NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090409/ten-pet-shop-boys-spurn-rescue-shelter-r-a56114e.html

Electro-pop pioneers Pet Shop Boys turned down a request from animal rights group PETA Europe to adopt a more creature-friendly name, the band revealed on their website Thursday.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals suggested Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe rename themselves Rescue Shelter Boys to draw attention to the plight of animals raised in pet shops.

"Dear Neil and Chris, You have many loyal fans of the Pet Shop Boys here at PETA. Will you please consider changing your name from the Pet Shop Boys to the Rescue Shelter Boys?" pleaded a letter to the group from Yvonne Taylor, PETA's special projects manager.

"Most dogs and cats sold in pet shops are sourced from profit-hungry breeders who may have bred them in cramped, filthy conditions.

"For every bird who reaches a pet shop, three others have died during capture, confinement and transportation.

"Hamsters, mice and other rodents are often bred by the pet shops themselves, leading to inbreeding, genetic weaknesses, physical deformities and behavioral disorders.

"By agreeing to change your name to the Rescue Shelter Boys, you would help raise awareness about the cruelty involved in the pet trade and encourage your millions of fans to consider giving a home to an abandoned or unwanted animal from an animal shelter. So, what do you say?"

The pair, whose hits include "West End Girls", It's a Sin" and "Suburbia" declined the request, claiming they were "unable to agree," but said it "raises an issue worth thinking about."

So essentially some whiny do-gooders tried to make a well known band change their name, which is probably one of the thing people remember them for. The phail. Everyone laughs. Your thoughts?

Fucking PETA lol.

I'm starting to get bored with PETA.

Ha,ha,ha...

I'm starting to get bored with PETA.

I agree with you.

You should have left the posts. I could have agreed with you on each one. We could kill PETA with spam.

I think the People Eating Tasty Animals should change their name to something less offensive.

I'm starting to think PETA are international trolls to make vegans look bad.

I think the People Eating Tasty Animals should change their name to something less offensive.
I'm a member of that.

Was PETA ever a serious organization, or do people just join for the lolz?

They should ask the Beach Boys to change the title and cover artwork of their album Pet Sounds.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090409/ten-pet-shop-boys-spurn-rescue-shelter-r-a56114e.html



So essentially some whiny do-gooders tried to make a well known band change their name, which is probably one of the thing people remember them for. The phail. Everyone laughs. Your thoughts?

I always find it highly frustrating and very sad that people who do pursue goals that I agree with - in this case animal rights - inevitably totally overdo it and make the whole thing look plain ridiculous.
I guess that's what sane Christians must feel like a lot of the time. :(

I agree with you.

You should have left the posts. I could have agreed with you on each one. We could kill PETA with spam.

Or convince Homeland Security that Ingrid Newkirk is a devout Muslim. That'll bring on the investigations.

I heard about this, from the radio at the barber's. And it's stupid.

They should ask the Beach Boys to change the title and cover artwork of their album Pet Sounds.

PETA should change their name to not include P, E and T in that order in their acronym. I mean, come on, what kind of message does that send? Think of the children!

You should have left the posts. I could have agreed with you on each one. We could kill PETA with spam.
They'd be absolutely horrified! Unless, of course, it's vegetarian fake-meat Spam. :p

Or convince Homeland Security that Ingrid Newkirk is a devout Muslim. That'll bring on the investigations.

Not with Barack Hussein Obama running the show, dhimmi-boy. :tongue:

It might, however, get him to bow to her.

I'm a member of that.

then stop going after the musical groups and start going after the puppy farms! :mad:

Think of the children!

Think of the kittens!

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgwiz02715+fluffy-kittens-cute-baby-cats-poster.jpg

then stop going after the musical groups and start going after the puppy farms! :mad:
:eek: I don't eat puppies!

It might, however, get him to bow to her.

If Bush was still president, would he kiss her?

http://aleksandrakristina.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bush-kiss.jpg

:eek: I don't eat puppies!

you sure?

http://www.terrencemiao.com/funny/2005-04/That_wasn_t_chicken.jpg

:eek:

you sure?

http://www.terrencemiao.com/funny/2005-04/That_wasn_t_chicken.jpg

:eek:
Because it's a cat!

:eek:

I always find it highly frustrating and very sad that people who do pursue goals that I agree with... inevitably totally overdo it and make the whole thing look plain ridiculous.
This.

A collective *sigh* from many of the vegetarians/animal lib supporters of the world.

Because it's a cat!

:eek:

Then they'll change the promotion to "Legal All You Can Eat Pussy".

Then they'll change the promotion to "Legal All You Can Eat Pussy".
Are those the pussies they BARE? *mouth waters* :)

Are those the pussies they BARE? *mouth waters* :)

you could probably request them shaven...

Attacking Peta is like Attacking Rush Limbaugh too easy and a waste of time.

Attacking Peta is like Attacking Rush Limbaugh too easy and a waste of time.

Except Limbaugh has never actually killed kittens and puppies and he has never financially supported terrorists.

Except Limbaugh has never actually killed kittens and puppies

How can you be sure of this?

How can you be sure of this?
"Innocent until proven guilty"?

How can you be sure of this?

Well, no documented cases of Limbaugh killing kittens and puppies. He's probably killed plenty of hush puppies in his lifetime though.

Well, no documented cases of Limbaugh killing kittens and puppies. He's probably killed plenty of hush puppies in his lifetime though.

:D;):p

i'm not seeing the epic failure. i take it you guys thought peta actually thought they would get them to change their name rather than just generate a bit of additional publicity? or maybe that the pet shop boys shot down peta because they hate puppies or something? but given that not only does the op's article cite their official website as the source of the whole story, but a quick check on the old internets shows that not only did the pet shop boys display the entire text of the letter from peta on their website, but they also said it brought up an issue worth thinking about and specifically linked to peta so fans could go learn more.

i call epic fail on the declaration of epic fail.

i call epic fail on the declaration of epic fail.

I call Epic fail on your declaration of epic fail, on the original declaration of epic fail.

Just so I can use epic fail 3 times in a sentence

rather than just generate a bit of additional publicity?

But surely the publicity they did gain was overwhelmingly negative? So failure?

Also, the alternative name they suggested? You have to admit, it was a very lame name, so again, not helping with the negative publicity thing.

i'm not seeing the epic failure. i take it you guys thought peta actually thought they would get them to change their name rather than just generate a bit of additional publicity? or maybe that the pet shop boys shot down peta because they hate puppies or something? but given that a quick check on the old internets shows that not only did the pet shop boys display the entire text of the letter from peta on their website, but they also said it brought up an issue worth thinking about and specifically linked to peta so fans could go learn more.

i call epic fail on the declaration of epic fail.

The epic fail is that people are actually caving in to PETA's often frivolous and trivially ridiculous demands and complaints, especially given how the organization is built upon a foundation of hypocrisy. You know, I wouldn't be so keen on listening to complaints about animal rights from a group that adopts animals from shelters for the specific purpose of euthanizing them and keeping their corpses preserved for later propaganda usage, or that pays for the criminal defense of a domestic terrorist in addition to serving as a Sinn Fein-style mouth piece for domestic terrorists.

Besides the Pet Shop Boys, there's also the stinker that PETA raised about the Cooking Mama games supposedly promoting animal cruelty, and the tasteless satire Flash game produced on their behalf.

Most sensible people don't give a shit about what PETA whines about. It's when someone actually caves in to their attention whoring that the human soul dies a little more.

It's like everyone is stuck in the eighties. I can't wait for it to be morning in america again.

It's like everyone is stuck in the eighties. I can't wait for it to be morning in america again.

Working on resurrecting Reagan now.

Maybe PETA requested this april 1st :p ?

But.. yeah. Not good.

But surely the publicity they did gain was overwhelmingly negative?

was it? let's not mix up the immediate knee-jerk "omfgwtfbbq!!!! i hateses peta!" seen on the internet and in certain quarters of society at large, with how it was actually viewed. i mean, those types would see anything that didn't involve peta disbanding as a negative.

PETA doing stupid and/or asinine things is not news. Now, PETA not doing something stupid and/or laughable, that would be news.

Well, no documented cases of Limbaugh killing kittens and puppies. He's probably killed plenty of hush puppies in his lifetime though.

Sad too really dog meat taste so good and is healthy for you.

was it? let's not mix up the immediate knee-jerk "omfgwtfbbq!!!! i hateses peta!" seen on the internet and in certain quarters of society at large, with how it was actually viewed. i mean, those types would see anything that didn't involve peta disbanding as a negative.

Well, if it involves peta not disbanding then it is a negative.

Don't tell PETA, but I hear Snoop Dogg let the dogs out...

XD

Well, if it involves peta not disbanding then it is a negative.

It could be worse they could be ALF.

Now see, what happens when I form the acid jazz quartet the Factory Farm Four?

Most sensible people don't give a shit about what PETA whines about. It's when someone actually caves in to their attention whoring that the human soul dies a little more.

You mean, like this thread?

"Rescue Shelter."

HA!

"Kinder to critters than 'Pet Shop'…"

HAAA!!

After PeTA was found to have killed 97% of the adoptable pets in their "rescue shelter"…

ROFLMCE (rolling on floor, laughing myself cross-eyed) Help, help, O Ghod, make 'em stop!! I'm gonna be sick!!! [spasming in hilarity]

…

[blink blink]
Y'mean they were serious??! o_O

Now see, what happens when I form the acid jazz quartet the Factory Farm Four?

If you let me join, I promise I'll actually use cat guts for my catgut strings...

It could be worse they could be ALF.

Doesn't PETA send funds to ALF?

Doesn't PETA send funds to ALF?

http://www.dvdzap.ca/dvd-imgs/3257d0/alf-season-1-pochette-avant.jpg ? :p

You know, I think PETA is often ridiculous, but I am hard-pressed to see how "PETA gets loads of free publicity for making a slightly goofy request that harmed no one and could not rationally be considered offensive" = "epic fail." Seems like PETA accomplished precisely what they set out to do, to me.

You know, I think PETA is often ridiculous, but I am hard-pressed to see how "PETA gets loads of free publicity for making a slightly goofy request that harmed no one and could not rationally be considered offensive" = "epic fail." Seems like PETA accomplished precisely what they set out to do, to me.

If they subscribe to the "Bad Publicity is Still Publicity" theory, then yes, they've largely succeeded. On the other hand, one can be hardpressed lately to find any stories on PETA behavior that does not fall under either the Ridiculous or the Incredulous. Usually both.

If they subscribe to the "Bad Publicity is Still Publicity" theory, then yes, they've largely succeeded. On the other hand, one can be hardpressed lately to find any stories on PETA behavior that does not fall under either the Ridiculous or the Incredulous. Usually both.
Yet one is not hardpressed to find stories about PETA.

They continue to be, by far, the most prominent organisation promoting vegetarianism/animal lib; to such a point that no discussion of said issues involving North Americans comes without some reference to the sometimes idiocy of PETA.

Although you and others may find them to be consistently ridiculous, many obviously support them. I'm sure this action will further the polarisation.

Yet one is not hardpressed to find stories about PETA.

They continue to be, by far, the most prominent organisation promoting vegetarianism/animal lib; to such a point that no discussion of said issues involving North Americans comes without some reference to the sometimes idiocy of PETA.

Although you and others may find them to be consistently ridiculous, many obviously support them. I'm sure this action will further the polarisation.

I personally find popular support for PETA to be about as distasteful as popular support for Proposition 8. Yes, there are a sizeable number of people who agree with the views espoused but given the comments and conducts of PETA's upper echelon as well as rank-and-file I find their attempts to coopt and inextricably tie themselves to animal rights and vegetarianism to be unpleasant. No different from Westborough Baptist Church trying to associate itself with Christianity or various Jihadi groups like Al'Qaeda insisting they speak for the whole of Islam.

Except Limbaugh has never actually killed kittens and puppies and he has never financially supported terrorists.

So he's never donated money to the GOP?

*runs*

:p

Working on resurrecting Reagan now.

I already did. I shoved an electrode up his ass and sent over 40,000 volts of electricity into him. I then fed him he Brains of PETA members. ALL HAIL ZOMBIE REAGAN! ALL HAIL ZOMBIE REAGAN! ALL HAIL ZOMBIE REAGAN! ALL HAIL ZOMBIE REAGAN! ALL HAIL ZOMBIE REAGAN!

Dear Queen of England,

PETA salutes England, it is a very nice country but we have a problem with your emblem. Seems there is a lion in one version. If you could remove that lion it would raise awareness about animal rights. You could replace the lion with a knight---people associate England with knights, so there should be no problem with this request.

If you don't comply Peta may be forced to dream up some very cultish and freaking weird public demonstration of our outrage.

Yours for the rights of all animals,

George Mellonpie
PETA International

I'm starting to get bored with PETA.

At my office we don't allow LAV (more or less, the italian equivalent to PETA) petitioners anymore. They wanted us to support a law to give to every single dog 20 square meters of space. That when here in Italy many young couples with a kid live in 30 square meters. Stupid fuckers, we ousted them and told them never to come back.

I personally find...

indeed

Those guys are always good for a little chuckle, but that's about as far as it goes.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090409/ten-pet-shop-boys-spurn-rescue-shelter-r-a56114e.html



So essentially some whiny do-gooders tried to make a well known band change their name, which is probably one of the thing people remember them for. The phail. Everyone laughs. Your thoughts?

I don't think they were "trying to make them" so much as asking if they would. I write to companies all the time and ask them if they'll do stuff for me, sometimes they say "yes" and good things happen, like gluten free chocolate Lucky Charms. I won't quit writing and asking...why would I?

I guess that's what sane Christians must feel like a lot of the time. :(

More than you know. *winces as everyone cites Waco*

As for PETA, I think they completely overdo everything: no one takes 'em seriously, so even when they happen to demand something reasonable, everyone laughs at it because their reputation preceeds them.

More than you know. *winces as everyone cites Waco*
Waco Waco Waco.

Sounds like taco. :p

As for PETA, I think they completely overdo everything: no one takes 'em seriously, so even when they happen to demand something reasonable, everyone laughs at it because their reputation preceeds them.

ah, yes, that's why major corporations like mcdonalds have never entered into negotiations with, let alone actually capitulated to, peta. oh, wait...

seriously, you guys are falling for one of the most obvious traps ever and you are getting circles run around you.

...?

Waco Waco Waco.

Sounds like taco. :p

Hey Catholics are the original animal rights group. We don't eat meat on Fridays! We save cows! Lots of cows! :P :tongue:

Hey Catholics are the original animal rights group. We don't eat meat on Fridays! We save cows! Lots of cows!

Buddhists first! They don't even eat cows at all

Touche. (That is the right way to spell it, right?)

Touche. (That is the right way to spell it, right?)

I believe so.

Buddhists first! They don't even eat cows at all
Jains first! They don't hurt any living thing!

Jains first! They don't hurt any living thing!

I see you and i raise you some obscure historic cult from prehistory who's name we shall never know and is probably the basis for all the world's religions!

I see you and i raise you some obscure historic cult from prehistory who's name we shall never know and is probably the basis for all the world's religions!
Haha!

No.

Don't Buddists either? Or were they established after Jains?

Hey Catholics are the original animal rights group. We don't eat meat on Fridays! We save cows! Lots of cows! :P :tongue:

Butbut... God LIKES the smell of burning cow in the morning. It is an odour that is pleasing to the Lord.

Haha!

No.

You cant refute my unprovable evidence so there for I win!

(It works for religious arguments all the time!)

You cant refute my unprovable evidence so there for I win!

(It works for religious arguments all the time!)
Haha! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain)

I send an army of Jains to get ya! :p

Haha! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain)

I send an army of Jains to get ya! :p

I block them with an army of southern baptists.

I block them with an army of southern baptists.
My ebil moslemz reinforcements will follow! Muwahahahaha! :p

I block them with an army of southern baptists.

Oh God...THE HATS! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!! :p

I counter both of you with a horde of Catholics who will burn, rape, pillage, and plunder your holy landz!!!11!!one!

Butbut... God LIKES the smell of burning cow in the morning. It is an odour that is pleasing to the Lord.

Maybe the Christian God founded PETA. Since many people here like to say that PETA cares more about animals than humans and the Christian God sacrificed a human so other humans could stop sacrificing animals to him....

And a horde of Pagans. Because everything is so much cooler with pagans.

I eat meat to keep cows in their place, and prevent this. (http://www.optimiced.com/wp-uploads/2007/09/cows-with-guns.jpg)

Butbut... God LIKES the smell of burning cow in the morning. It is an odour that is pleasing to the Lord.

Nonsense. He likes sheep SO much better. Not as messy, either.

Maybe the Christian God founded PETA. Since many people here like to say that PETA cares more about animals than humans and the Christian God sacrificed a human so other humans could stop sacrificing animals to him....

Hmm that could be...

Maybe the Christian God founded PETA. Since many people here like to say that PETA cares more about animals than humans and the Christian God sacrificed a human so other humans could stop sacrificing animals to him....

Well, Christianity and respect for nature can indeed go hand in hand.
A pity that the "we are the caretakers of a world God gave us, let us actually treat it with care" view however is far less popular than "this world is our promised land. Let us rape it till the second coming !"

Was PETA ever a serious organization, or do people just join for the lolz?

Many other animal rights organizations are starting to claim that peta is not as serious as they should be about protecting animals.

...?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=peta+mcdonalds+negotiations

My ebil moslemz reinforcements will follow! Muwahahahaha! :p

excellent, you fell for my trap, I call Born Again Bush and posse!!

Doesn't PETA send funds to ALF?

From what I understand, yes they do.

From what I understand, yes they do.

And, for that Ive never understood why no one has bothered to revoke their tax exempt status.

And, for that Ive never understood why no one has bothered te revoke their tax exempt status.

because there is no there there, pretty much.

because there is no there there, pretty much.

:confused:

because there is no there there, pretty much.

Stop eating the Shrooms.

:confused:

do you honestly forget the outcome of these discussions from one thread to the next or do you just never pay attention in the first place?

do you honestly forget the outcome of these discussions from one thread to the next or do you just never pay attention in the first place?

Holy shit you are on shrooms.

Holy shit you are on shrooms.

son, all of this has been done before and you apparently are unaware of famous phrases.


for those of us just tuning in, peta hasn't lost its tax-exempt status because either:
a) the bush administration was run by animal liberationists
or
b) they weren't actually found to have done anything wrong in donating to a couple of people's legal defense funds.

you make the call!

was it? let's not mix up the immediate knee-jerk "omfgwtfbbq!!!! i hateses peta!" seen on the internet and in certain quarters of society at large, with how it was actually viewed. i mean, those types would see anything that didn't involve peta disbanding as a negative.

I don't know. All I know is, I know very view people that support PETA. In, fact, I don't know anyone who supports them. But I do know many vegans that hate them. I'm presuming however, that it was reported by the majority of publications like it was in the OP source, and I presume that most people probably had that knee-jerk reaction.

do you honestly forget the outcome of these discussions from one thread to the next or do you just never pay attention in the first place?

I couldn't make any sense of your statement.

I couldn't make any sense of your statement.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/21262.html

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/21262.html

Ahh

I love the spamminess of the post in this thread, and the nonsensical rambling aout shrooms. This thread has stolen the key to my heart.

I love the spamminess of the post in this thread, and the nonsensical rambling aout shrooms. This thread has stolen the key to my heart.

Stop eating the Shrooms.

I don't know. All I know is, I know very view people that support PETA. In, fact, I don't know anyone who supports them. But I do know many vegans that hate them. I'm presuming however, that it was reported by the majority of publications like it was in the OP source, and I presume that most people probably had that knee-jerk reaction.

there isn't anything particularly negative in the afp story. any negative reaction seems to me to be entirely bound up with preexisting conditions.

i've known lots of peta partisans, myself. we probably just run in different crowds.

part of the thing to remember is that peta isn't trying to win popularity contests, peta is trying to attract more activists. then those activists go to work annoying the crap out of some target, eventually causing said target to cave.

son, all of this has been done before and you apparently are unaware of famous phrases.


for those of us just tuning in, peta hasn't lost its tax-exempt status because either:
a) the bush administration was run by animal liberationists


Ths bush administration did support the use of terror tactics.
There was blitz on Arab TV of become Vegan commercials paid for by PETA during and after the invasion of Iraq. Yes the Bush PETA alliance seems obvious now.

Stop eating the Shrooms.

:fluffle:

part of the thing to remember is that peta isn't trying to win popularity contests, peta is trying to attract more activists. then those activists go to work annoying the crap out of some target, eventually causing said target to cave.

And of course if mere annoyance doesn't work, PETA yells some rhetoric and let's their nasty sibling ALF make do with burglars, vandals, graverobbers and firebombs. Maybe they'll include murderers in their ranks one day.

As for no prosecution yet because of no evidence, do you imagine that infiltrating government offices and intelligence bureaus with the explicit purpose of stealing and destroying information would result in prosecution? You'd imagine it would, but CoS was never prosecuted for doing just that. Claiming no prosecution due to no evidence doesn't work very well all the time.

As for no prosecution yet because of no evidence, do you imagine that infiltrating government offices and intelligence bureaus with the explicit purpose of stealing and destroying information would result in prosecution? You'd imagine it would, but CoS was never prosecuted for doing just that. Claiming no prosecution due to no evidence doesn't work very well all the time.

you have an interesting idea of what 501(c) status is

And of course if mere annoyance doesn't work, PETA yells some rhetoric and let's their nasty sibling ALF make do with burglars, vandals, graverobbers and firebombs. Maybe they'll include murderers in their ranks one day.

Free Soviets is really good at ignoring this.

I suppose if the Mormon church can keep their tax exempt status so can peta.

I suppose if the Mormon church can keep their tax exempt status so can peta.

Hey, you can campaign for the suppression of equal treatment for a certain group or hypocritically promote animal rights while killing off numerous numbers of the same and supporting domestic terrorism with tax-exempt status.

As long as you're not Muslim. Then they shut you down in a heartbeat, just like the Holy Land Foundation.

:D

Free Soviets is really good at ignoring this.

ignoring what? that the alf exists?

ignoring what? that the alf exists?

Too many shrooms have you eaten if you believe the show ALF is real.

ignoring what? that the alf exists?

That PETA supports/funds ALF.

That PETA supports/funds ALF.

There might not be flagrant proof that they financially support ALF, but they have served as Sinn-Fein style mouthpiece for them in the past.

That PETA supports/funds ALF.

ideologically supports, obviously. funds legal defense campaigns, of course. nothing wrong with either of those.

but how exactly even could one go about actually funding an organization that doesn't have a central command? who cashes the check?

ideologically supports, obviously. funds legal defense campaigns, of course. nothing wrong with either of those.


Nothing wrong with defending people who firebomb, who break and enter, who threaten people in the name of an ideology? There are too many things wrong with that.

part of the thing to remember is that peta isn't trying to win popularity contests

Yes, that certainly seems to be the case.


, peta is trying to attract more activists.

Well, I don't think they're very successful at it. Indeed, trivial pursuits like this don't really help them attract more.

Nothing wrong with defending people who firebomb, who break and enter, who threaten people in the name of an ideology? There are too many things wrong with that.

Tricky. In their eyes, they are no different than the resistance in WW II, sabotaging concentration camps and nazi death squads. Most people would not call such actions "bad" as such.

That WE do not consider the life of an innocent Jew and the life of an innocent seal comparable at all is of course a problem.

Tricky. In their eyes, they are no different than the resistance in WW II, sabotaging concentration camps and nazi death squads. Most people would not call such actions "bad" as such.

That WE do not consider the life of an innocent Jew and the life of an innocent seal comparable at all is of course a problem.

In their eyes, of course not. But I believe I'm still sane, and that our government can be petitioned, and is still a Democracy. :wink:

In their eyes, of course not. But I believe I'm still sane, and that our government can be petitioned, and is still a Democracy. :wink:

Republic I hope ;) A democracy is one of the most repugnant forms of government imaginable for a nation of significant size.

And of course, that a majority has no problem with the torture or killing of certain types of life does not make those actions right in the eyes of the people that are disgusted by them.

Tricky. In their eyes, they are no different than the resistance in WW II, sabotaging concentration camps and nazi death squads. Most people would not call such actions "bad" as such.

That WE do not consider the life of an innocent Jew and the life of an innocent seal comparable at all is of course a problem.

Keep in mind that Ingrid Newkirk openly declared the poultry industry to be a worse atrocity than the Holocaust. That there defines the mindset of PETA.

In their eyes, of course not. But I believe I'm still sane, and that our government can be petitioned, and is still a Democratic Republic. :wink:

Fixed

Republic I hope ;) A democracy is one of the most repugnant forms of government imaginable for a nation of significant size.

And of course, that a majority has no problem with the torture or killing of certain types of life does not make those actions right in the eyes of the people that are disgusted by them.

Fixed

RRRRGH! I'm the one that's supposed to catch that, and now I have used the term myself! I have dishonored myself and my family! *commits seppuku* :D

*commits seppuku* :D

*acts as kaishakunin*
That means I get to behead you:D

Keep in mind that Ingrid Newkirk openly declared the poultry industry to be a worse atrocity than the Holocaust. That there defines the mindset of PETA.

Well, not entirely. If one truly believes that the meatindustry is equivalent to the nazi killing industry, one SHOULD be ALFlike.

After all, if you knew for a fact that I had a special breeding farm churning out baby Jews, who are forced to live in horrible conditions, subjugated to physical maiming and will eventually be devoured /skinned with the full support from the government and most of the population.... would you merely write me a stern letter ? Request that boybands change their names ? Throw paint on some corpses I produced ?

Nah - you would probably not even care about my wellbeing. I would most likely be a monster in your eyes after all...

So PETA does not truly believe the holocaust and meat industry are equivalent. Other groups might though.

Well, not entirely. If one truly believes that the meatindustry is equivalent to the nazi killing industry, one SHOULD be ALFlike.

After all, if you knew for a fact that I had a special breeding farm churning out baby Jews, who are forced to live in horrible conditions, subjugated to physical maiming and will eventually be devoured /skinned with the full support from the government and most of the population.... would you merely write me a stern letter ? Or particulary care about my wellbeing ? I am probably a monster in your eyes after all...

So PETA does not truly believe the holocaust and meat industry are equivalent. Other groups might though.

Ingrid Newkirk. The co-founder and president of PETA. Poultry slaughter "worse than the Holocaust". When such words come from the core leadership I find that a strong indication of the organization's overall outlook. People accept it that if Pope Palpatine is opposed to birth control and gay marriage then Catholics as a whole are opposed to them as well.

There may be some PETA members who do not take Newkirk's dissonant cognition to heart, but they're most likely nowhere near the top of the organization's hierarchy.

My favorite PETA story is despite ostensibly supporting no kill shelters, they got busted euthanizing thousands of pets. They completely denied up and down that it happened, until someone dug in their tax records and asked why they wrote off a giant freezer/refrigerator room on their taxes.

Ingrid Newkirk. The co-founder and president of PETA. Poultry slaughter "worse than the Holocaust". When such words come from the core leadership I find that a strong indication of the organization's overall outlook.

But their actions do not fit that statement. As I said - if PETA truly believed that, they should be far, far, far more militant.

Of course, such comparisons do have a small grain of truth in them. Many nazis were unable to understand why someone would have a problem with the idea of the "final solution" . Just like a few centuries ago people had no idea why someone would have a problem with "slavery". Just like most peple now have no idea why someone would have a problem with " animal suffering" or "meat eating".

If they meant it in a different way - let them explain why they are not fighting the evil forces more aggressively. I would, if I shared the "meat = murder" idea.

This is my favorite: (http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/06/fishy.name/)

All was quiet in Fishkill until an animal rights group, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, took issue with the town's centuries-old name.

PETA wants the town to change its name, claiming it suggests cruelty to, well, fish.

"It seems like a light-hearted subject at first. But the real issue behind the name of Fishkill is the violent imagery," PETA spokeswoman Anne Sullivan said.

But their actions do not fit that statement. As I said - if PETA truly believed that, they should be far, far, far more militant.

Of course, such comparisons do have a small grain of truth in them. Many nazis were unable to understand why someone would have a problem with the idea of the "final solution" . Just like a few centuries ago people had no idea why someone would have a problem with "slavery". Just like most peple now have no idea why someone would have a problem with " animal suffering" or "meat eating".

If they meant it in a different way - let them explain why they are not fighting the evil forces more aggressively. I would, if I shared the "meat = murder" idea.

They don't have to be militant themselves. PETA is the Sinn-Fein to ALF's PIRA.

PETA should change their acronym to COMPANIONA so they stop suggesting that they view cats, dogs, and such as lesser beings. :p

Nothing wrong with defending people who firebomb, who break and enter, who threaten people in the name of an ideology? There are too many things wrong with that.

even if all of that was unambiguously wrong, there still would be no case for making contributing to the legal defense funds of people accused of committing such worthy of losing 501(c) status. to say nothing of making such defense wrong in general.

PETA should change their acronym to COMPANIONA so they stop suggesting that they view cats, dogs, and such as lesser beings. :p

Win.

/thread

My favorite PETA story is despite ostensibly supporting no kill shelters...

well, that story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Policy_on_euthanasia) ain't off to a good start (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters.asp)

even if all of that was unambiguously wrong, there still would be no case for making contributing to the legal defense funds of people accused of committing such worthy of losing 501(c) status. to say nothing of making such defense wrong in general.
501c?

And the defense is wrong if they have knowledge that it happened and the man is trying to avoid jail time and nothing else. And most of the time, it's so transparent, it is completely wrong.

well, that story ain't off to a good start (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters.asp)

That's like personally asking Jeffrey Dahmer if he keeps body parts in his freezer. The answer's going to be hardly objective. I trust most outside sources better for that detail. Like the State of Virginia for one.

That's like personally asking Jeffrey Dahmer if he keeps body parts in his freezer. The answer's going to be hardly objective. I trust most outside sources better for that detail. Like the State of Virginia for one.

wtf? why would peta publicly claim that its position is that no-kill is a bad idea while secretly supporting no-kill while quietly euthanizing animals themselves?

how does that even begin to make sense?

does your brain just shut off when you see the letters p e t and a next to each other?

501c?

tax-exempt non-profit in the united states

And the defense is wrong if they have knowledge that it happened and the man is trying to avoid jail time and nothing else. And most of the time, it's so transparent, it is completely wrong.

so people ought not be allowed a proper defense in court?

wtf? why would peta publicly claim that its position is that no-kill is a bad idea while secretly supporting no-kill while quietly euthanizing animals themselves?

how does that even begin to make sense?

does your brain just shut off when you see the letters p e t and a next to each other?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RWS05a-NjgI/SVuijofcMXI/AAAAAAAAAdc/pGNYfPmDyoM/s400/FredRogers_RedSweater.jpg

Can you say "Hypocrisy"?

If they publically declared that No-Kill Shelters were a bad idea and left it that, would be one thing. But when the deliberately "adopt" animals from said No-Kill shelters only to kill them by carbon monoxide in a conveniently designed van waiting outside and keep the corpses in said walk-in-freezer for future propaganda, then it's another. Clearly they believe they're the Final Authority on animal treatment.

tax-exempt non-profit in the united states

Ah.

so people ought not be allowed a proper defense in court?
It's wrong to give large amounts of money to a organization who firebombs, steals, and causes general havoc, even if it's for legal purposes. Just because it's legal does not make it right.

well, that story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Policy_on_euthanasia) ain't off to a good start (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters.asp)

Yea they changed their story over the years.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/258

"Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse."

PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008.

Can you say "Hypocrisy"?

If they publically declared that No-Kill Shelters were a bad idea and left it that, would be one thing. But when the deliberately "adopt" animals from said No-Kill shelters only to kill them by carbon monoxide in a conveniently designed van waiting outside and keep the corpses in said walk-in-freezer for future propaganda, then it's another.
How is stating you are against a thing, then acting against a thing hypocrisy?

Clearly they believe they're the Final Authority on animal treatment.
Yes... they believe they are right.

Funny, that.

How is stating you are against a thing, then acting against a thing hypocrisy?


Yes... they believe they are right.

Funny, that.

So basically taking adoptable animals from No-Kill shelters with a flagrant lie about finding them loving homes in order to kill them and use their corpses for propaganda is perfectly acceptable to you just because they publically declare opposition to No-Kill Shelters?

Okay, if that's the case then I don't want to hear you complain about Hamas suicide-bombing Israeli targets because they've publically declared opposition to the state of Israel. After all, it's not hypocrisy if they're acting out on their beliefs now is it?

Yea they changed their story over the years.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/258

did you intend the link to back up your claim? because it doesn't. at all.

and while i'd be moderately interested to see that they actually have changed their position on no-kill over time, it seems to me that what you'd actually need to demonstrate is that they were publicly in favor of no-kill policies while engaging in euthanasia. can you prove that?

It's wrong to give large amounts of money to a organization who firebombs, steals, and causes general havoc, even if it's for legal purposes. Just because it's legal does not make it right.

so is it wrong for the aclu to help out with the defense of nazis?

How is stating you are against a thing, then acting against a thing hypocrisy?

hmm... we are against the killing of animals.. we don't kill animals ourselves... no those bod...er... animals in the freezer are sleeping... mearly pining for the fjords... If we hadn't frozen them, they would've musculed up to the door, kicked it open and 'foom'...

ok... they're dead... but we killed them ethically...

hmm... we are against the killing of animals.. we don't kill animals ourselves... no those bod...er... animals in the freezer are sleeping... mearly pining for the fjords... If we hadn't frozen them, they would've musculed up to the door, kicked it open and 'foom'...

that only works if they actually held anything like that initial position. do they?

that only works if they actually held anything like that initial position. do they?

I forgot the punch line, edited it in... :tongue:

Can you say "Hypocrisy"?

i can. the real question is, can you define it?

so is it wrong for the aclu to help out with the defense of nazis?

Only if they have done something illegal. If they were merely exercising their rights as US citizens, then no. If they were firebombing houses in the name of Hitler and Racial Purity, then yes, it would be very wrong.

I hope PETA never goes away. They amuse me so.

you have an interesting idea of what 501(c) status is

No where does a 501(c) status grant any body free license to commit federal crimes that would be considered espionage if done by a foreign entity and possibly treason by a home grown entity.

well, that story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Policy_on_euthanasia) ain't off to a good start (http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters.asp)

And you'd drink the Kool Aid too right? Using PETA sources is about as reliable as trusting Fox news to deliver the truth about Republican scandals. Wiki's no good either since it's freely editable and this is a hot button issue.

wtf? why would peta publicly claim that its position is that no-kill is a bad idea while secretly supporting no-kill while quietly euthanizing animals themselves?

Because PETA is a hypocritical media whore. It's like Republicans against gay marriage and then play footsie with male police officers in the men's toilet.

Eleven pages already? I need to step it up. Topic's been beaten to hell already, so I'll just mention that PETA sucks and is useless.

I hope PETA never goes away. They amuse me so.

I wish PETA would go away forever. Their existence pisses me off.

And you'd drink the Kool Aid too right? Using PETA sources is about as reliable as trusting Fox news to deliver the truth about Republican scandals. Wiki's no good either since it's freely editable and this is a hot button issue.


Because PETA is a hypocritical media whore.

this makes exactly zero sense. you are literally claiming that peta is pretending to oppose no-kill policies for apparently sinister purposes, and then calling them hypocrites for not living up to their secret pro-no-kill position that only you are privy to. like, holy shitballs, that's fucking retarded.

Only if they have done something illegal. If they were merely exercising their rights as US citizens, then no. If they were firebombing houses in the name of Hitler and Racial Purity, then yes, it would be very wrong.

wait, is it wrong for those guilty of the crimes they're accused of to have legal representation?

this makes exactly zero sense. you are literally claiming that peta is pretending to oppose no-kill policies for apparently sinister purposes, and then calling them hypocrites for not living up to their secret pro-no-kill position that only you are privy to. like, holy shitballs, that's fucking retarded.

What's really bothersome is that they take it upon themselves to enforce their beliefs and impose them on others. Namely by "adopting" animals from said No-Kill Shelters explicitly for the purpose of gassing them and putting their carcasses in the walk-in freezers.

I mean hell, if someone expressed strong belief in birth and population control by adopting infants and gassing them, people would be outraged. But since that person is acting on his or her beliefs and isn't a hypocrite, that would be all right too according to you. Or as I said in another post, Hamas acting on their stated opposition to Israel with rocket and suicide bomber attacks. They're not hypocrites, so the actions are A-Okay, right?

It's also about lying to the people who operate those No Kill Shelters that the adopted animals would be given a caring home to live in rather than being asphyxiated so that their remains can be kept for some attention-whoring stunt in the future.

I'm glad PETA has its share of apologists and defenders on NSG.

So basically taking adoptable animals from No-Kill shelters with a flagrant lie about finding them loving homes in order to kill them and use their corpses for propaganda is perfectly acceptable to you just because they publically declare opposition to No-Kill Shelters?
Have you proof of the lying and use of PETA-euthanised animals in propaganda?

More pointedly, we're talking about your use of the term 'hypocrisy', not whether I find PETA acceptable or not. If PETA believe that euthanising certain animals is ethically right, then acting on that belief is in no way hypocritical. Whether or not the euthanasia is morally acceptable is another debate altogether; one in which, incidentally, I'd disagree with PETA's stance.

Okay, if that's the case then I don't want to hear you complain about Hamas suicide-bombing Israeli targets because they've publically declared opposition to the state of Israel. After all, it's not hypocrisy if they're acting out on their beliefs now is it?
No it isn't, obviously.

If Hamas believe that violent action against Israeli targets is legitimate part of opposition to the state of Israel -- as they do -- then them conducting violent action against Israeli targets is exactly non-hypocritical. Similarly, if PETA believe that euthanising certain animals is a legitimate part of animal lib -- as they do -- then them euthanising certain animals is exactly non-hypocritical.

Once again, you're conflating my noting a lack of hypocrisy in action with a perceived argument for moral correctness. I can happily note that a person's or organisation's actions match with their stated aims, while still condemning those actions and/or aims.

Wow, I did not know that about pet shops.

Telling a band to change its name? That sounds as silly as it comes, though I suppose it is good for advertising.

I always find it highly frustrating and very sad that people who do pursue goals that I agree with - in this case animal rights - inevitably totally overdo it and make the whole thing look plain ridiculous.
I guess that's what sane Christians must feel like a lot of the time. :(

Yeah. I feel for you, because I am a vegetarian due to animal cruelty, and PETA's stupidity bothers me, as well. I really think they need a new board of advisers, or whatever group tells them what to do.

Have you proof of the lying and use of PETA-euthanised animals in propaganda?


More pointedly, we're talking about your use of the term 'hypocrisy', not whether I find PETA acceptable or not. If PETA believe that euthanising certain animals is ethically right, then acting on that belief is in no way hypocritical. Whether or not the euthanasia is morally acceptable is another debate altogether; one in which, incidentally, I'd disagree with PETA's stance.


No it isn't, obviously.

If Hamas believe that violent action against Israeli targets is legitimate part of opposition to the state of Israel -- as they do -- then them conducting violent action against Israeli targets is exactly non-hypocritical. Similarly, if PETA believe that euthanising certain animals is a legitimate part of animal lib -- as they do -- then them euthanising certain animals is exactly non-hypocritical.

Once again, you're conflating my noting a lack of hypocrisy in action with a perceived argument for moral correctness. I can happily note that a person's or organisation's actions match with their stated aims, while still condemning those actions and/or aims.

Judge denies defense motions in animal cruelty case (http://www.wvec.com/news/local/stories/wvec_local_060106_peta_trials_update.42e7b3e4.html)

PETA foes salivate at cruelty trial (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/535593.html)

I personally find it hypocritical of PETA to be condemning others for inhumane treatment of animals while they take the easy way out of euthanizing said animals. Sure it may or may not be quick and painless, but that's no different than Equestrian Medicine as satirized by Gary Larson in one particular The Far Side strip. It's a quick and easy copout that stands in the face of a group's constant beratement of others for "unethical" treatment of animals in which adorable caring and nurturing is implied by the public image PETA pushes constantly (Sea Kittens, anyone?). What's so ethical about euthanizing creatures nobody asked you to care for in the first place because it would be cheaper for the organization's budget?

My favorite PETA story is despite ostensibly supporting no kill shelters, they got busted euthanizing thousands of pets. They completely denied up and down that it happened, until someone dug in their tax records and asked why they wrote off a giant freezer/refrigerator room on their taxes.

I would laugh if that was not so stupid.

I personally find it hypocritical of PETA to be condemning others for inhumane treatment of animals while they take the easy way out of euthanizing said animals... What's so ethical about euthanizing creatures nobody asked you to care for in the first place because it would be cheaper for the organization's budget?
I, too would disagree on PETA's stance on euthanasia; or, at least, much of it.

But are they euthanising because it's the "easy way out", or because it's cheaper than other actions? I was under the impression they genuinely believe that euthanasia is the ethical option.

If you have evidence to the contrary, or evidence for your claims that PETA lies to animal shelters and uses the corpses of their euthanised animals in propaganda, I'd be interested to see it. Your sources don't say whether the two accused were found guilty or not; do you have a follow-up story? Also, can you show the actions of the two, if they did commit them as prosecutors say, are standard-practice for PETA?

Judge denies defense motions in animal cruelty case (http://www.wvec.com/news/local/stories/wvec_local_060106_peta_trials_update.42e7b3e4.html)

PETA foes salivate at cruelty trial (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/535593.html)

i'll just leave this here (http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/539313.html)

I, too would disagree on PETA's stance on euthanasia; or, at least, much of it.

But are they euthanising because it's the "easy way out", or because it's cheaper than other actions? I was under the impression they genuinely believe that euthanasia is the ethical option.

If you have evidence to the contrary, or evidence for your claims that PETA lies to animal shelters and uses the corpses of their euthanised animals in propaganda, I'd be interested to see it. Your sources don't say whether the two accused were found guilty or not; do you have a follow-up story? Also, can you show the actions of the two, if they did commit them as prosecutors say, are standard-practice for PETA?

From the Word of God:

"It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever... It sounds lovely if you're naïve. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President, The Virginian-Pilot, August 1, 2000

I checked and The Virginian-Pilot does have a website which has the exact article in its archives, but it's on a pay subscription service which you may or may not want to sign up on. I couldn't find any online copies of that exact article elsewhere so I had to settle for the quoted snippet.

From the Word of God:

"It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever... It sounds lovely if you're naïve. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work."
-- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President, The Virginian-Pilot, August 1, 2000
How does the above quote show anything to support your claims?

It doesn't show that euthanasia is the "easy way out", nor does it show that animals are euthanised simply for cost-effectiveness.

How does the above quote show anything to support your claims?

It doesn't show that euthanasia is the "easy way out", nor does it show that animals are euthanised simply for cost-effectiveness.

And here's a spectacularly flagrant case of PETA hypocrisy I just found. It's a snippet about the Silver Spring Monkeys case and any full-fledged articles are all on pay-per-view subscriptions unfortunately.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1059451.html

News that PETA put to death 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from allegedly inhumane conditions, first reported Thursday in the Montgomery Journal, came as PETA petitioned the Supreme Court to block the euthanasia of two of the remaining four monkeys now housed at a research laboratory in Louisiana.

Now why is euthanasia okay when PETA does it, but not when scientists do it?

Jains first! They don't hurt any living thing!

Any living thing? Does that include microscopic organisms?

Note: I'm not knocking them, I'm just asking.

Now why is euthanasia okay when PETA does it, but not when scientists do it?

presumably because the objection is to animal testing, not euthanasia. or, perhaps, its really because the whole opposition to animal testing thing is really a front for their secret aims, which are to increase animal testing while hypocritically fighting to stop said testing, which is really itself just a cover story for their real plans which include creating an army of undead zombie nazis to throw paint on fur coats, because the whole peta organization is just a cover for the paint manufacturers!

And here's a spectacularly flagrant case of PETA hypocrisy I just found...

Now why is euthanasia okay when PETA does it, but not when scientists do it?
Perhaps PETA thought the only ethical option for the unadoptable chicken and rabbits was to euthanise them, but that the monkeys were a different sort of case, what with them being monkeys used in vivisection/testing. The snippet of the article doesn't say.

Hardly an example of "spectacularly flagrant" hypocrisy.

Returning to my previous post, however, I'll ask my unanswered question again: how does the Ingrid Newkirk quote you posted show anything to support your claims?

(Incidentally, you seem to be trawling the web for articles to back up your claims. Are you?)

Returning to my previous post, however, I'll ask my unanswered question again: how does the Ingrid Newkirk quote you posted show anything to support your claims?

Hypocrisy, maybe not. But it does show that they see euthanasia as a much easier option than actually caring for the animals. And they don't merely euthanize sickly, unadoptable animals either.

Any living thing? Does that include microscopic organisms?

Note: I'm not knocking them, I'm just asking.

From what I know about them (which admittedly isn't much) the answer is yes (at least in theory).

presumably because the objection is to animal testing, not euthanasia. or, perhaps, its really because the whole opposition to animal testing thing is really a front for their secret aims, which are to increase animal testing while hypocritically fighting to stop said testing, which is really itself just a cover story for their real plans which include creating an army of undead zombie nazis to throw paint on fur coats, because the whole peta organization is just a cover for the paint manufacturers!

I knew it!

Hypocrisy, maybe not. But it does show that they see euthanasia as a much easier option than actually caring for the animals.
I don't see that:

"We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work."

This suggests that euthanising is harder work, not easier.

And they don't merely euthanize sickly, unadoptable animals either.
Again, source?

Again, source?

Just because it's archived at PETAKillsAnimals.com, don't dismiss the legitimacy of the documents. These are PDF copies of actual documentation from PETA's supposed Animal Shelter:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

These are PDF copies of actual documentation from PETA's supposed Animal Shelter:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf
There's no "supposed" about it, the facility that the documents cover clearly shelters animals.

Presumably you're claiming that the animals listed in the 'Euthanized' column were healthy adoptable animals? And by 'adoptable', I mean animals that would have been adopted, were they not euthanised.

As far as the documents show, there's nothing to separate PETA from organisations here in the UK such as the RSPCA, who also, I believe, euthanise animals in their shelters that aren't adopted after a certain time. The notion, if I understand it correctly, is that it's crueller to confine animals to the relatively confined conditions of an animal shelter for the rest of their lives than it is to euthanise them. This would seem to chime with PETA's stance.

Your posts seem to imply that PETA is maliciously killing animals that could have led happy lives outside of a shelter. I don't see evidence of this.

Buddhists first! They don't even eat cows at all

Jews win: the list of the animals they can't eat is sooo long that they're almost vegetarians.:p

Jews win: the list of the animals they can't eat is sooo long that they're almost vegetarians.:p

And they can't eat lizards, yet chamaeleons are fine.

I hope PETA never goes away. They amuse me so.
Same here. Their strippers arouse me so. :p

As long as they bare hot women's bodies to protest eating meat, I will continue to eat meat so they'll continue baring their bodies. Can't they understand that? :wink:

Eleven pages already? I need to step it up. Topic's been beaten to hell already, so I'll just mention that PETA sucks and is useless.



I wish PETA would go away forever. Their existence pisses me off.
I guess it's a matter of finding some stupid people amusing or frustrating.
Same here. Their strippers arouse me so. :p

As long as they bare hot women's bodies to protest eating meat, I will continue to eat meat so they'll continue baring their bodies. Can't they understand that? :wink:

For every woman PETA gets naked, I will eat one animal. Wonderful.

Same here. Their strippers arouse me so. :p

As long as they bare hot women's bodies to protest eating meat, I will continue to eat meat so they'll continue baring their bodies. Can't they understand that? :wink:

Hmmm. Maybe I'll eat bacon & eggs for breakfast, just to help that cause known as "seeing nekkid actresses opposing my diet" - and I should buy some leather shoes, too.

Howard Stern had a few PETA chicks on his show a few years ago and it was hilarious. He discovered he could make those women do almost anything to prevent a goldfish from being swallowed or a lobster boiled or a bucket of bugs being squashed. It was brilliant.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090409/ten-pet-shop-boys-spurn-rescue-shelter-r-a56114e.html



So essentially some whiny do-gooders tried to make a well known band change their name, which is probably one of the thing people remember them for. The phail. Everyone laughs. Your thoughts?

Yes, its stupid that they asked for a name change but they still have a point about unethical treatment of animals.

Howard Stern had a few PETA chicks on his show a few years ago and it was hilarious. He discovered he could make those women do almost anything to prevent a goldfish from being swallowed or a lobster boiled or a bucket of bugs being squashed. It was brilliant.

Like any female goes on Howard and doesn't expect to be proposition or tricked in some way to show her breast. This was likely all agreed to before ahnd. PETA gets some head lines Howard gets some boobs.

PETA gets some head lines Howard gets some boobs.
For a supposed 'shock-jock' he is rather boringly predictable.

For a supposed 'shock-jock' he is rather boringly predictable.

Have you listened to him since hes been uncensored and on satellite?