velia (Aug 18, 2009)

fffff said:


> What!!!! Peta did something in poor taste?!



Yeah, really. I guess the Holocaust ad wasn't enough to shock America in to eliminating meat from their diets-- let's really get 'em and make fun of fat people!

PETA is wrong as an organization on so many levels. I'd much rather donate my funds to local animal shelters that actually make an effort to find homes for animals and/or offer free or discounted sterilization services for pets.


----------



## ESPN Cutie (Aug 18, 2009)

*I hate PETA. Always have, always will.*


----------



## Seth Warren (Aug 18, 2009)

Stay classy, PETA. 

Seriously, do they think that these offensive, in-your-face tactics endear anyone to their cause? Personally, whenever some PETA asshole tries to lecture me or shock me into submission, I get a strong urge to Tase a cow and start gnawing on it right there in the middle of the field.


----------



## Melian (Aug 18, 2009)

Yet another reason to believe that PETA was created by the American government as a reverse psychology tactic to increase meat consumption.

Every time I see their retarded ads, I want to have a steak.


----------



## MattB (Aug 18, 2009)

It's all calculated to get people talking about PETA again. They do something nutty every few months. It's all about the publicity, and they clearly don't care if it's positive or negative.


----------



## balletguy (Aug 18, 2009)

P.E.T.A. =

People Eating Tasty Animals


----------



## furious styles (Aug 18, 2009)

MattB said:


> It's all calculated to get people talking about PETA again. They do something nutty every few months. It's all about the publicity, and they clearly don't care if it's positive or negative.









_BINGO!_


----------



## Melian (Aug 18, 2009)

Betamax said:


> I honestly find that more shocking than the PETA ad.
> 
> You would really hurt an animal because a person is talking about something you disagree with?
> 
> You are a twisted mfer.



Yes, he was totally serious.

Look at the trail of dead, half-eaten cows he has left behind.


----------



## imfree (Aug 18, 2009)

MattB said:


> It's all calculated to get people talking about PETA again. They do something nutty every few months. It's all about the publicity, and they clearly don't care if it's positive or negative.



I truly believe you nailed it, Matt. The best
way to promote an agenda is to keep it
on people's minds.


----------



## StarWitness (Aug 18, 2009)

furious styles said:


> _BINGO!_



*GARBAGE DAY!*

I tried to rep you, but alas I could not. *sigh*

But, um, yeah. PETA has quite the history of misogynist ad campaigns, which have the affect of increasing my donations to the ASPCA.


----------



## HottiMegan (Aug 18, 2009)

I hate that vegetarianism is associated with them. I have never eaten meat and look how fat i am! Their argument is wrong and offensive. I have NEVER liked this group. You don't get people to change by belittling them and causing them to get angry at them. 
Whats that saying something about attracting more bees with honey than vinegar? 
I would love to be associated with a group that wasn't such an asshole in general.. I am for animal rights but refuse to even give them a second thought about joining them.


----------



## imfree (Aug 18, 2009)

HottiMegan said:


> I hate that vegetarianism is associated with them. ......snipped..... I am for animal rights but refuse to even give them a second thought about joining them.



You get Rep for being a voice of reason. PETA's
mission is good, but I really believe their approach
and execution are poor.:bow:


----------



## olwen (Aug 18, 2009)

I just saw this and was going to start a thread. I just....grrr at PETA. They suck.


----------



## SweetNYLady (Aug 18, 2009)

Way to go PETA for making friends and influencing people! :doh: :doh: :doh:

This billboard is so misguided that I don't even know where to start!  PETA is known for making outspoken statements to call attention to their organization and its plight to save animals, but how in the world can they think this is anywhere near what is deemed appropriate and okay?????! I guess they just don't care about that.


----------



## Tina (Aug 18, 2009)

PETA can lick my ass. They've been idiotic extremists for too long as it is. I used to support them, but once they started acting like extremist lunatics they lost me. And no, they do NOT have to be that extreme to get their point across. Matter of fact, they turn away a number of potential members because of their bigoted, sexist stupidity. Screw them.

And BTW, there are plenty of fat vegetarians. Assholes.


----------



## ESPN Cutie (Aug 18, 2009)

Betamax said:


> Animals are slaughtered needlessly EVERY. DAMN. DAY. Animal cruelty is alive and well and _PETA NEEDS to be outspoken and dramatic and even offensive, to be seen and heard._



*No they don't. 

Personally, I don't think PETA needs to do a damn thing. Not everyone thinks animal cruelty is a big deal, concern or problem. 
I may be the only one willing to admit it in this thread, but animal cruelty just doesn't bother some people - myself included.

Sorry if that hurt your heart.*


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

Betamax said:


> Animals are slaughtered needlessly EVERY. DAMN. DAY.
> 
> Animal cruelty is alive and well and PETA NEEDS to be outspoken and dramatic and even offensive, to be seen and heard.
> 
> Im not saying PETA is perfect, but they had done more for animal rights/welfare and cruelty prevention than any person or group on this planet.



PETA's done more harm for the cause than good, if only for the simple fact that more people hate them than agree with them, and more people are prone to believe that animal welfare activists are the same as the animal rights kooks. 

Also, I'm really tired of people mistakenly believing that PETA is an animal *welfare* group. PETA is an animal *RIGHTS* group. They believe that every animal should hold the same rights as humans, and if they had it their way, the entire human species would be wiped from the face of the Earth. That's from Ingrid Newkirk and her cronies themselves. The only defense they give as to why they haven't killed themselves is because their cause "needs them". 

That's right, if you support PETA, you're basically supporting the idea of mass genocide and your own death. Smart.

Animal welfare is a completely different belief in that practitioners do not believe it is inherently wrong to "use" animals, be it for food or labor or medical testing, etc., but that they believe the unnecessary suffering of animals should be _avoided_.

Oh, and their freaking VP uses insulin. Insulin she wouldn't get had it not been for animal testing. Insulin she still uses KNOWING that because "it's already done and there's nothing I can do about it, and I need to stay healthy for my cause."


----------



## Donna (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> **snip*
> I may be the only one willing to admit it in this thread, but animal cruelty just doesn't bother some people - myself included.
> 
> Sorry if that hurt your heart.*



You didn't hurt my heart and I would wager that you are anything but sorry. What a sad person you must be. I feel pity for you. 



katorade said:


> PETA's done more harm for the cause than good, if only for the simple fact that more people hate them than agree with them, and more people are prone to believe that animal welfare activists are the same as the animal rights kooks.
> 
> Also, I'm really tired of people mistakenly believing that PETA is an animal *welfare* group. PETA is an animal *RIGHTS* group. They believe that every animal should hold the same rights as humans, and if they had it their way, the entire human species would be wiped from the face of the Earth. That's from Ingrid Newkirk and her cronies themselves. The only defense they give as to why they haven't killed themselves is because their cause "needs them".
> 
> ...



Great post, as usual. I can't rep you yet, but I owe you. You are one smart cookie!


----------



## Fangs (Aug 18, 2009)

Melian said:


> Yet another reason to believe that PETA was created by the American government as a reverse psychology tactic to increase meat consumption.
> 
> Every time I see their retarded ads, I want to have a steak.



Hahaha!

PETA does some great things... and then they do something horrid. It's never balanced out. 

Thing is... the worst thing you could do for your waist is go vegetarian. Pasta, oreos, baked goods, mac and cheese, buttered toast, pizza, lasagna, potatoes, bananas. Not to mention having fruit late in the day. 

One of my first crushes was a BHM vegetarian; so this ad particularly fails at making any point. 

In fact, the best "diet" there is = raw veggies and low-fat meat.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 18, 2009)

Betamax said:


> Animals are slaughtered needlessly EVERY. DAMN. DAY.
> 
> Animal cruelty is alive and well and PETA NEEDS to be outspoken and dramatic and even offensive, to be seen and heard.
> 
> Im not saying PETA is perfect, but they had done more for animal rights/welfare and cruelty prevention than any person or group on this planet.




Well, no. They are alienating people, not educating them. Betamax, I'm naturally inclined to be sympathetic to animals. I love animals. I also eat them, but I at least want to know that the burger I'm enjoying didn't come from an animal that suffered needlessly and was tortured during its brief & miserable life. Hell, I might be guilted into parting with a few dollars to advance the cause of an anti-cruelty group. PETA, however, can bite my ass when they are done licking Tina's. They have completely alienated the sam hill f*ck out of me. I'd never support their cause, NEVER, and I don't care how much good they've done. They are fronting themselves as extremist nutjobs, and I'm not OK with that.


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

Fangs said:


> Hahaha!
> 
> PETA does some great things... and then they do something horrid. It's never balanced out.
> 
> ...



The one thing that no PETA member (and I've met quite a few) has been able to rationalize for me, is PETA's stance of veganism. Humans are naturally omnivorous, meaning we survive on a diet of both fruit and meat. Just because we can SURVIVE on a vegan diet does not mean we were designed to optimally live as them. Our closest ape relatives are also omnivorous, meaning if we were uncivilized and free of rational thought, we too would almost certainly eat a diet of both meat and veg, varying on our geographic locations.

NOW...PETA is all for returning the Earth to a "pre-human" state, where animals are free to do what they do naturally. They should be afforded the same rights we are, since humans are, in fact, animals. Considering the fact that PETA does not begrudge carnivorous and omnivorous animals their inborn ability, urge, and "right" to hunt, doesn't that mean they should also be entirely fine with humans eating meat, especially if they have killed it themselves? Doesn't it mean they should have absolutely no qualms with the advent of hunting tools and farming, considering we are just acting out what we have evolutionarily been designed to do?

Now I'm not writing this as a hit on vegans and vegetarians, because people can eat whatever they want for whatever reason they want in my eyes. It's just an issue I take up with their stance that in order to fully support animal welfare, you have to be vegan.


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

Betamax said:


> Well goodness, you are all so goddamn fucking smart.
> 
> 
> if PETA stops that from happening, then I gladly support them.




Thing is, they don't. They just bitch about it and let the ALF do something. I don't see you posting any pictures of the babies and children that have been given a new chance at life because of the cancer testing done on animals. I don't see you posting any pictures of what PETA and the ALF are known to have done. I don't see you having a problem with PETA objectifying _women_ specifically just to fuel their own agenda when there are thousands of other activist groups out there that get shit down without a fucking screech owl behind a bullhorn. 

The majority of the money people give to PETA isn't used to free or help those animals in need. It's dumped directly back into their advertising campaigns to "raise awareness", which have been proven to actually NOT be effective, and instead make people angry at their organization. Oh, and it probably doesn't bother you that it pads their own personal wallets, either.

You do know that they euthanize perfectly healthy animals at their headquarters, right? Simply because they think they have no choice, because domesticated animals are not suited to live in the wild, and there's no way they'll force them to live out a pitiful life enslaved in a loving home? Right? _Right_?

And yes, because we don't support PETA, we're all puppy beating, seal clubbing, horse whipping, calloused bastards that get our rocks off seeing animals in pain.


----------



## ESPN Cutie (Aug 18, 2009)

Donna said:


> You didn't hurt my heart and I would wager that you are anything but sorry. What a sad person you must be. I feel pity for you.


*Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it. 

It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.

And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *




You do realize that indifference to animal cruelty is just as bad as agreeance? Even if you don't actually DO anything in support of animal welfare, simply having compassion is enough.

I find it odd that you find sympathy for people that show compassion for other living beings, but no sympathy for the ones that need it most.


----------



## Teleute (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't think supporting their cause means you need to support their methods. PETA's methods are simultaneously offensive and ineffective, which makes them DOUBLY objectionable. I do not support ANY group preying on the fears and low self-esteem of women, especially with the patently false implication that you will lose weight just by eating vegetarian. Representing your cause with ridiculous or offensive claims leads only to the association in the mind of the public that your cause is inherently mockable or detestable; THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING, even (especially!) if you believe in the cause. You can support the goal without supporting the tactics.


----------



## 1300 Class (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm all for conservation, don't get me wrong, but PETA are a bunch of fuckwit extremo-nutjobs who do anything for attention. 

They are the _Westboro Baptist Church_ of conservation. 'nuff said.


----------



## smithnwesson (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *


You shouldn't. We live in different galaxys, sweetie.


----------



## Seth Warren (Aug 18, 2009)

katorade said:


> They believe that every animal should hold the same rights as humans, and if they had it their way, the entire human species would be wiped from the face of the Earth.



Maybe they should team up with these people.


----------



## Teleute (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *



It's okay ESPN, we all got the "you're not PC" bit. As I suspect it'd be pointless for you and Beta to argue over your ideological differences, what are your thoughts on the ad linked in the original post?


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

Teleute said:


> I don't think supporting their cause means you need to support their methods. PETA's methods are simultaneously offensive and ineffective, which makes them DOUBLY objectionable. I do not support ANY group preying on the fears and low self-esteem of women, especially with the patently false implication that you will lose weight just by eating vegetarian. Representing your cause with ridiculous or offensive claims leads only to the association in the mind of the public that your cause is inherently mockable or detestable; THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING, even (especially!) if you believe in the cause. You can support the goal without supporting the tactics.




To add to this, PETA patently LIES to the people that believe in their cause. They will tell anyone anything they want to hear just to feed their own agenda.
That's one reason PETA employees were arrested a few years ago for animal cruelty and obtaining animals under false pretenses. They were telling families, vet practices, shelters, and rescues that they would aid in finding homes for all animals that were adoptable. Instead, the majority of the animals were euthanized in perfect health almost as soon as they were surrendered. They were caught dumping dozens of bodies in garbage bags into random dumpsters throughout the city and state. Bodies of animals that were otherwise perfectly healthy.

PETA actually apologized for the illegal dumping, but had nothing to say about the animals.


----------



## Isa (Aug 18, 2009)

katorade said:


> PETA's done more harm for the cause than good, if only for the simple fact that more people hate them than agree with them, and more people are prone to believe that animal welfare activists are the same as the animal rights kooks.
> 
> Also, I'm really tired of people mistakenly believing that PETA is an animal *welfare* group. PETA is an animal *RIGHTS* group. They believe that every animal should hold the same rights as humans, and if they had it their way, the entire human species would be wiped from the face of the Earth. That's from Ingrid Newkirk and her cronies themselves. The only defense they give as to why they haven't killed themselves is because their cause "needs them".
> 
> ...





katorade said:


> To add to this, PETA patently LIES to the people that believe in their cause. They will tell anyone anything they want to hear just to feed their own agenda.
> That's one reason PETA employees were arrested a few years ago for animal cruelty and obtaining animals under false pretenses. They were telling families, vet practices, shelters, and rescues that they would aid in finding homes for all animals that were adoptable. Instead, the majority of the animals were euthanized in perfect health almost as soon as they were surrendered. They were caught dumping dozens of bodies in garbage bags into random dumpsters throughout the city and state. Bodies of animals that were otherwise perfectly healthy.
> 
> PETA actually apologized for the illegal dumping, but had nothing to say about the animals.



I quote you Katorade to keep this message going. PETA is beyond a joke and hopefully more people find that out every day. I actually feel sorry for those that still support them.

I'd rather (and do) support local Humane Societies and the SPCA as PETA draws necessary money away from them every day. Everyone that can, should show your local groups some support, even if it's nothing more than dropping off dog food at a shelter, they really appreciate it.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

like ann coulter peta is very good at what they do and you're all proving it


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Aug 18, 2009)

We have 3 babies. Penny, Frankie and Miss Della. 2 Mini Doxies and one grouchy cat. I love them like my children. I wouldn't have missed having them in my life for anything. I would kill anyone who hurt them


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

i knew a feeder once who worked for peta actually and we were out with a group looking for food and he said "i'm fine with anything that's not a chain"

but he was fine feeding his _girlfriend_ dunkin and mcds and whatever

absolutely the stupidest fucking person


----------



## luscious_lulu (Aug 18, 2009)

this is the response I got when I wrote to them to tell them what I thought of their ad. It is an automated response. I responded back that their answer wasn't good enough.

_"Hello,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on PETA's "Lose the Blubber"
billboard. We apologize for any offense we may have caused; that was not
our intent. We agree that a world where self-esteem is unrelated to body
size would be a wonderful place. Our aim is not to insult people who are
overweight but to persuade them to make a simple, positive change for
their health.

While many people have found our billboard humorous, we take obesity
very seriously. We want to encourage overweight people to go vegetarian
to protect their health. Researchers have found that a higher body mass
index is associated with a greater risk of premature death from all
causes. For example, according to the American Heart Association,
obesity contributes to heart disease, America's number one cause of
death. The American Dietetic Association says that vegetarians have
lower rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity than
meat-eaters do. 

Studies have shown that "weight loss" diets don't work long-term-but
going vegetarian does. Studies published in the Journal of Clinical
Nutrition and the New England Journal of Medicine have found that
vegetarians are far less likely to be overweight than meat eaters are.
By encouraging people who want to lose weight to go vegetarian instead
of resorting to unhealthy diets, we hope to offer them a choice that the
multimillion-dollar diet industry won't give them: a long-term strategy
for maintaining a healthy weight.

Certainly not every single vegetarian is at a healthy weight, as some
have suggested our billboard implies, but there are many more
meat-eaters who are obese and unhealthy. For most people, eating
vegetarian meals is an effective way to achieve and maintain a healthy
weight. But weight loss isn't the only reason to try a vegetarian diet;
we also promote going vegetarian as a great way to lower cholesterol and
reduce the risk of many diseases. For most people, a vegetarian diet is
an effective prevention strategy.

Our billboard is just one of the many ways that PETA promotes healthy
vegetarian living. Other efforts include distributing free copies of our
"Vegetarian Starter Kit," hosting free public food tastings, offering
meal plans and thousands of meat-free recipes at
http://www.VegCooking.com <http://www.vegcooking.com/> , and educating
people about the meat industry's disregard for animal welfare
(http://www.GoVeg.com/factoryFarming.asp) and its devastating effect on
the environment (http://www.GoVeg.com/environment.asp). 

To read more about how obesity can be addressed by going vegetarian,
please go to http://www.GoVeg.com/obesity.asp. To read vegetarian
weight-loss success stories, please visit
http://www.GoVeg.com/f-veganweightloss.asp. You can order a free
"Vegetarian Starter Kit" for yourself or a friend at
http://www.GoVeg.com/order.asp to learn even more. 

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and for giving us the
opportunity to share ours. 

Sincerely,

The PETA Staff"_


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> like ann coulter peta is very good at what they do and you're all proving it




They're very good at what they do. They're not very good at what they _say _they do.


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

Isa said:


> I quote you Katorade to keep this message going. PETA is beyond a joke and hopefully more people find that out every day. I actually feel sorry for those that still support them.
> 
> I'd rather (and do) support local Humane Societies and the SPCA as *PETA draws necessary money away from them every day. *Everyone that can, should show your local groups some support, even if it's nothing more than dropping off dog food at a shelter, they really appreciate it.




Quoted for emphasis. Thank you!


----------



## bdog (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> *




Oh, hello there animal. you can't talk or do math, and you don't appreciate mozart, so it doesn't matter if I kick you in the ribs? i don't understand your perspective. personally i think that being cruel to animals says more about humans than it does about animals, you know what i mean? i don't see what's so great about being human if you can't have respect and appreciate life in it's myriad forms.

but anyway, the scientific evidence is pretty conclusive on the subject of animals and emotions. we're in the age of neuroscience, now, where we can observe changes in the brain during different emotional states.

Oh, yah, and PETA is kinda lame, and I suspect there's probably plenty of people who know nothing of size acceptance shaking their heads at that ad.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

katorade said:


> They're very good at what they do. They're not very good at what they _say _they do.



you're not very good at what you do if you take politicians at their word


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *



i like how you confuse "pc" with "smart"


----------



## butch (Aug 18, 2009)

wow, Hyde Park, you're back and you look better than ever!


----------



## katorade (Aug 18, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> you're not very good at what you do if you take politicians at their word



I think you misread my statement. I pretty much think that everything out of PETA headquarters is festering vitriol. I know first hand that they are run by absolute liars and hypocrites. 

Being fanatical lunatics with a lot of money and loud mouths just gives me more opportunity to point it out to other people interested in knowing. I suppose I should be thankful for that.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 18, 2009)

butch said:


> wow, Hyde Park, you're back and you look better than ever!




It's made with real sugar, this time!!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *No they don't.
> 
> Personally, I don't think PETA needs to do a damn thing. Not everyone thinks animal cruelty is a big deal, concern or problem.
> I may be the only one willing to admit it in this thread, but animal cruelty just doesn't bother some people - myself included.
> ...



Do you have a pet?
Would it bother you if someone took your pet and kept them cooped up in a cage where they could barely move?
How about if they shocked your pet with tasers to get them to move where they wanted them to?
orrrrrr how about if instead of just one pet in that cage, they locked up all the pets in the neighborhood in the cage with your little fifi or fido, severly limiting their movement and making them live in their own feces?


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 18, 2009)

butch said:


> wow, Hyde Park, you're back and you look better than ever!



Everyone spends so much time complaining about Hyde Park and making references to it when things get said that they don't like. Just report the posts, or contact your fellow moderators to get them deleted or edited.


----------



## Teleute (Aug 18, 2009)

fatgirlflyin, I'm with you on the treatment of animals, but I think that is going to be a spectacularly useless line of conversation. ESPNcutie has made it clear that she doesn't give a rat's ass about any animals, even pets. I think the key for those of us who actually have empathy is to take note of people like this and interact with them as little as possible.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 18, 2009)

For the record...my making the HP comment was not complaining...I just think it is funny that HP is still alive, after the handwringing.

Oh, and, if ESPN's pet were being mutilated in front of her, I am sure she would flinch...at least that much. I thinks she just likes to swagger.


----------



## Chuggernut (Aug 18, 2009)

PETA Supporters quote:"I'd rather be _naked_ that wear fur".

My quote:"I'd rather _eat fur_ than join PETA!"


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 18, 2009)

mossystate said:


> For the record...my making the HP comment was not complaining...I just think it is funny that HP is still alive, after the handwringing.
> 
> Oh, and, if ESPN's pet were being mutilated in front of her, I am sure she would flinch...at least that much. I thinks she just likes to swagger.



I know Mossy, and I know what Butch was doing too and you're right HP is still very much alive. 

That's because there is so much more to us as people than just the bodies we are housed in.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 18, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> That's because there is so much more to us as people than just the bodies we are housed in.




You lie! wink


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 18, 2009)

mossystate said:


> You lie! wink



LOL well its 90 degrees here and I have no AC, so my body is melting away as I type! 

I thought Seattle was supposed to be rainy and grey.


----------



## Seth Warren (Aug 18, 2009)

mossystate said:


> For the record...my making the HP comment was not complaining...I just think it is funny that HP is still alive, after the handwringing.



Deleting that board was like stomping on a mushroom: the spores have spread everywhere and will sprout where you least expect them.


----------



## Buffie (Aug 18, 2009)

I have to ask... I've pondered this in the past, but I have to know... I even asked @officialPETA on Twitter a while ago, but they never responded.



If someone in PETA gets crabs, are they just gonna live with it? Because technically, *crotch lice are animals, too*.




My awesome friend loaned me her copy of Penn & Teller's _Bullshit! _about PETA. I haven't watched it yet, but I expect it will be divine.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 18, 2009)

Seth Warren said:


> Deleting that board was like stomping on a mushroom: the spores have spread everywhere and will sprout where you least expect them.



the pod conversion was never fully realized


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 18, 2009)

Seth Warren said:


> Deleting that board was like stomping on a mushroom: the spores have spread everywhere and will sprout where you least expect them.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *



Ah yes, she who does not believe those in same sex relationships should be able to marry, now expressing nasty sentiments about animals. I am so shocked.

I can tell you that animals absolutely do experience feelings and emotions. I see that in my dog everyday.
I do not feel sad for people like you. It is more contempt that I feel.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 18, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *



When I hear people say things like this it's clear that they like to say things for the sake of drama.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

katorade said:


> I think you misread my statement. I pretty much think that everything out of PETA headquarters is festering vitriol. I know first hand that they are run by absolute liars and hypocrites.
> 
> Being fanatical lunatics with a lot of money and loud mouths just gives me more opportunity to point it out to other people interested in knowing. I suppose I should be thankful for that.



not you like you personally

not in this thread anyway


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

just to clear the record i would eat a dog

that's how much of a cat person i am

i would eat

a dog


----------



## Seth Warren (Aug 18, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> just to clear the record i would eat a dog



With white or red wine?


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

other stuff i would eat:

mini's lunch

khayes' eyes

a piece of paper with espncutie's dims password inscribed on it after a large foreign object completes the "amnesia part"


----------



## ppinkie (Aug 18, 2009)

I rarely post, but I just was drawn to add my two cents to this thread. I must admit that my, two cents isnt really anything different than what others had to say, but I just wanted to join in and let it be heard that I too agree that PETA is a revolting organization imho. I do not like that they place humanity so low as a priority, that they are almost anti-human. They treat their interns like crap, and will do anything negative for publicity. Grrr.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

Seth Warren said:


> With white or red wine?



white wine? what kind of philistine sodomite do you take me for


----------



## bdog (Aug 18, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> just to clear the record i would eat a dog
> 
> that's how much of a cat person i am
> 
> ...



it's actually spelled b dog, and get the fuck away from me.


----------



## Buffie (Aug 19, 2009)

But what about the CROTCH LICE??? You guys! *Who* is going to save the crotch lice???

PETA doesn't care about the pube bugs. Yet billions NO! trillions die _every single day_.

Obama can't swat a fly without being called the devil, but we shamelessly ignore the common crotch crab.

Shaaaame on you. Shame on all of you.

*mad face*mad face*mad face*


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 19, 2009)

if you cut some holes in the top of the shoebox i see no reason why the crotch lice can't be safely returned to a stabilized environment that makes everyone happy

but maybe espncutie should field this one


----------



## Mathias (Aug 19, 2009)

PETA's not helping their cause by doing crazy things like this...


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 19, 2009)

Mathias said:


> PETA



Piety ESPNCutie's Tactlessness Abjures


----------



## Kitzy (Aug 19, 2009)

Historically, animals have always had more rights than humans. Just look at Mary Ellen Wilson. http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/mary-ellen.html call me crass, but I think we still need to focus on being kind and respectful to each other before giving money to animal organizations. I do though, disagree with PETA and their stupidity and shock marketing. It is worse than the bacardi adds. 

As for espncutie, I have a simple observation, the first sign of a true psychopath is cruelty toward animals and the display of indifference to their suffering.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 19, 2009)

Kitzy said:


> Historically, animals have always had more rights than humans. Just look at Mary Ellen Wilson. http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/mary-ellen.html call me crass, but I think we still need to focus on being kind and respectful to each other before giving money to animal organizations. I do though, disagree with PETA and their stupidity and shock marketing. It is worse than the bacardi adds.
> 
> As for espncutie, I have a simple observation, the first sign of a true psychopath is cruelty toward animals and the display of indifference to their suffering.



There are plenty of organizations that are dedicated to charity towards humans.
I believe it is important to give money to organizations that protect and defend the rights of animals.
Animals are defenceless and vulnerable and need our protection and care.


----------



## SocialbFly (Aug 19, 2009)

Just a thought, it did just what they wanted it to do...a tasteless add, that got tons of free advertisement.


----------



## bdog (Aug 19, 2009)

Kitzy said:


> Historically, animals have always had more rights than humans.



Totally! I thought it was pretty lame when the buffalo nearly hunted humans to extinction in the mid 1880s.


----------



## Tau (Aug 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> PETA's done more harm for the cause than good, if only for the simple fact that more people hate them than agree with them, and more people are prone to believe that animal welfare activists are the same as the animal rights kooks.
> 
> Also, I'm really tired of people mistakenly believing that PETA is an animal *welfare* group. PETA is an animal *RIGHTS* group. They believe that every animal should hold the same rights as humans, and if they had it their way, the entire human species would be wiped from the face of the Earth. That's from Ingrid Newkirk and her cronies themselves. The only defense they give as to why they haven't killed themselves is because their cause "needs them".
> 
> ...



Fantastic post!!


----------



## Shosh (Aug 19, 2009)

I donate to and support the work of the RSPCA.

I find PETA to be fanatical, but there are many wonderful organizations dedicated to protecting and defending the rights of animals.


----------



## Donna (Aug 19, 2009)

Kitzy said:


> *snip* call me crass, but I think we still need to focus on being kind and respectful to each other before giving money to animal organizations. I do though, disagree with PETA and their stupidity and shock marketing. It is worse than the bacardi adds.
> 
> As for espncutie, I have a simple observation, the first sign of a true psychopath is cruelty toward animals and the display of indifference to their suffering.



I won't call you crass, but I will say I personally believe we should be kind and respectful to each other AND to animals as well (by taking care of the animals who are our companions and giving when we are able to animal organizations.) I do not support PETA but I won't elaborate. Katorade has pretty much said whatever I would say about them, except she said it better. I was raised to have an abiding respect for all creatures on this planet so it is important to me.

I'm not saying everyone should feel the same way I do, though. I'm one of those annoying bleeding heart types.


----------



## Frankhw (Aug 19, 2009)

Fangs said:


> Hahaha!
> 
> PETA does some great things... and then they do something horrid. It's never balanced out.
> 
> ...



Hey you forgot maple syrup. Its a very important vegtable.


----------



## Friday (Aug 19, 2009)

The top echelon of PETA has one goal that has been unchanged since day one. Make us enough money to wear hot clothes, drive hot cars and live in the penthouse, then make enough ruckus to make sure that we are always in the public eye. They're idiots, they're bigots and they haven't enough live brain power in the whole organization to run a rescue operation that would save even one critter. The people that fall in behind them just aren't smart enough to read the small print. ESPN? Just be glad that a) you don't know her. and b) Pray that she never reproduce because I think she would consider her own young disposable.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 19, 2009)

bdog said:


> it's actually spelled b dog, and get the fuck away from me.


----------



## butch (Aug 19, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Everyone spends so much time complaining about Hyde Park and making references to it when things get said that they don't like. Just report the posts, or contact your fellow moderators to get them deleted or edited.



If you understood my point (as you say in a later post), then why slam me for my comment? I made the comment because it made me laugh, not because I have a problem with the comments in the thread or the thread topic. There isn't one thing in this thread I would report or edit or delete, fwiw.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 19, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *


You don't belive gay people should be afforded equal rights, so this hardened unsympathetic attitude towards animals and animal lovers doesnt surprise me. I don't believe you really worry about anyone.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 19, 2009)

PETA is ridiculous in that they care nothing of retaining or restoring Earth's natural balance.


----------



## smithnwesson (Aug 19, 2009)

Buffie said:


> If someone in PETA gets crabs, are they just gonna live with it? Because technically, *crotch lice are animals, too*.
> 
> My awesome friend loaned me her copy of Penn & Teller's _Bullshit! _about PETA. I haven't watched it yet, but I expect it will be divine.



PETA headquarters is in Norfolk, VA, not far from here. Actually, some ones that I've seen do look like they might have some 'lil bitty tenants down there.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 19, 2009)

butch said:


> If you understood my point (as you say in a later post), then why slam me for my comment? I made the comment because it made me laugh, not because I have a problem with the comments in the thread or the thread topic. There isn't one thing in this thread I would report or edit or delete, fwiw.



I didn't slam your comment. I made a comment about your comment and I said it because I've seen you as a moderator chastise people going off topic and you did the very same thing. 

Instead of contributing to the conversation, you made a flippant comment about Hyde Park. I said I got what you were doing, not that I agreed with it.


----------



## steely (Aug 19, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *No they don't.
> 
> Personally, I don't think PETA needs to do a damn thing. Not everyone thinks animal cruelty is a big deal, concern or problem.
> I may be the only one willing to admit it in this thread, but animal cruelty just doesn't bother some people - myself included.
> ...



Wow...... I care far less for people than animals, I think you just proved my point.


----------



## butch (Aug 19, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I didn't slam your comment. I made a comment about your comment and I said it because I've seen you as a moderator chastise people going off topic and you did the very same thing.
> 
> Instead of contributing to the conversation, you made a flippant comment about Hyde Park. I said I got what you were doing, not that I agreed with it.



Hmm, you did claim to know what I was doing when you obviously didn't, so I took that as a slam. If none of us could be snarky on the internet, it would implode from lack of activity, but you're more than welcome to bemoan the use of snark in this thread.

As far as my moderator status, I only chastise people when they run up against rules of the message board that I am entrusted to uphold, whether I agree with them or not. If you have a problem with how I mod, please let Conrad know. I'm certain to make mistakes, since I haven't been doing this long. 

To be fair, the only chastisement I do is in the BBW Forum, which is a protected forum, or when I have homophobes post in the GLBTQ board. If you think neither of those places should be more sensitive to the core members of the boards, feel free to bring up your concerns to Conrad.


----------



## Rojodi (Aug 19, 2009)

Take this with the same grain of salt I've taken all their ads. They are in the shock and AWEwe'restupid tactics. And if you run into one of their protests, do as we did 12 years ago when they picketted a McDonald's: Eat some greasy cheeseburgers while you march with them!

If they can't take a joke EFF them!


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 19, 2009)

butch said:


> Hmm, you did claim to know what I was doing when you obviously didn't, so I took that as a slam. If none of us could be snarky on the internet, it would implode from lack of activity, but you're more than welcome to bemoan the use of snark in this thread.
> 
> As far as my moderator status, I only chastise people when they run up against rules of the message board that I am entrusted to uphold, whether I agree with them or not. If you have a problem with how I mod, please let Conrad know. I'm certain to make mistakes, since I haven't been doing this long.
> 
> To be fair, the only chastisement I do is in the BBW Forum, which is a protected forum, or when I have homophobes post in the GLBTQ board. If you think neither of those places should be more sensitive to the core members of the boards, feel free to bring up your concerns to Conrad.




Come off it, really. 

I think all the moderation that goes on here is just crazy. There is so much of it, that who knows what is allowed and what isn't allowed and in which board it should be placed in.

I have and will probably be snarky in the future, so the snark wasn't the issue. For me the issue was the fact that someone who seems to get up in arms about threads going off topic, doing something that deliberately took the thread off topic. 

Don't assume to know what I think about the BBW or GLBTQ boards either, if you want to know ask. However, I'm thinking you really don't give a shit about what I think, and you were just trying to put me in my place. 

I am free to share my opinions here Butch, just like you. So please don't dismiss me or my opinions by telling me if I don't like something to take it to Conrad.


----------



## butch (Aug 19, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Come off it, really.
> 
> I think all the moderation that goes on here is just crazy. There is so much of it, that who knows what is allowed and what isn't allowed and in which board it should be placed in.
> 
> ...



OK, I'm done. You don't know me well enough to make the claims you're making, and we're both derailing the thread now.


----------



## kayrae (Aug 19, 2009)

YOU WOULD EAT A DOG?!?!?!




exile in thighville said:


> just to clear the record i would eat a dog
> 
> that's how much of a cat person i am
> 
> ...



Actually, I'm neither a cat or dog person. But my people eat dogs. And I have probably eaten one when I was little. I have also eaten little baby chicks in their eggs.


----------



## Geektastic1 (Aug 19, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *



Wait...so, for example, you'd *worry* about someone loving their dog, but would be unconcerned about someone beating their dog to death?

I don't even know how to express how truly and utterly fucked up that is.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 19, 2009)

Geektastic1 said:


> Wait...so, for example, you'd *worry* about someone loving their dog, but would be unconcerned about someone beating their dog to death?
> 
> I don't even know how to express how truly and utterly fucked up that is.



Well, er yeah, unconcerned, unless it's Michael Vick and he doesn't get to play football anymore because of it. Those heartless fucking dogs should really learn to keep their mouths shut.


----------



## Carrie (Aug 19, 2009)

I'm tempted to post the substantial amount of money I'm parting with today to get my cat's teeth cleaned and bladder stones removed, just to see if ESPN Cutie's head actually explodes. :batting:


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 19, 2009)

Carrie said:


> I'm tempted to post the substantial amount of money I'm parting with today to get my cat's teeth cleaned and bladder stones removed, just to see if ESPN Cutie's head actually explodes. :batting:



Plzpostpicthx. 

I can relate on the money thing. I spent, all told, close to $1500 on my free, rescued Basset Hound a couple months ago on an infected cyst that became septic. We won't even talk about what I've spent on the rabbits I've rescued, between spaying and neutering them, countless infections, and even a case of melanoma on one of them. Imagine that -- caring so much about... livestock! 

I know. You should all worry about me. 

Topic at hand....

Is anyone actually surprised that PETA has pulled this crap? No? Good. Just checking. There are lots of great animal rescue organizations out there that get my money. PETA? Not so much. They've not gotten a dime from me, nor will they ever. There are ways to champion for animals without harming human animals, something it seems they haven't figured out yet.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Aug 19, 2009)

I dare you!




Carrie said:


> I'm tempted to post the substantial amount of money I'm parting with today to get my cat's teeth cleaned and bladder stones removed, just to see if ESPN Cutie's head actually explodes. :batting:


----------



## pickleman357 (Aug 19, 2009)

Well, I have no idea what was in that article since its so horrible that my computer can't take it and crashes. 


On a side note though, my brother tried to be a vegitarian, but after passing out at work he found out that his body absolutly needs meat in order for him to live.


----------



## katorade (Aug 19, 2009)

pickleman357 said:


> Well, I have no idea what was in that article since its so horrible that my computer can't take it and crashes.
> 
> 
> On a side note though, my brother tried to be a vegitarian, but after passing out at work he found out that his body absolutly needs meat in order for him to live.



It was this lovely image:







Which targets obesity, not animal cruelty, and there's absolutely no way they can argue that. Most obese people eat the same percentage of meat in their diets as thin people. Hell, most I know eat LESS in favor of delicious, glorious carbs.
Why wouldn't they target something like the Atkins diet that DOES promote eating a much larger amount of meat? Because they can get sued, that's why. They'd rather save a buck and slap another billboard up that "makes people talk", but doesn't actually do anything for their cause. 
If they really wanted anyone to make an informed decision about going vegetarian, they'd state the facts outright, not blatantly insult someone that doesn't already ascribe to their lifestyle. As it is, they're just pushing people that MIGHT have thought of them as a worthwhile cause further away, i.e. fat vegetarians, which there are a lot of.

Can ONE PETA supporter give me one absolutely good reason what THAT billboard in particular has to do with making people think about animal rights? Just one, make a compelling argument. We haven't seen a single one in this thread yet.

And as a side note: pickleman, he most likely passed out because he wasn't getting enough protein in his diet, not just meat. It's quite possible to get the proteins we need as adults to to function, otherwise as animals we'd have a hell of a hard time making it through famine periods, like winter, when much of a meat supply wouldn't be around. It's one reason why most "urban" animals like rats and raccoons thrive the way they do. They can vary their diet and adjust to their surroundings, unlike other animals that are forced to stay where their food source is available.
On the other hand, I disagree with people that feed their young children vegetarian diets because they don't get the necessary amino acids in proteins that can ONLY be rendered from animal products. One way to bypass that is to breast feed until the child is older (around 5 years old), but that practice is seen as kind of whackadoo in our society. More so than vegetarianism, which is sad in itself.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 19, 2009)

Is this a thread to decry PETA's unfortunate choice of an ad message? Or is it a thread to bash PETA?

Would the people who hate PETA anyway kindly separate their long-standing distaste for PETA from PETA's fat bashing campaign? Only then can this conversation proceed as more than PETA bashing.

PETA has done more than any other organization to raise consciousness about the appalling treatment of animals. Some of its tactics are boneheaded, but I continue to applaud PETA's mission.

If you don't care about animals, it's one thing to raise an objection to an objectionable ad campaign. It's quite another to use it as more fodder against an organization that threatens your sense of comfort as an indiscriminate meat eater. 

You want to bash PETA, please go right ahead. But please don't confuse that with fat activism if that's not what it is.

Oh, and, yes, that ad is silly and offensive.


----------



## snuggletiger (Aug 19, 2009)

I will protest PETA and their bigotry by having another well done steak so I know the cow won't be giving me ecoli and drinking a glass of Vitamin D pasteurized milk.:eat1: cheers


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Also, I'm really tired of people mistakenly believing that PETA is an animal *welfare* group. PETA is an animal *RIGHTS* group. They believe that every animal should hold the same rights as humans, and if they had it their way, the entire human species would be wiped from the face of the Earth. That's from Ingrid Newkirk and her cronies themselves. The only defense they give as to why they haven't killed themselves is because their cause "needs them".
> 
> That's right, if you support PETA, *you're basically supporting the idea of mass genocide and your own death.* Smart.
> 
> ...



This is mistaken. PETA's position is aligned with that of Peter Singer, which is to say that PETA holds animals have the right to equal consideration on the question of suffering. That is, since all animals can suffer--including humans--all animals should receive *equal consideration* regarding the right not to suffer.

That is NOT the same as saying that other animals and humans have the same rights. Since animals and humans are different, *we cannot all have the same rights.* No one believes that PETA is proposing we install each pig or cow in its own mansion, right? That's because PETA is NOT pushing for equal right, but for equal consideration for animals on the right not to suffer.

It's a fair tennet. Whether you hate PETA's tactics or not, it's one that has to be contended with, unless you're willing to say that human beings are entitled to randomly dish out suffering to any living being.

I find your statement in bold above particularly inflammatory, K. I respect your thinking on the whole, but I don't see how you can make a statement like that. It's just not true.

For anyone wishing to know the difference between equal rights and equal consideration, here is the part of PETA's mission where equal consideration is explained.


----------



## katorade (Aug 19, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Is this a thread to decry PETA's unfortunate choice of an ad message? Or is it a thread to bash PETA?
> 
> Would the people who hate PETA anyway kindly separate their long-standing distaste for PETA from PETA's fat bashing campaign? Only then can this conversation proceed as more than PETA bashing.
> 
> ...




We're not the ones that decided to cross the lines between animal rights and the war on obesity. They were. In my world that means it's open season on condemnation of their tactics. Bringing up all of the issues I already have with them is completely on par, because it's just more examples of why they're a complete shit pile of an organization.


----------



## pickleman357 (Aug 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> And as a side note: pickleman, he most likely passed out because he wasn't getting enough protein in his diet, not just meat. It's quite possible to get the proteins we need as adults to to function, otherwise as animals we'd have a hell of a hard time making it through famine periods, like winter, when much of a meat supply wouldn't be around. It's one reason why most "urban" animals like rats and raccoons thrive the way they do. They can vary their diet and adjust to their surroundings, unlike other animals that are forced to stay where their food source is available.


 
He was getting enough, he's dating a die-hard vegan, and we had discussions about eating meat and he was very informed. There was something that was meat exclusive that he needed. My mother has the same problem so its genetic.



> On the other hand, I disagree with people that feed their young children vegetarian diets because they don't get the necessary amino acids in proteins that can ONLY be rendered from animal products. One way to bypass that is to breast feed until the child is older (around 5 years old), but that practice is seen as kind of whackadoo in our society. More so than vegetarianism, which is sad in itself.


 
Yeah.... don't sell out your child's health for the sake of your morals. That's just silly.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> We're not the ones that decided to cross the lines between animal rights and the war on obesity. They were. In my world that means it's open season on condemnation of their tactics. Bringing up all of the issues I already have with them is completely on par, because it's just more examples of why they're a complete shit pile of an organization.



I read through some of your reasons and had a response above. I'm interested in seeing your reply.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Jon Blaze (Aug 19, 2009)

All I can say is: Katorade ftmfw. 

/Point


----------



## mel (Aug 19, 2009)

I sent an email to them today...not that it will do any good. I am so fucking disgusted with people degrading overweight people. makes me sick.

http://www.peta.org/about/c-email_peta.asp


----------



## katorade (Aug 19, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> This is mistaken. PETA's position is aligned with that of Peter Singer, which is to say that PETA holds animals have the right to equal consideration on the question of suffering. That is, since all animals can suffer--including humans--all animals should receive *equal consideration* regarding the right not to suffer.
> 
> That is NOT the same as saying that other animals and humans have the same rights. Since animals and humans are different, *we cannot all have the same rights.* No one believes that PETA is proposing we install each pig or cow in its own mansion, right? That's because PETA is NOT pushing for equal right, but for equal consideration for animals on the right not to suffer.
> 
> ...



I'll admit, it was fairly inflammatory, but only because I was already being really wordy on a subject I could go on foreeeever about.

What I was referring to was the belief by Ingrid Newkirk and her closest supporters that the world would be better off if humans simply weren't in it. They've said it time and again, and their argument for sticking around is simply because they need to be here for "the cause". Her most famous quote being this:



> "I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any
> reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a
> blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at
> least I wouldn't be harming anything."


Also, your link simply defines what they deem to be animal rights. I could go back and change every time I wrote "rights" to say "consideration" and my ideas would still stand.

On top of that, they don't even adhere to that! Alex Pacheco, one of the founding fathers said that "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." He also said "We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." 

Tom Regan, who is a part of numerous radical activist groups including PETA and the ALF, has written that his belief is that human life is paramount to that of an animal because ending of an animal life entails the loss of fewer opportunities when compared to the loss of a human’s. HOWEVER, he's also the same guy that said if it came to saving a baby or a dog from from a capsized boat, "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog". 
Does he really think the dog is going to DO something to better the world more so than a retarded child? 
To me that all sure as hell sounds like not only do they think animals should be afforded the same consideration as humans, but that they should take PREFERENCE.

PETA has also given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the ALF and its supporters, and to other groups that support the ALF. They support violence towards humans in the name of animal rights "consideration". I don't see how anyone could NOT see that as utter hypocrisy. 

On top of all that, THEY KILL ANIMALS! For no good reason! Their employees were arrested for dumping animal carcasses that THEY euthanized. Animals that were otherwise perfectly healthy. That goes completely against any literature they distribute that says they're "perfectly fine" with people responsibly owning pets.

In the late '90s they were accused of performing "raids" on a trap/neuter/rescue colony, trapping feral cats, and euthanizing them. You can actually find PETA-distributed paperwork on why and how to trap and kill them, and they have actually FOUGHT programs trying to establish TNR funding in cities.

Not only have I studied up on them, but was actually personally involved in one of their scandals. I volunteered for one of the rescue groups (which I'll refrain from naming) that surrendered animals to PETA for _years_ because they were told they would help find them homes. I acted as part of a transport chain for them, helping get adopted dogs and cats from the rescue to either foster homes or their new adopted homes when the traveling distance was rather far.
I got first person accounts from the woman that ran the rescue of what she was told by PETA in her experiences, and the court testimonies of others who had been taken advantage of by what they thought was generosity and kindness. She was actually able to IDENTIFY bodies of some of the animals she had turned over to them less than a week before they were euthanized. 
That doesn't exactly sound like equal consideration to me.



I think some here may have mistaken my hatred for them as defense of my own views, but really it isn't. I am a total bleeding heart for animals and whole-heartedly support animal welfare, and have been active in the past, and still would be if my health and wallet allowed it. Hell, I was a vegetarian for a while.

My biggest problem with them as an organization is the outright LIES that they spread, their actions that are directly hypocritical to their creed, their selfish money-mongering, and the fact that they use their brash and radical ways to undermine other non-profit organizations out there that are really trying to do some good and make a difference. They don't share ANY of their wealth with the groups that actually need it. They share it with the most radical ineffective groups imaginable that do more harm than good. I *hate* that more than any of their beliefs.


----------



## bdog (Aug 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> On the other hand, I disagree with people that feed their young children vegetarian diets because they don't get the necessary amino acids in proteins that can ONLY be rendered from animal products. One way to bypass that is to breast feed until the child is older (around 5 years old), but that practice is seen as kind of whackadoo in our society. More so than vegetarianism, which is sad in itself.



There's someone sitting 10 feet from me who has never eaten meat (or fish or whatever) in his life, and he's only supplemented with brewer's yeast for b12. I just asked to be sure. He's 6'2", very smart, and healthy. Resume regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## butch (Aug 19, 2009)

If you haven't read Kate Harding's take on this, you must do so now:

http://kateharding.net/2009/08/19/whom-we-talk-to-when-we-talk-about-fat/


----------



## katorade (Aug 19, 2009)

butch said:


> If you haven't read Kate Harding's take on this, you must do so now:
> 
> http://kateharding.net/2009/08/19/whom-we-talk-to-when-we-talk-about-fat/



Wonderful entry, especially this:



> So to them, I say: Fat people are listening when you speak. We read papers and watch news and listen to the radio. _We __are your fucking audience _ two-thirds of it, anyway. So if youre really so concerned for us, you might try talking _to _us. You might try recognizing that you are addressing the very people youre writing about, instead of gearing all of your remarks toward some imaginary audience of The Thin and Deeply Concerned.
> Id suggest that you try listening to us, too, but that might just be too much.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 19, 2009)

butch said:


> If you haven't read Kate Harding's take on this, you must do so now:
> 
> http://kateharding.net/2009/08/19/whom-we-talk-to-when-we-talk-about-fat/



Kate has some good points: This ad isn't aimed at fat people, nor is it really about fat people, so much as it's a cautionary for those afraid of fat. It pushes the buttons of fat hatred as adeptly as any other advertiser and, likely--as is the PETA way increasingly--it does it in a way engineered to get the most attention for PETA, negative or positive.

Since this ad isn't so out of the ordinary--it works in the same MO as ads for gyms promoting cankle-reducing tactics, for instance--I have to wonder why the railing at PETA's core message of animal rights in this thread. When people on Dims get upset about Gold's Gym or Jenny Craig, is the same level of rage directed at those businesses, the same number of expletives hurled at them? I would venture that the answer's, "No." Anytime PETA's name comes up for discussion at Dimensions, it becomes another occasion for grinding the same ax. Discussion of the issue at hand tends to fall by the wayside when things become all about the problems that people have with PETA in general.

I just want to point out--not at you, but at this thread in general, butch--that hating PETA and supporting fat acceptance are not the same things.


----------



## Donna (Aug 19, 2009)

PETA isn't the first business/organization to do an ad like this, right? I seem to recall a brouhaha over something similar having to do with a fitness/gym chain? I am wracking (racking?) my brain trying to remember what happened as a result of the other issue...seems to me there was a lawsuit of some kind.

Anyone remember this or have I been smoking crack?


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 19, 2009)

Donna said:


> PETA isn't the first business/organization to do an ad like this, right? I seem to recall a brouhaha over something similar having to do with a fitness/gym chain? I am wracking (racking?) my brain trying to remember what happened as a result of the other issue...seems to me there was a lawsuit of some kind.
> 
> Anyone remember this or have I been smoking crack?



*Donna: I'm not sure if you are referring to this;but, below is a AD from Gold's Gym - June 2009. As much as Gym Memberships are hurt by the economy - they should not be making fun of folks
* 







*Gold's Gym Cankles Campaign *


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> My biggest problem with them as an organization is the outright LIES that they spread, their actions that are directly hypocritical to their creed, their selfish money-mongering, and the fact that they use their brash and radical ways to undermine other non-profit organizations out there that are really trying to do some good and make a difference. They don't share ANY of their wealth with the groups that actually need it. They share it with the most radical ineffective groups imaginable that do more harm than good. I *hate* that more than any of their beliefs.



It's clear you don't like their tactics and that you wish they were more moderate. But the point about equal consideration on the question of suffering still stands. It's a reasoned stance and one which I support. 

PETA is almost alone in promoting equal consideration for animals with the capacity to suffer. I, too, have a problem with some of their tactics, as with the tactics of some radical groups. But I don't have a problem with the "radical" notion that animals with the capacity to suffer should be treated humanely. 

Now, I don't know exactly how to get people to treat animals humanely--most people simply don't care. And I wish PETA would find a way to do the work of promoting equal consideration for animals in a way that didn't involve negative or destructive confrontations. But in a subversive way, you have to admit that the negativity works for them--they seem fully conscious that this is an issue that requires drawing a line in the sand, and that the more attention they get, the more people are likely to be exposed to the message that animals deserve better treatment. 

Your rant against PETA is already co-opted for PETA's purposes, since PETA's message of animal rights is so radical at its core that it tends to polarize anyone exposed to it at all--in the end, it's by exposing people to the message AT ALL that PETA scores points... THAT is its mission. 

Exposing people to the idea that animals deserve better treatment on farms and in medical labs than they've traditionally received has been very productive. In essence, the idea is to get people to change from one paradigm to another. It isn't easy--it involves deconstructing centuries of economic and moral practices built around the ideas of humanism: that people are located at the very top of a chain of being put in place by a God who basically "gave" us animals to do with as we like. But the work of dismantling those ideas and of replacing them with ideas that envision a better lot for animals began over a century ago. Millions of people have already changed their minds. PETA is only the latest avatar at the fore of this campaign to re-align human thinking about animals--it's not something PETA invented nor is it something that's going to die with PETA, though many people still find the idea of equal consideration for animals "radical." It's a testament to the fact that this paradigm shift has been successful that PETA has as many enemies as it does--that only means more people have been exposed to the idea at the core of the work of changing paradigms. 

In several decades, the idea that animals deserve to be treated with consideration will not seem as radical. Radical ideas don't take root easily--that's true, just as it's true that, in time, what used to seem radical comes to seem normal. Already it seems less radical than it did only ten years ago. The idea _is_ gaining increasing momemtum. And it will be in part thanks to PETA, which is so easily despised now that it's a joke to even waste breath on it (considering that this is a long-range movement in human thinking that did not begin nor will end with PETA), that in twenty or thirty years people will have done the work of changing how we treat animals. 

[[[_Aside:_ PETA is only the most VISIBLE proponent of that idea now. And, yes, it's thanks to reactionary opposition to it that it's gone as far as it has. If you really wanted to dislodge PETA, I'd suggest you start doing your own animal rights work and hope that the kinder model you invent takes deeper root than PETA's. But you can be sure that animal rights is an idea that won't die, and that it's the _idea_ that PETA is about.]]]

I can't speak to PETA's euthanizing or anti-TNR practices because I'm not familiar with those facts. Euthanizing animals that are suffering is not something I'm opposed to, though I am opposed to the mistreatment of animals. If what you say is true, maybe PETA is full of liars who misrepresent what they're doing. However, I've looked into a number of anti-PETA claims in the past and have found them to be always either traceable back to a misunderstanding of the idea of equal consideration for animals (i.e., taking "animal rights" to mean "equal rights for animals and humans" and not "equal consideration for beings with the capacity to suffer") OR grossly overstated. 

I do know that, in the end, I support the core mission of PETA--to spread the idea that animals with the capacity to suffer deserve equal consideration by humans--and while I abhor some of the tactics it uses, I look on as some people who condemn PETA in essence act as apologists for even worse practices (just as I look with beffudlement at those for whom personal preferences act as a springboard for justifying entire worldviews that are not necessarily aligned with what they preach otherwise.) I know also that I don't consider "radical" ideas verboten per se, and that what seems radical today may come to seem the norm tomorrow. And I know for sure that PETA is no angel on many fronts, but that hating PETA or PETA's core mission is NOT the same as supporting fat acceptance.


----------



## Ivy (Aug 19, 2009)

i have always found it hard to take PETA seriously when they have such a long and disgusting history of killing the majority of animals that come into their care that are not reclaimed by their owners. not to mention that sexism and racism runs rampant in many of their past and current ad campaigns.


----------



## stan_der_man (Aug 19, 2009)

Donna said:


> PETA isn't the first business/organization to do an ad like this, right? I seem to recall a brouhaha over something similar having to do with a fitness/gym chain? I am wracking (racking?) my brain trying to remember what happened as a result of the other issue...seems to me there was a lawsuit of some kind.
> 
> Anyone remember this or have I been smoking crack?



There probably have been many examples of what you mention Donna. I know of a local gym that had a less than tasteful advertisement many years ago.

As for the advertisement... I concur that the PETA ad is pathetic on many levels. To be honest I lost respect with PETA back when they "liberated" some minks (or chinchillas?) from a fur processor in Canada I believe it was... PETA activists released all the animals (who had never lived in the wild...) out into freezing temperatures to the death of the animals they were supposedly saving. I whole heartedly support the idea of humane treatment of animals and respect people who choose to live a vegetarian lifestyle, but PETA as an organization sometimes isn't running on all four cylinders IMO.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 19, 2009)

Found this to be interesting, from PETA's website. To be fair, though, I don't think it tells the whole story. My guess is that many of the euthanized animals could not be socialized to be pets, healthy or not.

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cg...acility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2006


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 19, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> PETA as an organization sometimes isn't running on all four cylinders IMO.



lol Stan, I think this is true. I do wish they were smarter, even as I support the ideas they stand for. I'm not sure that their model of soliciting negative attention in the name of spreading the message can't be improved on. I'd love to see a better model invented. To be fair, most people have so much resistance to the idea of animal rights that any organization that proposes that idea is bound to meet with controversy.


----------



## Fangs (Aug 19, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *Save your pity for your pets; I don't need it.
> 
> It may not be PC to admit, but like I said, not everyone in the world treats their pets like they are humans or believe that animals expierence human emotions. Animal cruelty just doesn't bother us; we don't support it but are indifferent to it.
> 
> And honestly, when I hear people talk about their love for and the "relationship" they with their pets, I start to feel sad for them. And worry. *



I'd have to say that it's a fact some animals experience human emotions. For example, this animal species called homo sapiens definitely experiences human emotions. 


I also know that it's the first sign of any psychopath to first hurt animals - because those people have no ability to feel another's pain. 

Honestly, I'm terrified of people that can ignore a dog's yelps as he or she is being beaten to death. I can clearly understand they have nerves, brains, feel pain, and are very capable of crying out for help.

My father stupidly tied up my sister's two dogs one morning. One of them had a seizure and was chocking to death. The other dog started crying hysterically in the direction of my bedroom window until I woke up and ran outside. That is basic intellect. That is an instinct to protect family members. 

Now, I'm all against PETA's ad - but this post declaring how "animal cruelty just doesn't bother" you is a red alarm going off:
that my own dog is more capable of showing affection and understanding towards the value of other beings on this planet than you are. Who is more "human" now?


----------



## Ivy (Aug 19, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Found this to be interesting, from PETA's website. To be fair, though, I don't think it tells the whole story. My guess is that many of the euthanized animals could not be socialized to be pets, healthy or not.
> 
> http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cg...acility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2006



i agree that some animals can't be socialized as pets, but i don't think that of the 2,930 animals they euthanized in 2006 that the majority were cases where the animals were either unable to be socialized as pets or in some kind of pain.


----------



## stan_der_man (Aug 19, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> lol Stan, I think this is true. I do wish they were smarter, even as I support the ideas they stand for. I'm not sure that their model of soliciting negative attention in the name of spreading the message can't be improved on. I'd love to see a better model invented. To be fair, most people have so much resistance to the idea of animal rights that any organization that proposes that idea is bound to meet with controversy.



In some ways PETA is just a classic example of an organization having good intentions but getting carried away with the message or going nutty directions at times. Hopefully PETA will learn from this "whale" billboard ad and we'll all move on.


----------



## Fangs (Aug 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Most obese people eat the same percentage of meat in their diets as thin people. Hell, most I know eat LESS in favor of delicious, glorious carbs.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I disagree with people that feed their young children vegetarian diets because they don't get the necessary amino acids in proteins that can ONLY be rendered from animal products. One way to bypass that is to breast feed until the child is older (around 5 years old), but that practice is seen as kind of whackadoo in our society. More so than vegetarianism, which is sad in itself.



Yeah - actually the fastest way to lose weight is to eat meat. So, if you want to shed those pounds: have a steak. I think I'm naturally drawn to guys that love carbs. ^.^

As far as the children having meat: I chose a vegetarian family to raise my son when I placed him in adoption. I'll never regret it. I'd rather he have the opportunity to realize that he *can* choose that track rather than be ridiculed for not enjoying meat. 

I had a really hard time as a child seeing my family just point the finger at a live animal - and then see him dead. My mother was especially evil. She would beat my dogs when no one else was looking. And when she thought I did something wrong, she'd tell me she was going to kill or kick my pets. She did kill one, too. 

But there aren't strong enough laws yet. Not against animal cruelty or child cruelty - or much of anything that involves hurting anyone that can't speak for themselves. 

I think there absolutely should be organizations promoting furthering the rights of children, pets, rape victims, etc - but PETA's PR department just fails. Complete failure. PETA should just disband and abandon their current name. They are hurting the cause by being rude and irrational in their campaigns.


----------



## Suze (Aug 19, 2009)

Carrie said:


> I'm tempted to post the substantial amount of money I'm parting with today to get my cat's teeth cleaned and bladder stones removed, just to see if ESPN Cutie's head actually explodes. :batting:


her post inspired me to babysit my parent's pointers. it's been awhile since i had them over. 
infact... they're sleeping IN MY BED right now...

and i'm going to JOIN in later! ;D


----------



## katorade (Aug 19, 2009)

Ivy said:


> i agree that some animals can't be socialized as pets, but i don't think that of the 2,930 animals they euthanized in 2006 that the majority were cases where the animals were either unable to be socialized as pets or in some kind of pain.



Exactly. The PETA staffers arrested in the case I mentioned before were actually indicted. The majority of the animals they obtained WERE adoptable.


----------



## Teleute (Aug 19, 2009)

> Your rant against PETA is already co-opted for PETA's purposes, since PETA's message of animal rights is so radical at its core that it tends to polarize anyone exposed to it at all--in the end, it's by exposing people to the message AT ALL that PETA scores points... THAT is its mission.



I don't think this is true, though. I mean, obviously that's how PETA is approaching things... but I don't think that idea is at all radical any more, and the polarization I see surrounding PETA is almost always related to their incredibly offensive ad campaigns. This may have been true years ago, but now the idea that animals are capable of suffering and should be treated humanely seems pretty entrenched in the public consciousness. There are certainly those who choose to reject it, but those people won't be swayed by yet another offensive billboard. Their tactics are outdated; now that the concept is publicized, it'd be better to inform people of specific instances of animal cruelty, or to utilize more of their donation money to work toward longer-term changes like researching and promoting non-animal-based alternatives. 

Also, I don't really understand this:


> And I know for sure that PETA is no angel on many fronts, but that hating PETA or PETA's core mission is NOT the same as supporting fat acceptance.



Who ever said it was?


----------



## Shosh (Aug 19, 2009)

Suze said:


> her post inspired me to babysit my parent's pointers. it's been awhile since i had them over.
> infact... they're sleeping IN MY BED right now...
> 
> and i'm going to JOIN in later! ;D



Good for you Suze.

I just want to say it loud and proud that I love my dog with all my heart. She means the world to me.
I do not give a damn if some question people loving their animals.
I love mine.


----------



## deepreflection (Aug 20, 2009)

I support organizations that thinks critically and act responsibly. I expect the organization to provide some direction and control to keep focused on doing good.



> PETA's Mission Statement 8/2009: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.
> 
> 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.


PETA's spin puts me off. When they leave out the whole picture to magnify their core message I feel lied to.



Fascinita said:


> ... But the point about equal consideration on the question of suffering still stands. It's a reasoned stance and one which I support.



Nearly everyone supports the platitude that suffering is bad. Good lead in, you win the reader with the toss of a bone. It's now easier to accept that PETA's ideology is a solid one. But I am going to consider that the organization as a whole is responsible for it's actions and outcomes.



Fascinita said:


> ... And I wish PETA would find a way to do the work of promoting equal consideration for animals in a way that didn't involve negative or destructive confrontations. But in a subversive way, you have to admit that the negativity works for them ...
> 
> Your (ed: Katorade's) rant against PETA is already co-opted for PETA's purposes, since PETA's message of animal rights is so radical at its core that it tends to polarize anyone exposed to it at all--in the end, it's by exposing people to the message AT ALL that PETA scores points... THAT is its mission.



PETA needs to take responsibility for the actions which are destructive and confrontational to gain my support. PETA frequently embraces media attention to multiply it's marketing.



Fascinita said:


> But the work of dismantling those ideas and of replacing them with ideas that envision a better lot for animals began over a century ago. Millions of people have already changed their minds. PETA is only the latest avatar at the fore of this campaign to re-align human thinking about animals--it's not something PETA invented nor is it something that's going to die with PETA, though many people still find the idea of equal consideration for animals "radical." It's a testament to the fact that this paradigm shift has been successful that PETA has as many enemies as it does--that only means more people have been exposed to the idea at the core of the work of changing paradigms.



This parallels the evil-genius social engineering and politics that were put forward in WWI and WWII. The people were persuaded because, Something had to cause the social ills and weak German economy. The overwhelming influence of anything outside the Aryan ideology was contributing to the weakness. That with refinement of the social thinking society would show itself to be as grand as it once was and deserved to be. Never mind the early deplorable tactics or the future way we get there. The outcome will prove the idea to be right and it'll all be worth it.



Fascinita said:


> ... in time, what used to seem radical comes to seem normal. Already it seems less radical than it did only ten years ago. ... that in twenty or thirty years people will have done the work of changing how we treat animals.



It's important to stand against that which you do not support. Each voice makes up the din of healthy society. For that reason I do not stand by and wait 30 years for PETA's organization to act unchecked. They hide behind simple ideas that I support in my own way, because I do not align with their tactics and in some cases lack of respect for their members.



Fascinita said:


> [[[Aside: PETA is only the most VISIBLE proponent of that idea now. And, yes, it's thanks to reactionary opposition to it that it's gone as far as it has. If you really wanted to dislodge PETA, I'd suggest you start doing your own animal rights work ... ]]]



If you're saying support for another organization is worth it, I'd agree.



Fascinita said:


> I do know that, in the end, I support the core mission of PETA--to spread the idea that animals with the capacity to suffer deserve equal consideration by humans--and while I abhor some of the tactics it uses, I look on as some people who condemn PETA in essence act as apologists for even worse practices  PETA's core mission is NOT the same as supporting fat acceptance.



PETA choose it's imagery and if that gets people to talk, according to you that's all part of their plan. I am glad that folks here see a lack of maturity on PETA's part. The advert highlights that PETA doesn't have a better campaign to use. One that avoids the denigration of fat people as an effective way to get people to take sides with an idea. If you don't mind the means, the end sounds good, doesn't it? That's what PETA and scapegoat genocide is about to me.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Aug 20, 2009)

I didn't see this until today... but come on, there aren't overweight vegetarians?

I mean, one of the most famous vegetarians was good old Ben Franklin. Glad to see they don't concider him overweight anymore.


----------



## smithnwesson (Aug 20, 2009)

Shoshie -

Save your breath. 

There's dog people and non-dog people out there. I dislike and distrust people who don't like dogs.

I'm not a cop, but most of my friends are. K-9 cops live 24/7 with their dogs. They sleep with them, get up with them in the morning, go to work with them, and then come home with them: They may go grocery shopping or to a movie without them, but that's about it. The bonding and mutual commitment between the two is close to 100%. If you threaten either of them, expect a very serious response from the other one.

In Virginia, a simple assault on a police officer is a misdemeanor, the same assault on his dog is a felony. That's as it should be. 

Also, when a K-9 is killed in the line of duty, he gets the same funeral rites that a human officer would receive. I attended one of those several years ago. Men were breaking down like 8YO girls. I'll never go to another one. . . 

( Sorry for the the thread hijack). 

- Jim


----------



## Shosh (Aug 20, 2009)

Thanks for sharing that Jim.
Look I understand that some people may not have an interest in dogs, but to be indifferent to animal cruelty as that poster suggested?
That is disgraceful.

For the record my dog does not sleep on my bed. She has her own little bed that she sleeps in.

View attachment Doggie.jpg


----------



## Tina (Aug 20, 2009)

Ivy said:


> i have always found it hard to take PETA seriously when they have such a long and disgusting history of killing the majority of animals that come into their care that are not reclaimed by their owners. not to mention that sexism and racism runs rampant in many of their past and current ad campaigns.



This. 

Tried to rep you but I'm all out, cutie. Love the hair.


----------



## gangstadawg (Aug 20, 2009)

katorade said:


> They're very good at what they do. They're not very good at what they _say _they do.



EPIC WIN comment of the day! anyways this far from the dumbest thing that PETA has done. they had a campaign where they wanted fish to be renamed sea kittens and they had a ad telling college students to drink beer insead of milk which pissed off the group MADD.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 20, 2009)

Ivy said:


> i agree that some animals can't be socialized as pets, but i don't think that of the 2,930 animals they euthanized in 2006 that the majority were cases where the animals were either unable to be socialized as pets or in some kind of pain.



I'd tend to agree. On that website, there are statistics for all animal shelters in the state of Virginia, not just PETA. What really struck me is that most of the other shelters had a much, much higher rate for adoption of pets than did PETA. 

Last year, I had to surrender my beloved pet to an animal shelter. It was one of the hardest things that I've ever done. He'd been, quite literally, my "baby" for 8 years. Unfortunately, I failed him in a very important way, because we didn't train him to be socialized around children, and we tolerated aggressive behaviors that we could make allowances for when we didn't have a child. We had to keep him separate from our child because we couldn't trust him - he'd snipped & snapped at Jegan a number of times, growled threateningly when Jegan would approach him, and he reverted back to going to the bathroom in the house -- including pissing on walls, and defecating in Jegan's bedroom. When Jegan learned to walk, he would go to the gate separating him from Tux and poke his fingers through. Tux snapped at him a few times. It got to the point where we just had no choice. We were worried about Jegan's health (the piss/shit all over the place was a hygiene issue) and safety. I chose the shelter that we brought him to because they advertised high adoption rates for pets that were difficult to place. They made no guarantees, and in fact, Tux probably was euthanized. The point is, though: I chose that shelter because I had hope that they'd make every effort to place him, and I bet that many people who surrender their animals to PETA have the same hope & expectations. It was a huge eye-opener for me to see those stats.

An aside: I've discussed what happened to Tux on this forum before, and got all sorts of "you're an evil bad person" responses. Save 'em. I know where we went wrong with Tux, and no amount of e-beating from a stranger could feel worse than what I already put myself through. However, when weighing priorities ... child vs. pet ... it's not a contest. Anyone who thinks otherwise, frankly, could use a psychiatric work-up  (I keed ... I keed ... kinda. Sorta).


----------



## Jigen (Aug 20, 2009)

katorade said:


> Oh, and their freaking VP uses insulin. Insulin she wouldn't get had it not been for animal testing. Insulin she still uses KNOWING that because "it's already done and there's nothing I can do about it, and I need to stay healthy for my cause."



We have the same type of hypocrisy. Animalists VIP ready to skin alive someone for a joke abbout animals, but who wear snake shoes in public and eat big juicy steaks at the restaurant. And I know many others. "Tutto il mondo è paese..."


----------



## mergirl (Aug 20, 2009)

Its weird because most of the animal charities here claim 'Never to put a healthy animal down' i wonder how much of that is true. The UK basically get laughed at by the rest of Europe though because we give more money to animal charities than to people charities!


----------



## stan_der_man (Aug 20, 2009)

Tina said:


> This.
> 
> Tried to rep you but I'm all out, cutie. Love the hair.



I got you covered on the reps!


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Sorry, but I just ran across an article about this (PETA) on AOL and was coming here to post about it when I came across this thread (if you really want to call it that). 

Question: Has everyone here lost it or what???!!!

When reading most of the post about what PETA has done, it seems that this thread has become nothing more than an all out rant fest about pet love. 

Are you all serious??? 

This thread should be laced with contempt about the blatant disrepect of people of size and what the size acceptance community should do as a response. 

To have a larger than life insult displayed in this way, a "slap in the face" to most motorist (most of whom will be large people) and all you guys can come up with is a devolving thread about PETA's core agendas.:doh:

This thread should be a sounding board for those who want to see some true public activism for the support of making PETA or any company stop the fat bashing tactics and show some respect for all human beings all sizes of large. Hasn't this gone on long enough. I'm sure people like William J. Fabrey and earlier F.A .and S.A. supporters (some of which have passed on) wouldn't just standby let this assault/insult go without a collaborative reply. 

The time for action is now! If the Fat Acceptance/Size Acceptance community allows this opportunity to take a stand to pass us by, then it will be a great disservice to the younger generations of large people to come. What PETA has done is uncalled for and unacceptable. It's worst than Jay Leno's past snide remarks about fat people, it's worst than some senator proposing a "fat tax", this a full fledge attack. If PETA is allowed to go unpunished, then other companies will follow their lead. 

Doing nothing about this, will only serve to show that it's okay to insult, degrade, and disrespect larger people on a grand scale and further widen the spread of size hatred around the world. 

There needs to be a national conference of all size acceptance organizations and supporters about this issue and see some concrete activism happen. The conference should focus on long-term legislation for new weight discrimination laws in all states (not just placed in the Americans with Disabilities Act Laws but as part of the original Civil Rights Laws) and human decency laws that decree it unlawful to denigrate a person or groups of people based on their size or physical appearance. These can be outlined in such a way that wouldn't impede on the Freedom of Speech but instead enhance the freedom of speech by giving it some class, not p.c. treatment.

Does anyone here see what I'm getting at. This is not about animals.

This is about decent human respect. It's about really living up to the notion that we as human beings can rise above petty grievances and really respect diversity. Not just talk about it as a "front".

It's time for action, people!:bow:


----------



## Isa (Aug 20, 2009)

Where is your protest or conference being held? What time should everyone show up?




FatKatLuvr said:


> Sorry, but I just ran across an article about this (PETA) on AOL and was coming here to post about it when I came across this thread (if you really want to call it that).
> 
> Question: Has everyone here lost it or what???!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

Isa said:


> Where is your protest or conference being held? What time should everyone show up?



I'll bring the coffee and cookies!


----------



## mossystate (Aug 20, 2009)

I'll bring Bucky. He can be the official mascot. He even has a bent tail, and is a little chunky. How cool will OUR group be!!


----------



## Geektastic1 (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> The time for action is now! If the Fat Acceptance/Size Acceptance community allows this opportunity to take a stand to pass us by, then it will be a great disservice to the younger generations of large people to come. What PETA has done is uncalled for and unacceptable. It's worst than Jay Leno's past snide remarks about fat people, it's worst than some senator proposing a "fat tax", this a full fledge attack. If PETA is allowed to go unpunished, then other companies will follow their lead.
> It's time for action, people!:bow:



PETA has done this before, over and over and over again. They have not only insulted fat people before, but have repeatedly insulted other groups of people. They don't care. They *know* they are offensive, and have been repeatedly told so. They deliberately do this to make a stink and to get in the news. 

Most of the public is pretty tired of PETA and their stunts. They aren't taken seriously by most people. People actually *do* listen to Jay Leno and laugh at his jokes. A "fat tax" has been floated as a serious proposal. But PETA? They do this kind of shit all the time, and have had far more offensive campaigns. They don't have a high amount of credibility or popularity, even with people who agree with their ideals. 

I personally wouldn't waste my time and energy on trying to get PETA to do anything different. In fact, if they know a tactic or angle pisses people off, they don't stop doing it. They do it over and over again. They don't care about diversity, respect, or anything else but their own narrow agenda.


----------



## gangstadawg (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> I'll bring the coffee and cookies!



damn the cookies. get some donuts.


----------



## fatmac (Aug 20, 2009)

I saw an interview with a PETA spokesperson in response to this ad and he defended it by saying it was a twofold message. Save animals and fight obesity. He admitted no offense and was actually pretty smug about his position.

PETA has never been on my hit parade, but this is a new low. One more example that political correctness ends at my fat. 

Mac


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

gangstadawg said:


> damn the cookies. get some donuts.



Is jelly okay? :eat2:

This whole thing is so freakin' silly. Targeting fat people to make what point, that vegetarians are thinner? Fat attacking aside, it's just stupid. Like many fat people, I was at my fattest when I ate the highest percentage of carbs. Carbs are the easiest for our bodies to turn into fat -- animal protein is the hardest.

It's just plain effin' stupid.


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

Geektastic1 said:


> PETA has done this before, over and over and over again. They have not only insulted fat people before, but have repeatedly insulted other groups of people. They don't care. They *know* they are offensive, and have been repeatedly told so. They deliberately do this to make a stink and to get in the news.
> 
> Most of the public is pretty tired of PETA and their stunts. They aren't taken seriously by most people. People actually *do* listen to Jay Leno and laugh at his jokes. A "fat tax" has been floated as a serious proposal. But PETA? They do this kind of shit all the time, and have had far more offensive campaigns. They don't have a high amount of credibility or popularity, even with people who agree with their ideals.
> 
> I personally wouldn't waste my time and energy on trying to get PETA to do anything different. In fact, if they know a tactic or angle pisses people off, they don't stop doing it. They do it over and over again. They don't care about diversity, respect, or anything else but their own narrow agenda.



I think most of the nay-sayers here were anti-PETA BEFORE this latest campaign.
I, for one, would actually feel like shit just starting to protest _now_ that they've made fun of fat people or just BECAUSE they've attacked us. They've offended me on far deeper levels than my weight. They've offended my humanity and my intelligence.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Is jelly okay? :eat2:
> 
> This whole thing is so freakin' silly. Targeting fat people to make what point, that vegetarians are thinner? Fat attacking aside, it's just stupid. Like many fat people, I was at my fattest when I ate the highest percentage of carbs. Carbs are the easiest for our bodies to turn into fat -- animal protein is the hardest.
> 
> It's just plain effin' stupid.



Agreed. I eat very little meat and I'm pretty fat.

Also Vickie, I could use a nurses advice. Gonna PM you.


----------



## butch (Aug 20, 2009)

fwiw, NAAFA has responded to this billboard. As to the conference, well, NAAFA was just lobbying on Capitol Hill at the beginning of the month, because they were in town for their convention. Otherwise, they don't have the money, the resources, or the people to stage the sort of conference/protest you're asking for. As for the other SA groups I know of, haven't heard a peep out of them, and I imagine their budgets, resources, and people power are much less than NAAFA's.

We won't get the kind of public outrage some of us want until a sizable portion of fat people do something besides complain on the internet. I'm just as guilty as the next person, but the facts are the facts, we fat people haven't had our Rosa Parks, our Stonewall, our Seneca Falls Convention, etc., and until we do, PETA and everyone else will score points off fatties as the scapegoat for all kinds of societal ills.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 20, 2009)

butch said:


> We won't get the kind of public outrage some of us want until a sizable portion of fat people do something besides complain on the internet. I'm just as guilty as the next person, but the facts are the facts, we fat people haven't had our Rosa Parks, our Stonewall, our Seneca Falls Convention, etc., and until we do, PETA and everyone else will score points off fatties as the scapegoat for all kinds of societal ills.



Agreed, I need to check out some of the other groups because I just can't make myself get behind NAAFA. For a fat acceptance group, they aren't very accepting. At least in my experience...


----------



## butch (Aug 20, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Agreed, I need to check out some of the other groups because I just can't make myself get behind NAAFA. For a fat acceptance group, they aren't very accepting. At least in my experience...



I hear so much good, and so much bad, that I don't know what to think. Which is why I probably don't go to a convention or chapter meeting.

In all the hullaballo over this, I never even paid attention to where this billboard is? Anyone know? If I could, I'd go in my bathing suit with other people and protest.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 20, 2009)

butch said:


> I hear so much good, and so much bad, that I don't know what to think. Which is why I probably don't go to a convention or chapter meeting.
> 
> In all the hullaballo over this, I never even paid attention to where this billboard is? Anyone know? If I could, I'd go in my bathing suit with other people and protest.




It's in Jacksonville, Florida. That would actually be a really cool protest, a bunch of fat women showing up in their bathing suits!


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 20, 2009)

I hate PETA and everything it stands for. I'm quite proud that I eat meat, even more so after a deer decided to run in front of my car. My position is just a bit short of being "If you're a vegetarian, shame on you". It's only because I respect that people can have a difference of opinion on that subject that I haven't made that my official position.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Isa said:


> Where is your protest or conference being held? What time should everyone show up?



Your attempt at sarcasm falls short when realizing that the same energy you took to do so could have been used to make a helpful and possibly productive suggestion about how we "all" could come together on this matter.

If you read carefully, I never said that "I" alone was assembling a conference but instead was asking for some posts that centered on the true nature of the thread's topic, instead of sidelining it (as off topic,the way this thread has gone)

In conclusion, I was suggesting that all size acceptance organizations and supporters should come together in an effort to sound-off about this latest offense.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 20, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> I hate PETA and everything it stands for. I'm quite proud that I eat meat, even more so after a deer decided to run in front of my car. My position is just a bit short of being "If you're a vegetarian, shame on you". It's only because I respect that people can have a difference of opinion on that subject that I haven't made that my official position.



Yeah, cause you know, that deer made a conscious decision to run in front of your car. It probably also stapled a Goodbye Cruel World suicide note on it's forehead that also said 

PS. 

_Fuck you and your car._

Actually, that'd of been pretty fantastic.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Your attempt at sarcasm falls short when realizing that the same energy you took to do so could have been used to make a helpful and possibly productive suggestion about how we "all" could come together on this matter.
> 
> If you read carefully, I never said that "I" alone was assembling a conference but instead was asking for some posts that centered on the true nature of the thread's topic, instead of sidelining it (as off topic,the way this thread has gone)
> 
> In conclusion, I was suggesting that all size acceptance organizations and supporters should come together in an effort to sound-off about this latest offense.



The problem with that is not all size acceptance groups are about the same thing. Even here at Dimensions there doesn't seem to be any real consensus about what is or isn't size acceptance.


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 20, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> Yeah, cause you know, that deer made a conscious decision to run in front of your car. It probably also stapled a Goodbye Cruel World suicide note on it's forehead that also said *PS. Fuck you and your car.*
> 
> Actually, that'd of been pretty fantastic.



It honestly looked like it did. The deer's standing on the side of the road, I see it standing there, and suddenly, it decides to run right in front of my car. Perfect.

But that's not the point. The point of that is, if you're dumb enough to do that, as deer are, you don't deserve to live. I love eating meat, always have and will do so for my entire life. Plus, I have a newfound respect for hunters.

And the point of my original thought is that PETA is a group of radical extremists that the world would also be better off without.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> The problem with that is not all size acceptance groups are about the same thing. Even here at Dimensions there doesn't seem to be any real consensus about what is or isn't size acceptance.



While I understand what you're saying, pales in comparison to the fact that a long time ago in Dimensions origins there was never any doubt what size acceptance was. The uncertainty didn't come into fruition until more recent times (the last 15 years or so). Way too PC.


----------



## Blackjack (Aug 20, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> It honestly looked like it did. The deer's standing on the side of the road, I see it standing there, and suddenly, it decides to run right in front of my car. Perfect.
> 
> But that's not the point. The point of that is, if you're dumb enough to do that, as deer are, you don't deserve to live. I love eating meat, always have and will do so for my entire life. Plus, I have a newfound respect for hunters.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 20, 2009)

How can somebody be ' proud ' to eat something. That's funny. And, shame on somebody for not eating a particular food? That's funny. * waits for the next funny person *


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 20, 2009)

They have a long history woman hating, child harassing and degrading stunts and this won't be their last. If I took them in anyway seriously anymore, I might be offended. But they have proved time and time again they care nothing about the wellfare of anyone and are nothing but self serving media whores. 

It wouldn't surprise me one day if they even finally admited they were just pranking eveyone Borat style. They are like internet trolls, best thing to do is ignore them. Because they thrive on the attention. Don't talk about them, don't report on them and dont post about them. You get upset, they win. You talk about them, they win. Just ignore them. 

But please, *please* don't let one bigoted self serving fringe group turn you off of animal welfare and those that do actually care for the well being of animals and people. There are plenty of groups that do actual good like the Human Society and the ASPCA. Donate to your local animal shelters, adopt pets from animal rescue centers. Every little bit helps.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm not trying to be pc, just honest. If we as a group can't agree about what fat or size acceptance is, how can we expect to be able to bring about change? 
For example, some people here think its ok to be fat so long as you aren't too fat, other people feel its perfectly acceptable to bash thin people because fat people get made fun of all the time. 
Neither of these ideas sit well with me and I wouldn't devote my time, energy, or money to any group who believed in them. 
If 15 years ago people knew what size acceptance was, where are they now? Why aren't they out there spreading their message and trying to bring in todays young people? 


FatKatLuvr said:


> While I understand what you're saying, pales in comparison to the fact that a long time ago in Dimensions origins there was never any doubt what size acceptance was. The uncertainty didn't come into fruition until more recent times (the last 15 years or so). Way too PC.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Sorry, but I just ran across an article about this (PETA) on AOL and was coming here to post about it when I came across this thread (if you really want to call it that).
> 
> Question: Has everyone here lost it or what???!!!
> 
> ...



Way to gain empathy and understanding for one group of people, by putting down another group, namely pet lovers.
How can politics and animals not be discussed when PETA is at the heart of the discussion?
I understand the point you are making, and people should be outraged about PETA'S latest offensive fat hating campaign, I just think your post was offensive.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Your attempt at sarcasm falls short when realizing that the same energy you took to do so could have been used to make a helpful and possibly productive suggestion about how we "all" could come together on this matter.



And your attempt to chastise us for not responding in the manner in which you want might have been better channeled into moving the discussion in a more "appropriate" way. FWIW, we've had these conversations about PETA, ad nauseum; I've been at Dimensions since 1997 or so, so this is nothing new. This was just one of many threads, and yes, we've examined and discussed their behavior, and how heinous they are, and for that reason many of us will never support them.

But to make assumptions that the reason we don't like them is because of their animal rights abuses is... well... unfair. 

FWIW, chastising people is never a good way to bring them together -- except perhaps in responding to you, which as you can see, some of us did. If you want to bring together the various SA organizations, then you can go ahead and get that ball rolling. I'd definitely be involved in something like that, for all the good I think it would do when it comes to PETA.



> If you read carefully, I never said that "I" alone was assembling a conference but instead was asking for some posts that centered on the true nature of the thread's topic, instead of sidelining it (as off topic,the way this thread has gone)



You didn't ask for anything. You scolded us, as if we were children.



> In conclusion, I was suggesting that all size acceptance organizations and supporters should come together in an effort to sound-off about this latest offense.



Hey, I think that's a great idea! Do you know people at the other SA groups that you could contact so we could make this a go?



fatgirlflyin said:


> If we as a group can't agree about what fat or size acceptance is, how can we expect to be able to bring about change?



Word. Just the whole fat acceptance versus size acceptance debate tells me that we're not speaking with one voice. That doesn't mean that we can't all come together against the fatism (and sexism, ageism, and other "isms") in PETA's advertising. But it will definitely make it harder. I'd like to see us come together against the Cleveland Clinic, whose admin is discussing banning fat people from their employee roles. We should be *outraged* that this is even being contemplated, and compare to not hiring smokers.

I think it's really clear that the leaders at PETA need to educate themselves about obesity.  But I hold no real hope that they will, only that they want to hold us up as examples of what could happen to people if they eat meat.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Susannah said:


> Way to gain empathy and understanding for one group of people, by putting down another group, namely pet lovers.
> How can politics and animals not be discussed when PETA is at the heart of the discussion?
> I understand the point you are making, and people should be outraged about PETA'S latest offensive fat hating campaign, I just think your post was offensive.



WOW! Sorry Sus, you missed the boat on this one!. I never put down pet lovers at all, I was complaining about the posts centering on the love of pets. The topic is not about what PETA' s mission is or their past or present agendas , or about how much anyone loves their pets, *it's about what they just did! *

You just proved my point further, this thread is no where near what the topic is about here and I guess that's why they'll succeed. 

Just so we're clear, "they" refers to PETA. They are the only ones all my posts in this thread are about.


----------



## DeniseW (Aug 20, 2009)

sounds like suicide to me dude. 





NoWayOut said:


> It honestly looked like it did. The deer's standing on the side of the road, I see it standing there, and suddenly, it decides to run right in front of my car. Perfect.
> 
> But that's not the point. The point of that is, if you're dumb enough to do that, as deer are, you don't deserve to live. I love eating meat, always have and will do so for my entire life. Plus, I have a newfound respect for hunters.
> 
> And the point of my original thought is that PETA is a group of radical extremists that the world would also be better off without.


----------



## Isa (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Your attempt at sarcasm falls short when realizing that the same energy you took to do so could have been used to make a helpful and possibly productive suggestion about how we "all" could come together on this matter.
> 
> If you read carefully, I never said that "I" alone was assembling a conference but instead was asking for some posts that centered on the true nature of the thread's topic, instead of sidelining it (as off topic,the way this thread has gone)
> 
> In conclusion, I was suggesting that all size acceptance organizations and supporters should come together in an effort to sound-off about this latest offense.



Did you bother to check any other SA sites or organizations to see if they had any responses to PETA before coming here in an outrage? My guess is no because as Butch stated above, NAAFA has already made a statement. 

I read your little diatribe carefully. Statements about how we all need to rise up in action without any information about how to go about it does absolutely nothing. Those that constantly state what others should do, while never making the first move, always fail to impress me.

IMO, currently the best thing people can do is spread the word about PETA's ignorant campaign. As the billboard appears to be in only one city the greatest way to inform the masses about it or anything else is usually via the web....you know, on sites just like this one.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

gangstadawg said:


> damn the cookies. get some donuts.



Are they creme filled? :eat2:


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> WOW! Sorry Sus, you missed the boat on this one!. I never put down pet lovers at all, I was complaining about the posts centering on the love of pets. The topic is not about what PETA' s mission is or their past or present agendas , or about how much anyone loves their pets, *it's about what they just did! *
> 
> You just proved my point further, this thread is no where near what the topic is about here and I guess that's why they'll succeed.
> 
> Just so we're clear, "they" refers to PETA. They are the only ones all my posts in this thread are about.



So, what have YOU done? It's pretty simple to bring nothing new to the discussion except criticism because you think that no one here has done anything. Some members in this thread have already sent their objections to PETA if you bothered to read the thread.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Isa said:


> Did you bother to check any other SA sites or organizations to see if they had any responses to PETA before coming here in an outrage? My guess is no because as Butch stated above, NAAFA has already made a statement.
> 
> I read your little diatribe carefully. Statements about how we all need to rise up in action without any information about how to go about it does absolutely nothing. Those that constantly state what others should do, while never making the first move, always fail to impress me.
> 
> IMO, currently the best thing people can do is spread the word about PETA's ignorant campaign. As the billboard appears to be in only one city the greatest way to inform the masses about it or anything else is usually via the web....you know, on sites just like this one.



No, I didn't bother to check to see if NAAFA or size acceptance groups had responded because I came here first to post about the article I had just read about this on AOL. I happen to notice that someone had already posted something, so I proceeded to read the thread and was (am) very disappointed. 

I came here first because I've always believed that Dimensions is a place that could still help make more changes in this crazy society.

I wasn't trying to give information I thought that suggestions could be discussed from the group of us and ideas could be formed on how to react to this issue. It wasn't a diatribe it was a rally-cry. 

What's the use of trying to convey such a sentiment when any suggestion of action will only fall on closed ears and ridiculers.

I wouldn't bother sharing any ideas here because you have already accepted that nothing will be done so I guess I'll have to as well.

I think people here are too hyper-sensitive. I wasn't attacking anyone but PETA. I'm not going to try anymore. 

Thanks for the lesson.:bow:


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

butch said:


> We won't get the kind of public outrage some of us want until a sizable portion of fat people do something besides complain on the internet. I'm just as guilty as the next person, but the facts are the facts, we fat people haven't had our Rosa Parks, our Stonewall, our Seneca Falls Convention, etc., and until we do, PETA and everyone else will score points off fatties as the scapegoat for all kinds of societal ills.



Thanks for the info about NAAFA.

The latter part is truly sad to acknowledge.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> I think people here are too hyper-sensitive. I wasn't attacking anyone but PETA. [snip]
> 
> It wasn't a diatribe it was a rally-cry.



I wonder why we'd feel attacked.

Hmmmmmmm...... Let's take a look, shall we? (bolded for emphasis)



FatKatLuvr said:


> Sorry, but I just ran across an article about this (PETA) on AOL and was coming here to post about it when I came across this thread* (if you really want to call it that)*.
> 
> Question: *Has everyone here lost it or what???!!!*
> 
> ...



Yeah, no insults there. 



FatKatLuvr said:


> While I understand what you're saying, pales in comparison to the fact that a long time ago in Dimensions origins there was never any doubt what size acceptance was. The uncertainty didn't come into fruition until more recent times (the last 15 years or so). *Way too PC.*



BTW, I've been posting at Dimensions and involved in SA since the mid 90's. I assume you haven't or else you'd have read these kinds of threads, rather than name dropping. Yes, what PETA did was abhorrent, and if you've read the thread you know that many of us have done other things besides post here. Your assumptions about us and our motives is insulting.



FatKatLuvr said:


> WOW!* Sorry Sus, you missed the boat on this one!. *
> 
> You just proved my point further, this thread is *no where near what the topic is about here and I guess that's why they'll succeed. *
> 
> Just so we're clear, "they" refers to PETA. They are the only ones all my posts in this thread are about.



So it's OUR fault that PETA lowers the level of discourse to such a juvenile level? We are to be blamed? Niiiiiiice.



> I wouldn't bother sharing any ideas here because you have already accepted that nothing will be done so I guess I'll have to as well.
> 
> I think people here are too hyper-sensitive. I wasn't attacking anyone but PETA. I'm not going to try anymore.
> 
> Thanks for the lesson.:bow:



So we shouldn't be insulted at all that you're telling us that what we're talking about is WRONG, that we are to be blamed if PETA continues its advertising campaign, and that the founders of SA would be ashamed of us? And to be upset about that is being "hyper- sensitive" or "too PC"??

Maybe you don't _feel_ you were attacking anyone, but you were in that you were attacking the discussion that we were having. How is that anything but going on the attack?

Funny rallying cry you've got there, Fatkatluvr. What a way to motivate! Go, you! :doh: BTW, I think you're right -- what PETA has done to fat people should also be discussed. But rather than berate people for the angle they choose to take, I was hoping -- when my medicine head cleared -- to bring up the anti-fat message as well. There are gentler ways (which you'd no doubt call "too PC") to motivate people before verbally hitting them over the head. But hey, I guess if your way _works_, then why not? Go for it!


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> No, I didn't bother to check to see if NAAFA or size acceptance groups had responded because I came here first to post about the article I had just read about this on AOL. I happen to notice that someone had already posted something, so I proceeded to read the thread and was (am) very disappointed.
> 
> I came here first because I've always believed that Dimensions is a place that could still help make more changes in this crazy society.
> 
> ...




I hate to point this out, but there's nothing in the OP that states this thread HAD to be about this particular ad. Of course it's the main thing mentioned, but there's nothing that prohibited talking about PETA's history. In fact, discussing their history just makes _sense_.

P.S. I have personally _physically_ protested PETA, and I'm one of the biggest "off-topic-goers" here. What have you done?


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> I wonder why we'd feel attacked.
> 
> Hmmmmmmm...... Let's take a look, shall we? (bolded for emphasis)
> 
> ...




You and everyone here are entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine and I stand by what I said. You've have taken what I have said out of context and that's a fact. 

If you or anyone here feels insulted, chastised or "hit over the head" then maybe you need to really examine why that is, because it's not about what I said. Observation and perception are too very different things.


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> You and everyone here are entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine and I stand by what I said. You've have taken what I have said out of context and that's a fact.
> 
> If you or anyone here feels insulted, chastised or "hit over the head" then maybe you need to really examine why that is, because it's not about what I said. Observation and perception are too very different things.



Considering Vickie isn't the ONLY one that's pointed it out, don't you think that maybe, just possible, even a minute little chance that you might be the one that's wrong?


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> You and everyone here are entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine and I stand by what I said. You've have taken what I have said out of context and that's a fact.
> 
> If you or anyone here feels insulted, chastised or "hit over the head" then maybe you need to really examine why that is, because it's not about what I said. Observation and perception are too very different things.



I don't see anything wrong with posters saying they love their pets in this thread especially since another post felt the need to stir things up a few pages back. And it's not being taken out of context when the words are right in front of you. If you think it is, by all means, clear it up so we can better understand.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

katorade said:


> I hate to point this out, but there's nothing in the OP that states this thread HAD to be about this particular ad. Of course it's the main thing mentioned, but there's nothing that prohibited talking about PETA's history. In fact, discussing their history just makes _sense_.
> 
> P.S. I have personally _physically_ protested PETA, and I'm one of the biggest "off-topic-goers" here. What have you done?



Actually, talking about PETA's history doesn't make sense when it pertains to their present discourse (the billboard). The thread has yet to discuss anyone being upset or outraged by what PETA did. Instead the thread just calmly went into a HallMark card about pets and then a rant about animal cruelity but nothing about offending large people and what should be done about it. 

There's was nothing said from me about it being wrong to love your pets. I loves pets but the topic here isn't (wasn't) about that. That's what I was pointing out. You may not like that I pointed it out but I did and I don't feel wrong in doing so. 

I've been around a longtime, when Dimensions first started this site and I was a loyal customer/purchaser of the print magazine that spawn this very site. I've read many posts and there's always someone pointing out that topics are going "off topic". Never read anyone being insulted by that.You just don't like the tone you *think *I was taking and so now you feel insulted. So extreme, so dramatic a stance.

You ask what I have done. I have spend the majority of my adult life defending large people from prejudice individuals in this world. I have spent countless hours in discussions and some heated verbal debates about the misconceptions that society has about being fat and fat people in general. I've taken a stance when witnessing first hand someone mistreating or insulting someone because of their size. I've helped many diffferent local businesses change their practices with regard to accommodating people of size. 

I'm always trying to enlighten the local hospitals (doctors, nurses, administators, etc.), when I witness or hear them making rude comments or giving a large patient prejudicial treatment.

While at the same time taking on personal attacks about my preferences from friends, family and total strangers. But these are small things when compared to the bigger picture, but even the small triumphs count. 

I would love to be a part of a group making an all out effort to stop the denigration of people of size in this country and abroad. That's what my post was mainly about.


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes, but in the spirit of staying on topic, as you so wish, what have you done about PETA? Talking about your non-PETA related efforts are as off topic as talking about activism to PETA's other wrong doings. It's a one degree difference in either direction.

I seriously don't think you read the entire thread, otherwise you'd see there was more than "I hate PETA, I love my pets!" diatribes.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

butch said:


> If you haven't read Kate Harding's take on this, you must do so now:
> 
> http://kateharding.net/2009/08/19/whom-we-talk-to-when-we-talk-about-fat/





FatKatLuvr said:


> Actually, talking about PETA's history doesn't make sense when it pertains to their present discourse (the billboard). The thread has yet to discuss anyone being upset or outraged by what PETA did. Instead the thread just calmly went into a HallMark card about pets and then a rant about animal cruelity but nothing about offending large people and what should be done about it.
> 
> There's was nothing said from me about it being wrong to love your pets. I loves pets but the topic here isn't (wasn't) about that. That's what I was pointing out. You may not like that I pointed it out but I did and I don't feel wrong in doing so.
> 
> ...



Also note post 103 in the thread. I think makes sense to bring up PETA's erratic advertising history because we all see this for what it is- a grab for attention.


----------



## Teleute (Aug 20, 2009)

Mathias said:


> Also note post 103 in the thread. I think makes sense to bring up PETA's erratic advertising history because we all see this for what it is- a grab for attention.



This, exactly. Their advertising history is ENTIRELY relevant to this discussion. I think a lot of the discussion of their practices came about because of some posts that have since been deleted, so you never saw them. The fact that they are essentially a bunch of real-life trolls is central to the discussion, however, because it completely changes how people react to the ad. It really is just like an internet troll... you roll your eyes and report them, but you never EXPECTED them to act intelligently, so it's not a big shock. I agree that it being so public is damaging to fat acceptance, and we should push to have it taken down, but I'm not at all surprised that they posted it.

Also, pretty much the entire first page or two of the thread is people expressing how upset they are about this billboard, so I'm not really sure why you said nobody's brought that up yet...


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

katorade said:


> Yes, but in the spirit of staying on topic, as you so wish, what have you done about PETA? Talking about your non-PETA related efforts are as off topic as talking about activism to PETA's other wrong doings. It's a one degree difference in either direction.
> 
> I seriously don't think you read the entire thread, otherwise you'd see there was more than "I hate PETA, I love my pets!" diatribes.



That's not correct. My non-PETA are "on topic" because the topic was about the insulting billboard aimed at people of size. The very fact that the billboard exist should have been enough to have a thread about how to stop such acts by PETA or other groups. Stopping PETA or any other companies from insulting people of size is directly related and on topic with my non-PETA related efforts. Because it's not about PETA, it's about what they did. It's about stopping ignorance, prejudice, hypocritcy and indecency.

I don't have a PETA related past problem with PETA. For the most part I have ignored them because I perceive them to be a bit too extreme when defending animals. I don't agree with throwing paint on people to make a point. It starts fights and people can get killed if it gets out of hand. Their other wrong doings aren't of interest to me but I'm certain since you have personal issue with them, then it's (the past) of interest to you and others. 

Their present wrong-doing is of personal interest to me and I thought there would be others who felt the same. 

Don't know if that clarifies things for you or anyone reading this. That's it in a nutshell. 

I read it all from beginning to end and my opinion still stands. Too and far between in my opinion, that's what I read.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> You and everyone here are entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine and I stand by what I said. You've have taken what I have said out of context and that's a fact.
> 
> If you or anyone here feels insulted, chastised or "hit over the head" then maybe you need to really examine why that is, because it's not about what I said. Observation and perception are too very different things.



Well, you just keep inspiring people the way you do. With you at the helm of any future endeavors against PETA, no doubt they'll feel the heat.  

As for what you've said, that's all we have to go by, isn't it? If you've been at Dimensions as long as you claim you have, then you must know of the many threads on this very topic. OTOH, your profile only says you've been here two years, hardly a very long time at all.

I applaud your passion, I really do. I just think that perhaps it shouldn't be directed _against _fat people, but _for_ them.


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> That's not correct. My non-PETA are "on topic" because the topic was about the insulting billboard aimed at people of size. The very fact that the billboard exist should have been enough to have a thread about how to stop such acts by PETA or other groups. Stopping PETA or any other companies from insulting people of size is directly related and on topic with my non-PETA related efforts. Because it's not about PETA, it's about what they did. It's about stopping ignorance, prejudice, hypocritcy and indecency.
> 
> I don't have a PETA related past problem with PETA. For the most part I have ignored them because I perceive them to be a bit too extreme when defending animals. I don't agree with throwing paint on people to make a point. It starts fights and people can get killed if it gets out of hand. Their other wrong doings aren't of interest to me but I'm certain since you have personal issue with them, then it's (the past) of interest to you and others.
> 
> ...



And our statements pertaining to PETA were also on-topic because they were _pertaining to PETA_! Again, there's NOTHING in this thread that specified the direction this thread had to take! Period. You don't get to dictate that 6 pages later, and your opinion isn't the final say.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

katorade said:


> And our statements pertaining to PETA were also on-topic because they were _pertaining to PETA_! Again, there's NOTHING in this thread that specified the direction this thread had to take! Period. You don't get to dictate that 6 pages later, and your opinion isn't the final say.



I never said my opinion was dictating anything, or the final say, I've stated that my opinion is my opinion and I stand by it, you give me too much credit. 

Just because I don't agree with the thread's less empassioned approach, doesn't make me wrong and I never said that you all were wrong, I just have question with your focus. And I'm entitled to do so and you are entitled not to like it. Is this still a democracy or is that for another thread?:bow:


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> That's not correct. My non-PETA are "on topic" because the topic was about the insulting billboard aimed at people of size. The very fact that the billboard exist should have been enough to have a thread about how to stop such acts by PETA or other groups. Stopping PETA or any other companies from insulting people of size is directly related and on topic with my non-PETA related efforts. Because it's not about PETA, it's about what they did. It's about stopping ignorance, prejudice, hypocritcy and indecency.
> 
> I don't have a PETA related past problem with PETA. For the most part I have ignored them because I perceive them to be a bit too extreme when defending animals. I don't agree with throwing paint on people to make a point. It starts fights and people can get killed if it gets out of hand. Their other wrong doings aren't of interest to me but I'm certain since you have personal issue with them, then it's (the past) of interest to you and others.
> 
> ...




It's not like all PETA does is take aim at fat people. They're an organization that protects animals, and they have a nasty track record for doing that in a number of crazy controversial ways. So, it would make sense that people would criticize them for that AND the billboard! And for the record, if this topic goes off course I have confidence that a mod will let us know.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> OTOH, your profile only says you've been here two years, hardly a very long time at all.
> 
> I applaud your passion, I really do. I just think that perhaps it shouldn't be directed _against _fat people, but _for_ them.



You mean my "new" profile says I've been here only two years. I was here on the original site before modifications and upgrades. My original profile was lost after site rebuilding and inactivity. But I was still checking in from time to time (lurking, I guess). I decided to get a new profile two years ago around my birthday, I had to call Conrad and get new access and their have been more modifications since then as well. But my knowledge of Dimensions and the history of the sa movement is well rooted.

My passion has always been *for* fat people, it just so happened that my opinions and/or observations has struck a disagreeable tone in those who happen to be fat or not.:bow:


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> You mean my "new" profile says I've been here only two years. I was here on the original site before modifications and upgrades. My original profile was lost after site rebuilding and inactivity. But I was still checking in from time to time (lurking, I guess). I decided to get a new profile two years ago around my birthday, I had to call Conrad and get new access and their have been more modifications since then as well. But my knowledge of Dimensions and the history of the sa movement is well rooted.
> 
> My passion has always been *for* fat people, it just so happened that my opinions and/or observations has struck a disagreeable tone in those who happen to be fat or not.:bow:



Oh. Okay. I'm just surprised that you've been around so long because there have been many threads about PETA on this site and I haven't seen you participate. It's surprising given how "empassioned" you are about it. You're right, though. Eighty something posts in less than three years is a huge time investment in this site.  

And yes, your "observation" has struck a "disagreeable tone" because it was offensive. I realize it might not be "PC" of me to say so, but I think you were out of line, calling the members of this thread out on what they chose to discuss.

You want to discuss PETA's anti-fat attitude? That's great! Go for it! This was your perfect opportunity. And yet you chose to continue to chastise us. Huh. Interesting.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Mathias said:


> It's not like all PETA does is take aim at fat people. They're an organization that protects animals, and they have a nasty track record for doing that in a number of crazy controversial ways. So, it would make sense that people would criticize them for that AND the billboard! And for the record, if this topic goes off course I have confidence that a mod will let us know.



Nice Try kiddo. I'm aware of what PETA is about and what they do. It's their present action that runs me red. Rehashing their not so glamorous PAST activity is not of interest to me. I'm aware of the mods, thanks. It does'nt stop one from stating their mind.:bow:


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> You mean my "new" profile says I've been here only two years. I was here on the original site before modifications and upgrades. My original profile was lost after site rebuilding and inactivity. But I was still checking in from time to time (lurking, I guess). I decided to get a new profile two years ago around my birthday, I had to call Conrad and get new access and their have been more modifications since then as well. But my knowledge of Dimensions and the history of the sa movement is well rooted.
> 
> My passion has always been *for* fat people, it just so happened that my opinions and/or observations has struck a disagreeable tone in those who happen to be fat or not.:bow:



Are you not aware of how controversial PETA can be? They asked the town of Hamburg NY to change to vegggieburg, went after a videogame company because the cooking game they made had meat in it, threw paint on people who chose to wear fur. I could go on, but the point some of us have been trying to make to you is that while it's bad that they went after fat people, it's not surprising. You want to be and advocate for size acceptance? Fine, but don't call all of us out because we don't show the same passion that you do. The movement needs more people like you, but try going after the critics of Kelly Clarkson for attacking her about her weight, not us.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Nice Try kiddo. I'm aware of what PETA is about and what they do. It's their present action that runs me red. Rehashing their not so glamorous PAST activity is not of interest to me. I'm aware of the mods, thanks. It does'nt stop one from stating their mind.:bow:



Way to miss the point.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

Mathias said:


> Are you not aware of how controversial PETA can be? They asked the town of Hamburg NY to change to vegggieburg, went after a videogame company because the cooking game they made had meat in it, threw paint on people who chose to wear fur. I could go on, but the point some of us have been trying to make to you is that while it's bad that they went after fat people, it's not surprising. You want to be and advocate for size acceptance? Fine, but don't call all of us out because we don't show the same passion that you do. The movement needs more people like you, but try going after the critics of Kelly Clarkson for attacking her about her weight, not us.



Matt, didn't they go after Whatshisface, the Mayor of NYC, because he had prostate cancer? Didn't they blame his cancer on the fact that he ate meat? I can't remember his name at the moment (cough medicine on board!) but it seems like I remember that ad and was totally horrified by it.

As you said, they have a long history of slamming people in order to gain attention. Sadly, this time, as before, it's fat people again. Next time it'll be little kids who drink milk.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Oh. Okay. I'm just surprised that you've been around so long because there have been many threads about PETA on this site and I haven't seen you participate. It's surprising given how "empassioned" you are about it. You're right, though. Eighty something posts in less than three years is a huge time investment in this site.
> 
> And yes, your "observation" has struck a "disagreeable tone" because it was offensive. I realize it might not be "PC" of me to say so, but I think you were out of line, calling the members of this thread out on what they chose to discuss.
> 
> You want to discuss PETA's anti-fat attitude? That's great! Go for it! This was your perfect opportunity. And yet you chose to continue to chastise us. Huh. Interesting.



For the record, for sensitivity sake, I didn't "chastise" you. And I haven't continued. I made one post, the rest of my posts have been defending my stance and trying to clarify misunderstanding, in order to get past all of this. You're chastising me for having an opinion that you think was insult. And there was no attack but I guess I'll never get you see that.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> For the record, for sensitivity sake, I didn't "chastise" you. And I haven't continued. I made one post, the rest of my posts have been defending my stance and trying to clarify misunderstanding, in order to get past all of this. You're chastising me for having an opinion that you think was insult. And there was no attack but I guess I'll never get you see that.



You mean you don't WANT to see it for what it was. It's there -- and in fact I re-posted the comments you made that I, and many others, saw as an attack -- but rather than seeing it as an opportunity to see what it was you'd said and why it was so offensive, you claimed I took your comments out of context. 

Asking people if they're "for real", belittling their love of animals, and blaming them for PETA's misdeeds is fairly attack-ey, don't you think? I understand that you don't _want_ to see yourself as being on the offensive; it's much more fun being the victim, having to "defend" yourself against reaction to what was just... merely... *blinky blink*... an observation. But the fact that several of us have responded that you did, in fact, offend us, should mean something. Shouldn't it? Whether it was your intent or not, you insulted a whole lotta people. Doesn't that mean something?

I'm still waiting for the discussion about PETA's fat hatred. What do you think we should do?


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Mathias said:


> Are you not aware of how controversial PETA can be? They asked the town of Hamburg NY to change to vegggieburg, went after a videogame company because the cooking game they made had meat in it, threw paint on people who chose to wear fur. I could go on, but the point some of us have been trying to make to you is that while it's bad that they went after fat people, it's not surprising. You want to be and advocate for size acceptance? Fine, but don't call all of us out because we don't show the same passion that you do. The movement needs more people like you, but try going after the critics of Kelly Clarkson for attacking her about her weight, not us.



I see your point and I mentioned the paint thing about two or three posts ago(please read). I'm against that type of activism on their part.

Your point is well made. I think I'll just keep my passion to myself.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Matt, didn't they go after Whatshisface, the Mayor of NYC, because he had prostate cancer? Didn't they blame his cancer on the fact that he ate meat? I can't remember his name at the moment (cough medicine on board!) but it seems like I remember that ad and was totally horrified by it.
> 
> As you said, they have a long history of slamming people in order to gain attention. Sadly, this time, as before, it's fat people again. Next time it'll be little kids who drink milk.



They did an anti meat campaign for kids a while back where they'd show cartoon animals being killed, and the tagline was "Your daddy killed me" or something like that.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> I see your point and I mentioned the paint thing about two or three posts ago(please read). I'm against that type of activism on their part.
> 
> Your point is well made. I think I'll just keep my passion to myself.



How about you redirect it?


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Is this still a democracy or is that for another thread?:bow:



Actually, it's not. It's a message board.

And just because people's passionate, and they ARE passionate, responses don't coincide with YOURS, doesn't mean they aren't relevant! How self-centered can you possibly be?


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Next time it'll be little kids who drink milk.




They already had a campaign encouraging college kids to drink beer rather than milk. MADD loooooved that one.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

Mathias said:


> They did an anti meat campaign for kids a while back where they'd show cartoon animals being killed, and the tagline was "Your daddy killed me" or something like that.



I think I remember that. I wonder, do they know how offensive they are, and not care? Or are they so whupped up in their agenda that they can't see it? I've known lots of people involved in causes -- from mercury toxicity to breastfeeding to natural childbirth -- who were so hot to make a point and further their agenda that they truly couldn't see that what they were doing was actually alienating people who would otherwise be on their side. 

The Mister and I knew one guy who was totally anti water fluoridation and to make his point, he'd go into dental offices and dump rat poison on the front desk. (A form of fluoride is also used as rat poison and fluoride, in high amounts, is toxic). Did he honestly think that people would change their minds, based on his "bold move"?? Yes, he *DID*! Needless to say, all he did was piss people off, and Anchorage continues to have its water fluoridated because goons like him couldn't "play nice".

It's really too bad that PETA's actions have the unintended effect of alienating people from animal rights. I think they have some excellent points about acknowledging the pain that animals experience, treating animals with respect, etc etc etc but they carry it too far, in my opinion. It's really too bad when animal lovers like me can't hop on board. OTOH, there are lots of great animal rights organizations out there that are all too happy to have my money.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 20, 2009)

katorade said:


> They already had a campaign encouraging college kids to drink beer rather than milk. MADD loooooved that one.



They did WHAT??? Holy crap! The mind... it boggles...


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> You mean you don't WANT to see it for what it was. It's there -- and in fact I re-posted the comments you made that I, and many others, saw as an attack -- but rather than seeing it as an opportunity to see what it was you'd said and why it was so offensive, you claimed I took your comments out of context.
> 
> Asking people if they're "for real", belittling their love of animals, and blaming them for PETA's misdeeds is fairly attack-ey, don't you think? I understand that you don't _want_ to see yourself as being on the offensive; it's much more fun being the victim, having to "defend" yourself against reaction to what was just... merely... *blinky blink*... an observation. But the fact that several of us have responded that you did, in fact, offend us, should mean something. Shouldn't it? Whether it was your intent or not, you insulted a whole lotta people. Doesn't that mean something?
> 
> I'm still waiting for the discussion about PETA's fat hatred. What do you think we should do?



I don't find this turn of events fun in the least. I don't claim or feel like a victim in any sense. Once again and in several other posts in this thread. I have stated that I did not belittle anyone's love of animals, I respect that. The comment was about turning the "THREAD" into loving your pet instead of about the insulting billboard. How on earth do you spin into me belittling animal lovers. I was speaking in reference to the context of the thread not the issue of being an animal lover. Two completey different things.

Like I said in an earlier reply, this was about the focus of the thread. If my tone was a bit over the top. Then yes I agree it was over the top. I'm not out for attention, I honestly was looking some agreeable anger about the billboard and I didn't feel that the thread conveyed that feeling, so I said so. 

Sorry, you all didn't like. Sorry, you took offense. 

I didn't blame anyone for PETA's misdeeds. I said that it would be a disservice to future young large people if nothing was done to stop PETA or any company from doing something like this. PETA's misdeeds, past, present or future are of their own doing. I said it would be a shame if they went unpunished by a collaborative effort from everyone in the sa movement.

I made some suggestions about starting something against PETA in my first post but everything I said before that part has taken on a life of it's own. Unfortunately, to the point that I'm going to just stick to visiting here to see what's going on but I'm no longer going to engage in threads. I will leave them to you to navigate as you see fit without a disagreeable opinion in sight. :bow:


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> I don't find this turn of events fun in the least. I don't claim or feel like a victim in any sense. Once again and in several other posts in this thread. I have stated that I did not belittle anyone's love of animals, I respect that. The comment was about turning the "THREAD" into loving your pet instead of about the insulting billboard. How on earth do you spin into me belittling animal lovers. I was speaking in reference to the context of the thread not the issue of being an animal lover. Two completey different things.
> 
> Like I said in an earlier reply, this was about the focus of the thread. If my tone was a bit over the top. Then yes I agree it was over the top. I'm not out for attention, I honestly was looking some agreeable anger about the billboard and I didn't feel that the thread conveyed that feeling, so I said so.
> 
> ...



How much more can really be said about the billboard other than the fact that it's offensive and PETA's run by a bunch of assholes? What do you think about it?


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Mathias said:


> How much more can really be said about the billboard other than the fact that it's offensive and PETA's run by a bunch of assholes? What do you think about it?



I totally agree! and i'm out.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> I totally agree! and i'm out.



And we STILL don't know what your opinion is on the ad in question.


----------



## katorade (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Sorry, you took offense.



The proper apology would be "I'm sorry I offended you."



> I didn't blame anyone for PETA's misdeeds. I said that it would be a disservice to future young large people if nothing was done to stop PETA or any company from doing something like this. PETA's misdeeds, past, present or future are of their own doing. I said it would be a shame if they went unpunished by a collaborative effort from everyone in the sa movement.
> 
> I made some suggestions about starting something against PETA in my first post but everything I said before that part has taken on a life of it's own. Unfortunately, to the point that I'm going to just stick to visiting here to see what's going on but I'm no longer going to engage in threads. I will leave them to you to navigate as you see fit without a disagreeable opinion in sight. :bow:




The whole point of our disagreement is that the people here are ALLOWED to be JUST AS upset with anything else PETA has done. I, as a fat person, am offended by their save the whales campaign, but I'm also offended by their OTHER campaigns that offend me as not just a fat person, but *AS A PERSON*.

The fact that we did not show an overwhelming response to _just_ this campaign because it's possibly on par with sensitivity to our other sensibilities does not mean that we're not passionate about it. I can be equally passionate in my response to them offending fat people as I can to them offending Jews, or parents, or non-vegetarians, or pet owners, etc.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

Mathias said:


> And we STILL don't know what your opinion is on the ad in question.



My opinion about the PETA Billboard is, my opinion is that PETA or any company should be given an education on what is humorous and what is offensive humor. They should be made aware that while their intent might have been assumingly noble (in their eyes) it is rooted in the most degrading form of apathy and that it is unacceptable.

The billboard should be removed. There should be a nationwide petition sent to PETA requesting it's removal. 

I don't believe for a second that they didn't know that such a display would be found insulting to people of size or their supporters and love ones. 

I believe it was an attempt to see how far they could go, that's why they only did it in Florida, a test run of sorts. They figured if there was no overwhelming opposition that they would go nationwide with it.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Aug 20, 2009)

katorade said:


> The proper apology would be "I'm sorry I offended you."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am sorry that I offended you all. 

It really wasn't what I intended. 

My stance was over the top but my intent was to have a passionate discussion that centered more on what to do about the kind of outright disrespect that PETA was displaying in such a public way. It was tasteless and tacky of them and I was very upset about that. And that anger may have tainted my approach in making a meaningful post to the thread.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 20, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> My opinion about the PETA Billboard is, my opinion is that PETA or any company should be given an education on the what is humorous and what is offensive humor. They should be made aware that while their intent might have been assumingly noble (in their eyes) it is rooted in the most degrading form of apathy and that it is unacceptable.
> 
> The billboard should be removed. There should be a nationwide petition sent to PETA requesting it's removal.
> 
> ...



Whelp, it took three pages of bullshitting around the bush but there you have it folks!


----------



## DeniseW (Aug 21, 2009)

my brain hurts


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 21, 2009)

FatKatLuvr said:


> I am sorry that I offended you all.
> 
> It really wasn't what I intended.
> 
> My stance was over the top but my intent was to have a passionate discussion that centered more on what to do about the kind of outright disrespect that PETA was displaying in such a public way. It was tasteless and tacky of them and I was very upset about that. And that anger may have tainted my approach in making a meaningful post to the thread.



Thank you. 

And yeah, I'm not sure what to do about it. We've written letters, we've posted here (fat lot of good that does, but still, it makes us feel better), and .... nada. I think they really don't care that they're offending us, because they think it's worth it. They probably believe that old adage -- any publicity is good publicity. 

I'd love to picket them, though. Think that might get some attention?


----------



## missmiss (Aug 21, 2009)

sad...really sad...

just wanted to throw in my two cents


----------



## gangstadawg (Aug 21, 2009)

Mathias said:


> Are you not aware of how controversial PETA can be? They asked the town of Hamburg NY to change to vegggieburg, went after a videogame company because the cooking game they made had meat in it, threw paint on people who chose to wear fur. I could go on, but the point some of us have been trying to make to you is that while it's bad that they went after fat people, it's not surprising. You want to be and advocate for size acceptance? Fine, but don't call all of us out because we don't show the same passion that you do. The movement needs more people like you, but try going after the critics of Kelly Clarkson for attacking her about her weight, not us.



they also got pissed at the makers of the call of duty video game series because it showed dogs getting hurt and killed.


----------



## Spanky (Aug 21, 2009)

I never liked PETA. This action just cements my opinion of them. You don't use the shoulders of others to raise yourself up higher than others. 

I do have to admit that I believe strongly in knowing your food source, teaching children about where their food comes from and armed with that knowledge, prepare them to make intelligent decisions about their food as adults. 

I like meat, I think it is, in proper quantities, an excellent protein source for growing children.....boys (in my case). We are sharing our second bull with friends that have 70 acres in Wisconsin. The "little" guy here was purchased as a young calf and has had a nice large sheltered wooded and grassy area to run around, stretch his legs, scratch his back, sit in the sun or shade on and on. He even comes when you call him. He is about 6 months old and already about 600 lbs. He will be fed up to about 1200 pounds and will be slaughtered in Oct 2010. 

I like knowing where and how he is being raised, what he is eating and the fact he can be a bovine in a safe and open setting. My boys see the source of their hamburger and meat and can understand the cycle and how it works. Knowing this, if either one decides that they do not like it or find killing animals for food distasteful, they will make that decision based on solid observation. 

We get our pork from a farm in Wisconsin too. We see the piglets raise to adults again, in a nice open pen, full of dirt and mud and open area to lounge around and be.....well.....pigs. 

So in a way, I understand groups working to better regulate animal raising and slaughter. It can be terrible for them so that we get to eat meat. I have made a conscious decision to unplug from that industry and find a better way that I find humane. Others may not, and that is their opinion, but I can only control my own actions. I know these animals are being raised well, are happy and happy animals will make for better meat in the long run. 

Sorry to blather on. 

Here is our bull. His name is Lunchbucket. Healthy and good looking chap. He is a Holstein. Wonderful set of straight horns coming in.

Sorry to go OT, but I figured most of the discussion had been hashed out.


----------



## Your Plump Princess (Aug 21, 2009)

Do they not realize that mankind is itself, animals? 
It is animal nature, to eat meat. 
Because just like other animals, it smells like --YES! .. FOOD! 
Animals eat Other Animals, That's just how NATURE intended and how NATURE Works.


Yes. They should not suffer in their death, that I find Wrong. 
I also find it wrong that some choose to pump animals with who-knows-what just to make them ..whatever. Crunchier, Juicer, Bigger, Ect.


As for the billboard.
I think they need an ass-chewing, Personally.
Because it IS so offensive. 
In school, people used to yell "Save the Whales!" to me every day. For years. .
I don't want it to be encouraged. That's just fucking *sick*! [SCUSE THE LANGUAGE]


----------



## smithnwesson (Aug 21, 2009)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2660464236_8c29dfcaee.jpg?v=0

 -Jim


----------



## frankman (Aug 21, 2009)

Why couldn't they just do another ad with Alicia Silverstone naked again? I could really get behind those ads.

If PETA really wanted to make a difference in the amount of animals being consumed, they'd sponsor Paris Hilton to do all burger ads. I wouldn't eat anything she touched. 

I blame the whole campaign on Carl's Jr., for aiming low.


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 21, 2009)

Blackjack said:


>



Nice picture. Not really accurate or relevant to this thread in any way, shape or form, but a nice usage of Photoshop nonetheless.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 21, 2009)

The fact that Peta's adversising campaigns are fucking rediculous are not going to put me off supporting animal rights, though it does put me off supporting them. Perhaps if they spent less money on all the tasteless advertising they wouldn't have to euthenize so many of the animals that come into thier shelters.


----------



## pdesil071189 (Aug 21, 2009)

This is Society. People think its ok to make fun of fat people. Especially in Florida. Where the billboard is located. I personally hate PETA. I really do they are just a bunch of crybaby misguided collage students that want something to bitch about. There are much more effective organizations out there. Its offensive and PETA thinks its ok hey we should call Foul on them like they do when. A deer hunter post his video of him killing a deer on youtube. lol


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 21, 2009)

mergirl said:


> The fact that Peta's adversising campaigns are fucking rediculous are not going to put me off supporting animal rights, though it does put me off supporting them. Perhaps if they spent less money on all the tasteless advertising they wouldn't have to euthenize so many of the animals that come into thier shelters.



Ah, but if they focused more on helping animals and less on sensationalism, they wouldn't be PETA. They'd just be a decent organization with a reasonable goal that animal lovers could feel good about supporting. But that's PETA, they're always going for the sensationalism over, you know, actually doing something for their cause.


----------



## Friday (Aug 21, 2009)

You know, when people have a mission they generally set out to gather people to their cause. They do that with rational discourse and demonstration and always an attempt to create a kinship that makes others want to assist them in their cause, Then there are malignant growths like PETA. From day ONE their goal has been acquiring money and notoriety and their main tactic to do so has been emotional bullying, propaganda and physical attacks. That's all they are, a big bunch of bullies, just like the ones in junior high that backed you up against a locker and whispered 'I will make your life hell'. They don't give a rats ass about animal welfare, they're only interested in $$$ and having someone recognize them on a street some where like a B movie player.

No, I'm not going to get anymore excited about the fat campaign than I have over any other of their bigoted campaigns. It isn't any more important than their other disgusting tactics. They always single out one small segment of society and try to bully and batter them into submission. I am and will remain totally repulsed by their bully tactics, harassment and their propensity for giving small children nightmares because that's the kind of slime they are. I would truly love to have one of their brainless tools get all up in my face. I would so enjoy it. But my argument with PETA is with the organization they are, not with he fact that this time I happen to be a targeted victim of their latest bullyfest


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 21, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> It honestly looked like it did. The deer's standing on the side of the road, I see it standing there, and suddenly, it decides to run right in front of my car. Perfect.
> 
> But that's not the point. The point of that is, if you're dumb enough to do that, as deer are, you don't deserve to live. I love eating meat, always have and will do so for my entire life. Plus, I have a newfound respect for hunters.



I have a newfound respect for deers _purposely_ running in front of cars to sacrifice themselves to off idiots.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 21, 2009)

that's pretty cool Spanky! 
When we were little my parents did the same thing with cows and pigs shared the cost of raising and slaughtering one or two with an uncle and it was the best meat, proabably because they were allowed to be happy and healthy like you said. 

My dad is also a hunter so any game that he gets is eaten and the skins either used for something or given to someone who would use them. 




Spanky said:


> I never liked PETA. This action just cements my opinion of them. You don't use the shoulders of others to raise yourself up higher than others.
> 
> I do have to admit that I believe strongly in knowing your food source, teaching children about where their food comes from and armed with that knowledge, prepare them to make intelligent decisions about their food as adults.
> 
> ...


----------



## debz-aka (Aug 21, 2009)

PETA seem to be a group of perpetual teenagers (sorry about the insult to sane teenagers), but you know the type. They use what they consider disturbing images to be _in your face_, they know how to shake up the _establishment_, which has nothing to do with starting an honest dialogue. In an honest dialogue, they might just have to look at themselves and examine their own bigoted actions. In fact, I bet they are surprised by the concept that their ad is bigoted. I imagine they think they are very open minded, so much so that they put the feeling of animals before humans. 

I eat meat, however, after reading *Fast Food Nation* I really started to vote with my dollars by supporting business that sell free range meats. To be honest, the meat tastes better. I also believe in hunting and fishing, I think Germany has the best idea: they put hunters in charge of managing their forests. This makes a lot of sense because the hunters have a vested interest in keeping the deer herds healthy, while making sure they are not over hunted.

Okay, I'm done. I'll get off the soap box, to be honest it's been left soiled with PETA crap.


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 21, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I have a newfound respect for deers _purposely_ running in front of cars to sacrifice themselves to off idiots.



To sacrifice themselves to off themselves? That's a little redundant.


----------



## Paquito (Aug 21, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> To sacrifice themselves to off themselves? That's a little redundant.



Actually, the idiot in BGB's post was the dumbass who thinks that deers purposefully jump in front of cars to kill themselves, not the actual deer.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 21, 2009)

Here's Montell Williams interviewing a PETA spokesperson. She even mentions it's a grab for attention. The woman who called in and Montell made some good points.


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 21, 2009)

free2beme04 said:


> Actually, the idiot in BGB's post was the dumbass who thinks that deers purposefully jump in front of cars to kill themselves, not the actual deer.



See it happen for yourself and then you can comment. Until then, your insult is baseless.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 21, 2009)

Too bad it wasn't a moose, eh?


----------



## Wagimawr (Aug 21, 2009)

Tooz said:


> Too bad it wasn't a moose, eh?


Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...


----------



## intraultra (Aug 21, 2009)

Mathias said:


> Here's Montell Williams interviewing a PETA spokesperson. She even mentions it's a grab for attention. The woman who called in and Montell made some good points.



"We have an obesity epidemic and it's largely due to people's addiction to meat." What? So many ridiculous things that PETA spokesperson said. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## StarWitness (Aug 21, 2009)

I dunno about the deer's nefarious motives, but...


----------



## katorade (Aug 21, 2009)

debz-aka said:


> I also believe in hunting and fishing, I think Germany has the best idea: they put hunters in charge of managing their forests. This makes a lot of sense because the hunters have a vested interest in keeping the deer herds healthy, while making sure they are not over hunted.



Debz, I thought you may find this bit of information interesting and even comforting. There are actually numerous hunt clubs in America that utilize a similar philosophy to Germany. Hunters will pay annual dues for the right to use a plot of land to legally hunt, but they are also responsible for upkeep of the ecosystem and reporting any signs of poachers they discover. Upkeep could be anything from clearing brush to taking down beaver dams that isolate/block water supplies to the rest of the area.

My father is a member of such clubs and is an avid hunter, and when he was younger worked for the national parks system in California. He has a greater appreciation for wildlife than pretty much anyone I know. 

I grew up in a household where I saw my meat go from a field dressed carcass to venison au poivre, or from full bird to roaster, and not only can I say that I still enjoy meat, but that I have a greater appreciation for it now than someone who hasn't seen where their food comes from, or that I caught myself (not much of a gun girl, but I loved me some fishing!). I absolutely love it when militant vegans tell me "you wouldn't want to eat meat any more if you knew where it came from", because most of them don't realize that indeed I have been eye to eye with a dead deer that was going to show up later on my plate.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 21, 2009)

katorade said:


> Debz, I thought you may find this bit of information interesting and even comforting. There are actually numerous hunt clubs in America that utilize a similar philosophy to Germany. Hunters will pay annual dues for the right to use a plot of land to legally hunt, but they are also responsible for upkeep of the ecosystem and reporting any signs of poachers they discover. Upkeep could be anything from clearing brush to taking down beaver dams that isolate/block water supplies to the rest of the area.



I wish we had something like this in Alaska.  The Native Alaskan tribes have managed their animal resources for millenia, without problems, because they understood the ebb and flow, the balance of predator and prey, etc. However, unfortunately there are many hunters on our Fish and Game Board (and lots of hunting guides as well whose income comes from people from the Lower 48 forking out money to go hunting up here), and they're responsible for managing the wildlife. What has ended up happening is that people like Sarah Palin (and she's by no means the worst) go after the wolves because they compete with humans for the caribou and moose, mowing down entire packs from airplanes. Native Alaskans did the same thing, but not from airplanes, and they would _thin_ the wolf packs, using all the parts of the wolf, and with a real understanding of the balance necessary to keep the system going. 

I really would love to see what you describe up here. Unfortunately, instead what we have is, quite literally, the wolf in charge of the hen house (or however the saying goes). Between that and the craptastic energy policies that my state has, it's getting harder and harder for people to live a subsistence lifestyle. This is disastrous on so many levels I can't even begin to describe it.



> I absolutely love it when militant vegans tell me "you wouldn't want to eat meat any more if you knew where it came from", because most of them don't realize that indeed I have been eye to eye with a dead deer that was going to show up later on my plate.



I really wish that more of us had these kinds of experiences, including myself. For many of us, the closest we get to the source is the cellophane wrapped container. I'd love to go hunting, and help field dress an animal. It might change my relationship with meat. In the meantime, I'm just very grateful when my friends who hunt and fish bring me home a little treat. I'm not sure I'd be of much use on a hunting trip but it'd be really enlightening.


----------



## Brach311 (Aug 21, 2009)

Screw PETA! Donate your money to The Sea Shepard if you really want to save the whales. (love that show)


----------



## katorade (Aug 21, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> I wish we had something like this in Alaska.  The Native Alaskan tribes have managed their animal resources for millenia, without problems, because they understood the ebb and flow, the balance of predator and prey, etc. However, unfortunately there are many hunters on our Fish and Game Board (and lots of hunting guides as well whose income comes from people from the Lower 48 forking out money to go hunting up here), and they're responsible for managing the wildlife. What has ended up happening is that people like Sarah Palin (and she's by no means the worst) go after the wolves because they compete with humans for the caribou and moose, mowing down entire packs from airplanes. Native Alaskans did the same thing, but not from airplanes, and they would _thin_ the wolf packs, using all the parts of the wolf, and with a real understanding of the balance necessary to keep the system going.
> 
> I really would love to see what you describe up here. Unfortunately, instead what we have is, quite literally, the wolf in charge of the hen house (or however the saying goes). Between that and the craptastic energy policies that my state has, it's getting harder and harder for people to live a subsistence lifestyle. This is disastrous on so many levels I can't even begin to describe it.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately we no longer have many predatory animals to worry about down here, especially in VA where my parents live. In fact there are so FEW predators that their natural prey are now completely taking over, and even though the human population keeps growing, their numbers are incredibly strong. White-tailed deer are essentially a nuisance in Virginia and are sort of seen as bilge rats. They wreck trees, carry disease and parasites like deer ticks, and use up a lot of resources that other animals need to survive.
Fortunately their population number is easily sustained unlike a lot of other larger species that have longer gestation periods and require more time to rear young, so they are prime hunting animals. If not for hunters taking the place of their natural predators that are now long gone, the mid-atlantic would be overrun with a bunch of diseased deer.
I really do miss having access to my parents' freezer. They have a full size freezer that is stocked year-round with wild game. 

And to stay on topic with the original subject, the healthiest years of my life were fueled in majority by that freezer and my father's garden. Meat was a part of _every_ meal almost, along with other animal products like dairy or fats. 
It wasn't until I was older and making my own food choices that my weight took a hit from eating habits, and it was from incorporating pre-packaged foods full of preservatives and additives that were convenient. The majority of those foods were all _carbs_, with either no or inconsequential amounts of animal products in them. Potato chips, snack cakes, soda, processed cheese, crackers and snack mixes, etc. etc. People that live on FRESH diets are typically healthier, and that doesn't mean just fresh veggies, but includes fresh meat and dairy.


----------



## Paquito (Aug 21, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> See it happen for yourself and then you can comment. Until then, your insult is baseless.



You're right, there's a worldwide conspiracy created by the deer population to sacrifice themselves in order to take down the humans. Kamikaze anyone?


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 21, 2009)

free2beme04 said:


> You're right, there's a worldwide conspiracy created by the deer population to sacrifice themselves in order to take down the humans. Kamikaze anyone?


----------



## Mathias (Aug 21, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


>



I lol'ed


----------



## mossystate (Aug 21, 2009)

Cujo was BEGGING Dee Wallace Stone to kill him. You can see how she just does not ' get it '. :doh: It's not just deer.




View attachment 68942


----------



## cinnamitch (Aug 21, 2009)

Do not mention CUJO!! . I remember seeing that movie at the drive in and when my friend dropped me back home the neighbors dog ran out barking and i jump up on her chevette screaming like a madwoman. ( the dog was tiny)



mossystate said:


> Cujo was BEGGING Dee Wallace Stone to kill him. You can see how she just does not ' get it '. :doh: It's not just deer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## debz-aka (Aug 21, 2009)

katorade said:


> Debz, I thought you may find this bit of information interesting and even comforting. There are actually numerous hunt clubs in America that utilize a similar philosophy to Germany. Hunters will pay annual dues for the right to use a plot of land to legally hunt, but they are also responsible for upkeep of the ecosystem and reporting any signs of poachers they discover. Upkeep could be anything from clearing brush to taking down beaver dams that isolate/block water supplies to the rest of the area.
> 
> I absolutely love it when militant vegans tell me "you wouldn't want to eat meat any more if you knew where it came from", because most of them don't realize that indeed I have been eye to eye with a dead deer that was going to show up later on my plate.



Wow, that is so cool! Thanks for this post, I've known so many awesome respectful hunters, people who include the meat they hunt as part of their food budgeting. I too love to fish, I've skinned a couple rabbits for a dinner I help cook and I feel (and this is just something for myself) that I need to be part of that life cycle to justify being a carnivore. Just my own weird way of earning the space I take up on the planet.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 21, 2009)

I am generally veggi (cause i am against factory farming) but i ate some culled reindeer at xmas.. "Fuck you santa i ate rudolph! hahaha" I just has a taste of sausage though...i would say i only ate his nose.  It tasted shiney!


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 21, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I am generally veggi (cause i am against factory farming) but i ate some culled reindeer at xmas.. "Fuck you santa i ate rudolph! hahaha" I just has a taste of sausage though...i would say i only ate his nose.  It tasted shiney!



Ohhh I like reindeer and moose, I had both when I was living in Alaska last summer! Very yummy!


----------



## Surlysomething (Aug 21, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I am generally veggi (cause i am against factory farming) but i ate some culled reindeer at xmas.. "Fuck you santa i ate rudolph! hahaha" I just has a taste of sausage though...i would say i only ate his nose.  It tasted shiney!




You crack me up.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 21, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Ohhh I like reindeer and moose, I had both when I was living in Alaska last summer! Very yummy!


Ooh yum.. I used to make a mean deer stew. Not that the deer were mean..ach you know what i mean. Never eaten moose though cause i dont think they live in scotland. Next time i'm in Sweden i shall be yummering them all up! yaass!:eat2:
I ate wild boar though.. oh and buffalo - I thought buffalo tasted like the way i imagine their fur smells... yuck.. you know kinna like goats cheese?? bleerrrghh!



Surlysomething said:


> You crack me up.



Excellent work. 

Also, i would like it to be known that i would totally eat peta people..i imagine they would be bitter and dry though..och i would nom them anyway! :eat1:


----------



## Buffie (Aug 21, 2009)

Just now Whimsey and Charo started tracking something under the ottoman... so I got up to take a look. 

HUGE freaking SPIDER comes racing out from under it and my wonderful girls POUNCED immediately and killed the son of a bitch.

So what say PETA now?

Are my cats assholes for killing the spider? I mean, if we're going by PETA standards - my kitties have a RIGHT to do kitty stuff, right? Kitty stuff sometimes means killing a spider. Spiders are animals with RIGHTS too... so like who's right trumps whose? Whom? Who?

Yeah.


----------



## smithnwesson (Aug 22, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


>



Ha! That's funny. Rep sent. (Not that you're short of rep's or anything.)


----------



## frankman (Aug 22, 2009)

Buffie said:


> Just now Whimsey and Charo started tracking something under the ottoman... so I got up to take a look.
> 
> HUGE freaking SPIDER comes racing out from under it and my wonderful girls POUNCED immediately and killed the son of a bitch.
> 
> ...



I know what you mean. To avoid this PETA-rights confusion, you should raise a dinosaur. T-rex trumps everything.

Statement: "I think meat is murder/dairy is rape/fat people are evil/fur is for pussies."
Reply: "I have a Tyrannosaurus."

Boom, end of discussion.


----------



## protuberance (Aug 22, 2009)

Is it any surprise that those attention-whore cunts, PETA, did something like this?


----------



## moniquessbbw (Aug 22, 2009)

I'm so pissed that we are having a BBQ today with lots of steaks and bratwurst. Screw them it is eat or be eaten.


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Aug 22, 2009)

katorade said:


> It wasn't until I was older and making my own food choices that my weight took a hit from eating habits, and it was from incorporating pre-packaged foods full of preservatives and additives that were convenient. The majority of those foods were all _carbs_, with either no or inconsequential amounts of animal products in them. Potato chips, snack cakes, soda, processed cheese, crackers and snack mixes, etc. etc. People that live on FRESH diets are typically healthier, and that doesn't mean just fresh veggies, but includes fresh meat and dairy.



I'm with you on this one. Although I have a lot of allergies and am very picky, which does certainly affect what I can and do eat, I was a healthy child. A little chubby, but very active and healthy. I ate milk and ice cream straight from the dairy [where I could go pet the cows that provided it and did nearly every week], eggs from the local lady who had chickens, veggies and fruit from our garden [we had a veggie garden, several fruit and nut trees in our little "orchard"], and meat came from a high-quality butcher who didn't use the fillers and crap. We rarely ate fast food, partly due to cost and partly due to how far away it was to get to a McDonald's even. My dad was a sometimes hunter who also supplemented the family's food supply with deer or pheasant.

When my family moved away from all that, I know full well that my body was rejecting the "citified" versions of stuff - pre-packaged, chemical laden. Now, I've certainly gotten used to some of the chemical stuff. I like knowing that my experience will be consistent from time to time in a way that you don't always get with fresh stuff, as anyone who has gotten beautiful looking fruit and veggies that taste horrible can attest. But when I reduce the junk and even just cook more from scratch, I feel better.

I think we also know what balance of foods works best for us, if we pay attention to our bodies and how they function and feel. We don't all have the same genes or the same dietary needs.


----------



## rabbitislove (Aug 22, 2009)

Spanky said:


> I never liked PETA. This action just cements my opinion of them. You don't use the shoulders of others to raise yourself up higher than others.
> 
> I do have to admit that I believe strongly in knowing your food source, teaching children about where their food comes from and armed with that knowledge, prepare them to make intelligent decisions about their food as adults.
> 
> ...



This is awesome. Vegetarian here, but not militant. I agree, if you are going to eat meat, be educated. My hat goes off to farmers like yourself who take care of their animals. I'd be happier if all farms were like this, and factory farms were to end than if the entire world went vegetarian.


----------



## moore2me (Aug 23, 2009)

Posted by Spanky (edited)

We get our pork from a farm in Wisconsin too. We see the piglets raise to adults again, in a nice open pen, full of dirt and mud and open area to lounge around and be.....well.....pigs.

(end quote)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This reminded me of a TV news show the other day that was discussing a similar theme and a restaurant owner made this statement. "*All of our pork is raised in a free range environment and fed a vegan diet*." The gentleman seemed very proud of his pork dishes in his restaurant and the reporter was praising the mild and subtle flavor of the entrees.

What a joke, I thought. Anyone who has raised pigs or been around them much knows they are complete ominvores. They will eat anything they can catch. And I mean anything. If you have a free range pig that means he is outdoors. That means he will eat bugs, worms, snakes, and anything else he finds (including dead stuff). Vegan diet hah.


----------



## jakub (Aug 23, 2009)

PETA,
From idiots, to idiots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0exLa6saV9o


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 23, 2009)

He said they are fed a vegan diet. 
So maybe he just meant that the food they go out of their way to feed to the pigs contains no meat.




moore2me said:


> Posted by Spanky (edited)
> 
> We get our pork from a farm in Wisconsin too. We see the piglets raise to adults again, in a nice open pen, full of dirt and mud and open area to lounge around and be.....well.....pigs.
> 
> ...


----------



## protuberance (Aug 23, 2009)

Peta Kills Animals.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 23, 2009)

*Love PETA *
*Hate PETA*
I think it's time for Mr. T to make another appearence...

*Time to Grill Some Shark Steaks*







*The Dreaded Mr. T Shark Punch*
*"I Pity the PETA FOOL" - Mr. T *

-----------------------------
*Curious  - better follow that Mr. T Diet Regimen*






*And Don't Leave Home without the following *





*Mr. T in Your Pocket*


----------



## Famouslastwords (Aug 24, 2009)

My Mom used to make us rabbit stew on Easter.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 25, 2009)

Teleute said:


> Who ever said it was?



This thread--purportedly about fat acceptance--has been used as an occasion to list any number of beefs people have against PETA that have nothing at all to do with fat acceptance. Either we have a problem with PETA because of their anti-fat ad campaign, or we have a problem with PETA itself. It's clear that what we have in this thread is a whole lotta pent up anger at PETA and PETA's claims for animal rights. This thread isn't about promoting fat acceptance so much as it's about piling hate on PETA.

All I mean is that we should be clear about what we're doing, keep our eyes wide open, not lie to ourselves about what's going on here... That's all.

Right?

I thought you otherwise made some good points about the viability of PETA's tactics given the current state of things. One counterpoint I have: Have we really made enough progress toward treating animals humanely? I think that's up for debate.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 25, 2009)

deepreflection said:


> Nearly everyone supports the platitude that suffering is bad. Good lead in, you win the reader with the toss of a bone. It's now easier to accept that PETA's ideology is a solid one. But I am going to consider that the organization as a whole is responsible for it's actions and outcomes.



I ordinarily don't do this... but here's a platitude: It's "its actions and outcomes."




> PETA needs to take responsibility for the actions which are destructive and confrontational to gain my support. PETA frequently embraces media attention to multiply it's marketing.



PETA needs YOU, my friend. They need you.





> This parallels the evil-genius social engineering and politics that were put forward in WWI and WWII. The people were persuaded because, Something had to cause the social ills and weak German economy. The overwhelming influence of anything outside the Aryan ideology was contributing to the weakness. That with refinement of the social thinking society would show itself to be as grand as it once was and deserved to be. Never mind the early deplorable tactics or the future way we get there. The outcome will prove the idea to be right and it'll all be worth it.



Lord, deliver me from the argument from Naziism.

"The mere previous existence of Adolf Hitler proves that anyone or any group I personally find objectionable is EVIL EVIL EVIL."

This line of thinking, sir or madam, is pure buffoonery! Buffoonery, I tell you!




> It's important to stand against that which you do not support. Each voice makes up the din of healthy society. For that reason *I* do not stand by and wait 30 years for PETA's organization to act unchecked. They hide behind simple ideas that *I* support in my own way, because *I* do not align with their tactics and in some cases lack of respect for their members.



Fair enough. You root for yours and I root for mine.

Most sensical thing you've said all day.

But all it means is that you don't like PETA and that you choose not to support them. 

You haven't given me one good reason in response to anything I wrote as to why I should change _my own mind_ about how I feel.




> That's what PETA and scapegoat genocide is about to me.



Come again? Whose genes exactly is PETA targeting in this genocide? What genocide?


----------



## pjbbwlvr (Aug 25, 2009)

This Ad is so insulting! I strongly support saving whales, but I think PETA has lost it! V/r Paul 



madisonaikers said:


> http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/...lboard-has-the-intertwitter-fraternal-council
> 
> 
> My jaw literally dropped when I opened the article!


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 25, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> This thread--purportedly about fat acceptance--has been used as an occasion to list any number of beefs people have against PETA that have nothing at all to do with fat acceptance. Either we have a problem with PETA because of their anti-fat ad campaign, or we have a problem with PETA itself. It's clear that what we have in this thread is a whole lotta pent up anger at PETA and PETA's claims for animal rights. This thread isn't about promoting fat acceptance so much as it's about piling hate on PETA.



Well, I think it's been a little bit of both. I think people (particularly people who love animals) are tired of PETA's more...attention grabbing... tactics, for lack of a better word. I have a problem with PETA because a) I think their marketing strategies are horrible and b) I think they are fat phobic. I'm also not sure I agree with their core beliefs that it's okay to release pets into the wild, we shouldn't do any animal research, etc. AND they're fat phobic (at least so far as they use obesity to make their point).



> One counterpoint I have: Have we really made enough progress toward treating animals humanely? I think that's up for debate.



Oh I agree that we're not nearly where we should be when it comes to the treatment of animals. We have a TON of work to do, from so many different perspectives -- getting people to spay and neuter their pets, puppy mills, buying animals from pet shops... the list goes on.

But that doesn't mean that I think PETA is necessarily the best group to speak for animals. Since their message tends to alienate people from the cause, it almost seems counter intuitive. 

You know who's a great spokesperson for animals? Betty White. She doesn't go negative, her love of animals is obvious, and she makes such perfect sense. But the way PETA goes about doing stuff, it's almost in a Howard Stern kind of way, and that doesn't move me, except to put my money and time elsewhere, which I have to believe isn't good for animals.


----------



## Kbbig (Aug 27, 2009)

I like where PETA is going here. Their next ad campaign can be "You know who eats sea-kittens? Fat people. Save the Whales, Save the Sea-Kittens."


----------



## Chef (Aug 27, 2009)

Have you seen their campaign against McDonalds?





Yikes! I'd go to a protest just so I could get my hands on one of those boxes! Hi-frickin-larious!


----------



## mergirl (Aug 27, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *Love PETA *
> *Hate PETA*
> I think it's time for Mr. T to make another appearence...
> 
> ...


I will just never NEVER tire of seeing Mr T punching a shark!! I want to see him punching more dangerous animals!!!!!!!


----------



## mergirl (Aug 27, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Well, I think it's been a little bit of both. I think people (particularly people who love animals) are tired of PETA's more...attention grabbing... tactics, for lack of a better word. I have a problem with PETA because a) I think their marketing strategies are horrible and b) I think they are fat phobic. I'm also not sure I agree with their core beliefs that it's okay to release pets into the wild, we shouldn't do any animal research, etc. AND they're fat phobic (at least so far as they use obesity to make their point).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1-I totally agree.
2-Nice to see your mug as opposed to your other mug in your Avitar! (Do you call faces 'mugs' in America? If not call me muggins!)


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 27, 2009)

mergirl said:


> 1-I totally agree.
> 2-Nice to see your mug as opposed to your other mug in your Avitar! (Do you call faces 'mugs' in America? If not call me muggins!)



*laugh* Thanks, Mer! Yes, we call them "mugs". Well, I do anyway!


----------



## DeniseW (Aug 27, 2009)

well, you all got your wish...lol, they replaced the billboard with another that says "GONE. Just Like All the Pounds Lost by People Who Go Vegetarian. GoVeg.com." I know you probably won't think it's much better but at least they listened...


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 27, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I will just never NEVER tire of seeing Mr T punching a shark!! I want to see him punching more dangerous animals!!!!!!!








*Hi MerGirl: I pity those dangerous animals - here's Mr. T. taking on a Crocodile * 

*Makes you hungry for a plate of 
Crocodile Fillets*


----------



## frankman (Aug 27, 2009)

DeniseW said:


> well, you all got your wish...lol, they replaced the billboard with another that says "GONE. Just Like All the Pounds Lost by People Who Go Vegetarian. GoVeg.com." I know you probably won't think it's much better but at least they listened...



Sad thing is they got their press coverage o' plenty. Peta's being discussed everywhere, and the new poster will probably get almost as much coverage. You have to hand it to those "people"; at least their campaigns are drawing attention.

It really makes me sick that some spin-doctor advertising consultant asshole who doesn't give a rat's ass about veggies, meat, endangered animals or the law for that matter (discrimination is illegal) has done his work and will get paid handsomely for calculating the positives and negatives of this campaign and for bringing Peta back in the picture.

Something just feels a bit violated. They 'stole' a win by being asshats. I wish there was some way that they would just be ignored, no matter what they shout, because every reaction is a nett positive for them.

It just makes a man cynical.


----------



## Dantes524 (Aug 28, 2009)

Sorry to contribute so late, but the O'Reilly Factor (please don't judge me, the old folks always have it on) just picked this story up the other day. What was PETA thinking? There are more 'big' folks in the US of Adipose than wafers. Fie on thee, PETA!


----------



## mergirl (Aug 28, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *Hi MerGirl: I pity those dangerous animals - here's Mr. T. taking on a Crocodile *
> 
> *Makes you hungry for a plate of
> Crocodile Fillets*



Oh.. boo hoo.. i can't see it!!!! Next i want him to work in a factory farm punching chickens to death!! haha.. Argue with THAT peta!!


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 28, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Oh.. boo hoo.. i can't see it!!!! Next i want him to work in a factory farm punching chickens to death!! haha.. Argue with THAT peta!!



We'll have to see what adventures are in store for Mr. T ....







*I guess no Chickens were harm in the preperation of this meal*


----------



## smithnwesson (Aug 28, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> We'll have to see what adventures are in store for Mr. T ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha! Shame on you. Rep sent.

Edited: I can't sent you any reps now. Will do it later.


----------



## Orso (Sep 16, 2009)

I was away and saw the post only now, but I want to add my comment.

In Italian 'peta!' means 'fart! Make a fart!' 

They were true to their name.


----------

