PETA wants to rename 'Fish' to 'Sea Kitten'

[RationalInquirer]

Apparently I have been eating Sea Kittens all my life:eek: :

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1173188

Make sure to take a look at the bottom paragraph PETA HITS AND MISSES of the article. I've always thought PETA to be quite unstable at times with their campaigns. But this takes the cake for me. Next up, rename birds to Air Puppies. Just to be fair.:)

Check out their cute, colorful, child friendly, and creepy website: http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/

This is so funny I wonder if this actually belongs in the serious discussions thread. Scary thing is, PETA is completely serious about this.

[AsteriskRocks]

LOL

[Tatterdemalion]

It does raise an interesting point though. Charismatic species do recieve more attention in many cases not because of their importance, but because they're cute, or imposing.

That is, for example, the species of mollusks that go extinct each year outnumber the species of mammals that go extinct each year by astronomical proportions, however there are virtually no conservation campaigns that try to present snails and muscles as something to be saved, not because they aren't environmentally significant, but because unlike wolves and deer and giant pandas, they're not cute or appealing in the public mind.

It also says a lot about our use of language as human beings, and how much words influence our understanding of things.

Still, as far as an idea it's completely off the wall. Keep in mind that the first sign that an organization doesn't have a strong position is when the primarily resort to cleverly contrived, visceral wide-reaching marketing campaigns to target peoples' emotions as opposed to, say for example, actually making an argument.

[RationalInquirer]

however there are virtually no conservation campaigns that try to present snails and muscles as something to be saved,

Tatterdemalion, I believe someone has addressed that concern already:

"...Save the Trees...Save the Bees...Save the Whales...Save the Snails...and the greatest arrogance of all...Save the planet! What? Are these people fucking kidding me? Save the planet!? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet! We haven't learned to care for one another, and were going to save the fucking planet!? I'm tired of this shit!"

- George Carlin

[Tatterdemalion]

Tatterdemalion, I believe someone has addressed that concern already:

"...Save the Trees...Save the Bees...Save the Whales...Save the Snails...and the greatest arrogance of all...Save the planet! What? Are these people fucking kidding me? Save the planet!? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet! We haven't learned to care for one another, and were going to save the fucking planet!? I'm tired of this shit!"

- George Carlin

Actually, no, no one has addressed this issue. I mean, that's a nice quote there, but it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about conservation does it? It's just one of those things that people try to make appear meaningful by attributing it to George Carlin.

If you've got a problem with conservation come out and say it, don't throw around quotes like cash from a racketeer.

You see that? That phrase, "throw around quotes like cash from a racketeer" doesn't make any sense. But it sounds like it does...

[EdBat]

I take it you haven't seen their Cookin Mama game yet.

[RationalInquirer]

Actually, no, no one has addressed this issue. I mean, that's a nice quote there, but it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about conservation does it? It's just one of those things that people try to make appear meaningful by attributing it to George Carlin.

If you've got a problem with conservation come out and say it, don't throw around quotes like cash from a racketeer.

You see that? That phrase, "throw around quotes like cash from a racketeer" doesn't make any sense. But it sounds like it does...

Hehe, if Carlin could speak the truth and make us laugh simply by uttering a sentence or two, the world would be a different place. Obviously he doesn't have the topic of conservation in a nutshell with that quote. Your right, it's just a quote. But nevertheless, "a few short words can hold more volume than a long series of empty phrases" You see that? I can do it too!:D

Anyways, I just squeezed in two quotes in the forum today. At least it's a change from what I usually post. As for conservation, scientists have determined that of over 90% of living species that have ever existed on our planet, all of them have now been rendered extinct. They have all died from natural causes over the billions of years of geological time on our planet. We humans didn't inadvertently kill them all. Homo Sapiens were only around the planet for 100 000 years or so-a wide margin compared to the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). We should just let nature run it's course. On the other hand, we are already interfering with nature, and some species may hold medical properties that can aid us if we conserve them (such as the horseshoe crab). I don't think we will ever reach a full compromise with nature and it's animals/resources. Although it would be great if we establish an equilibrium with the surrounding environment, it still seems unlikely in our time and age.

Overall, conservation efforts are NOT for the benefit of the planet. It's for the benefit of ourselves. People who truly care about endangered species should realize that those species will eventually become extinct in due time. Hell, each hour that passes, approximately 5 species become extinct as a result of deforestation and loss of habitat. The rate of extinction per day is typically 100. The extinction of these species may indirectly affect us humans, but generally have little impact on us. That's why issues like Global Warming and insufficient fossil fuels hog the spotlight. These issues will negatively impact us if we do not seek other sources of renewable energy. In the end, it's all for us selfish humans.:(

[Tatterdemalion]

Anyways, I just squeezed in two quotes in the forum today. At least it's a change from what I usually post. As for conservation, scientists have determined that of over 90% of living species that have ever existed on our planet, all of them have now been rendered extinct. They have all died from natural causes over the billions of years of geological time on our planet. We humans didn't inadvertently kill them all. Homo Sapiens were only around the planet for 100 000 years or so-a wide margin compared to the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). We should just let nature run it's course. On the other hand, we are already interfering with nature, and some species may hold medical properties that can aid us if we conserve them (such as the horseshoe crab). I don't think we will ever reach a full compromise with nature and it's animals/resources. Although it would be great if we establish an equilibrium with the surrounding environment, it still seems unlikely in our time and age.

Keep in mind that while extinction is indeed a natural part of lifem, at the same time you can't deny the fact that in recent years, the past century more than ever before, humans have had a phenomenal effect on animal and plant populations in the natural world. Deforestation, overconsumption, urbanization...you aren't suggesting that none of these have had undue effects on populations beyond the natural scope of extinction...and surely you don't actually believe that biodiversity has no effect whatsoever on humans, and that the collapse of entire ecosystems is irrelevant to human existence in the long run. Because if you are then really, you should be ashamed to call yourself a "rational inquirer." Do us a favor an educate yourself.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

@ post #1.

Well there is such a thing as a catfish....
but yeah, members of PETA are known to be completely daft.

[TPishek]

Oh, God. I am about sick of PETA.
I had to do a report on them for one of my pre-vet classes last semester, and some of the stuff is just utterly ridiculous. I remember the day I was doing research they had a gigantic banner up proclaiming that they had gotten some little high school somewhere to cancel their "kiss a pig" competition (sort of a bet between faculty and students for a cause; if students did something-or-other one of the teachers would have to kiss a pig) because it was "cruel and traumatizing to the pig." Recently they got farrowing crates banned in California. Farrowing crates are what sows (mother pigs) are kept in to give birth and raise their young for the first few weeks. The sow's movement is very restricted, and they can't turn around. Sounds cruel, right? Well, the reason that they use farrowing crates at all is because if you don't restrict the sow's movement and slow her down, 9 times out of 10 she'll flop down right on top of her piglets and kill them by accident. So what's crueler? Squishing 8 piglets to death or restricting a pig's movement for a few weeks at a time? It's just plain ignorance.
Believe me, I could go on at some length-- for example, as a horse lover, the horse slaughter ban absolutely enrages me-- but I'm tired and I don't think anyone really wants a huge diatribe anyway.

[Tatterdemalion]

Believe me, I could go on at some length-- for example, as a horse lover, the horse slaughter ban absolutely enrages me-- but I'm tired and I don't think anyone really wants a huge diatribe anyway.

I want a huge diatribe. And I'm not joking, I sincerely welcome it.

I'm sure you'retired now, but if ever you do feel up to it, please, feel free to share.

[RationalInquirer]

Keep in mind that while extinction is indeed a natural part of lifem, at the same time you can't deny the fact that in recent years, the past century more than ever before, humans have had a phenomenal effect on animal and plant populations in the natural world. Deforestation, overconsumption, urbanization...you aren't suggesting that none of these have had undue effects on populations beyond the natural scope of extinction...and surely you don't actually believe that biodiversity has no effect whatsoever on humans, and that the collapse of entire ecosystems is irrelevant to human existence in the long run.

Biodiversity, urbanization, and other volatile factors of course have a major impact in today's society. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear, but I was referring to the extinction of species, not entire genus and family groups. This occurs everyday and does not have a profound impact on society (unless the loss of species grows at an abnormal exponential rate). I did mention deforestation, but I was using it to provide an example of HOW species became extinct. Not what deforestation can cause. I didn't even mention the collapse of ecosystems or urbanization in my post.

Because if you are then really, you should be ashamed to call yourself a "rational inquirer." Do us a favor an educate yourself.

I also advise you not make judgements on people based on their username. I just took it off an upcoming documentary. Someone can call themselves harvardlawgrad and no one will be the wiser. Anonymity on the internet allows almost for any form of baseless accusation. It's quite rash of you to tell someone to educate themselves if you know absolutely nothing about them outside forum posts.

[Tatterdemalion]

Biodiversity, urbanization, and other volatile factors of course have a major impact in today's society. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear, but I was referring to the extinction of species, not entire genus and family groups. This occurs everyday and does not have a profound impact on society (unless the loss of species grows at an abnormal exponential rate). I did mention deforestation, but I was using it to provide an example of HOW species became extinct. Not what deforestation can cause. I didn't even mention the collapse of ecosystems or urbanization in my post.

Yes, but then you're just ignoring the fact that one of the key aims of the conservation movement is to preserve biodiversity, and to minimize the effects of the profound negative impact that humans have had on animal and plant populations around the world in recent years. Come to think of it, that's probably the most critical goal.

Now, I asked you if you were criticizing the conservation movement. You responded in the affirmative. Now, the conservation movement is concerned with preserving biodiversity, maintaining the stability of ecosystems and natural habitats, preventing overconsumption and the depletion of resources, both renewable and nonrenewable, and otherwise promoting an ecological balance in a way that is healthy for the environment and, most importantly, benefits humans.

The goal of the conservation movement is not, as you imply with some of your criticisms, to ensure that no species ever becomes extinct, or to eliminate extinction from the world. I don't even know what you'd call a movement that advocates that. I'm sure it exists somewhere, but it's certainly not conservtion.

Based on this, I can only draw the conclusion that you do not actually know what the conservation movement is. Or that you do, and you just can't see the glaring logical fallacy in your argument. The one that goes something like this:

1. Biodiversity has a significant impact on human society and human life.
2. The conservation movement aims to preserve and foster biodiversity.

Therefore

3. The conservation movement is pointless, because its aims have little or no relevance to human society and human life.

Yeah, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's wrong with that argument.

So, that being said, I wouldn't say that I'm unwarranted in telling you to educate yourself. In fact, I think it is very relevant to the situation at hand. Perhaps I didn't word it in the friendliest way, but at the same time you're the one who is attacking a movement for being founded on selfishness while showing little understanding of the movement itself. Which doesn't just make you look foolish, but also gives way to the fact that strong words spoken in error are deserving of an equally strong response.

Still, if I offended you I'm sorry. Don't take it as an attack on you or anything, it's really not. It's just an assesment of sorts with regards to your argument and where it seems to be coming from.

I also advise you not make judgements on people based on their username. I just took it off an upcoming documentary. Someone can call themselves harvardlawgrad and no one will be the wiser. Anonymity on the internet allows almost for any form of baseless accusation. It's quite rash of you to tell someone to educate themselves if you know absolutely nothing about them outside forum posts.

Your username is "RationalInquirer." If I made an erroneous assumption regarding your username, and it doesn't actually represent you, then you are saying you're not a rational inquirer. Which would mean that you are either irrational or you do not make inquiries. And since I've seen you make inquiries on the forum, then that would mean that you're not rational. Which is essentially what I was accusing you of.

So we agree. Great, that saves us a lot of arguing.

[Saa]

I can understand that PETA is trying to help our animal compagnions but honestly Sea Kittens? wow.

[Kanariya674]

Yes yes, let's appeal to the cuteness. If we call them 'sea kittens', maybe then we'll feel bad about eating them.

No. They are called fish. Can they seriously do that; rename fish?

[TPishek]

I want a huge diatribe. And I'm not joking, I sincerely welcome it.

Well, OK...

My main problem with PETA is the ignorance. If anything harms animals in any way, it's automatically evil, no matter why it has been put in place. There are such things as NECESSARY evils, like the farrowing crates I mentioned. And horse slaughter in the US. I hate the idea of young, healthy horses being killed for little to no reaon, but at least when it's done in the US we have control over it and can pass regulations to make it as humane as possible. Now that slaughter's outlawed here, horses are being shipped to Mexico for slaughter. Mexico has no regulations whatsoever. Horses are shipped for hours in cramped quarters with no food or water just to get to the plants, where they are then stabbed repeatedly in the neck and back until their spinal chords are severed. At this point they collapse and either suffocate from paralysis or bleed to death as their limbs are removed. Captive bolt guns (the method used in the US, which renders the animal brain-dead before it is killed) definitely have their issues, but there is no way they're worse than that.

My other huge issue is that PETA puts so much effort and so many resources into projects that DON'T MATTER. There's just a complete lack of priorities. I'm looking at their "Victories" page right now- the page where they show off the most important successes of the year. They are:
2009: Charity cancels cruel pig races
2008: Microsoft pulls cruel mouse ad
>>"Featuring a 'skydiving' mouse.... the ad sends an extremely dangerous message to the public--that animal abuse is acceptable and even humorous."
2007: AC Reynolds High School revises "Kiss a Pig" contest

Meanwhile, animal welfare (as opposed to PETA which is animal rights) groups like the Humane Society have the following listed as victories:
-Louisiana bans cockfighting, making it illegal in all 50 states
-Dogfighting now a felony in all 50 states
-Puppy-mill chain shut down
-Nation's largest veal producer ends use of crates
Not to mention they're sending veterinarians overseas (http://www.hsus.org/hsvma/ravs_stories_from_the_field/) to third world countries in order to provide medical care and train vets there, which I think does more for animals' well-being than almost anything else.

It just seems like such a waste of time and money to be battling to rename fish "sea kittens" and ban horse-drawn carriages and farrowing crates when meanwhile, we've got issues like PMU horses (http://www.hsus.org/horses_equines/issues/the_facts_about_premarin.html) and wildlife "penning" (http://www.hsus.org/wildlife_abuse/news/wildlife_penning_ban_bill_introduced_congress_0923 08.html). That's what makes me so mad. It's not even "ha ha, these people are so ludicrous," it's that they're wasting resources on stupid campaigns and making huge amounts of noise about it, so that other Americans are either persuaded that these are actual issues or that ALL animal rights/welfare is ridiculous.

OK, I'm done now.

[Fat1Fared]

TP, very good and very true points, it also leads nicely onto my point, that many of these groups whether animal rights, plant conservation or even save planet groups, they are only morally above US in that, they no nothing about which they speak of

The best example is global warming warriors, these have been taken in by one of histories biggest lies, yes no one can denie that our planet is warming up, but that is infact very normal, we have ice ages and heat ages, (Britian was once a sand bowl and Egypt was once a rain forest,) these changes happened long before we came along and will continue long after we are gone. Also the science they use to prove their points is usually very flawed and though past as 100% fact, infact most of it is just guess work (The scientist who first came up with the greenhouse effect, actually decided to retract it before his death)

Then there is fact that most of the things we are told to do to stop, will infact have no effect what soever on these things, whether it is turning off a light or the Kyoto treaty

finally the biggest irony is many of these so called test, use machine's which (if we believe the science here) cause far more damage to the earth than we could ever hope to do (you should see the computers and satilles used) and the money used to fund them could remove the poverty of countries which are forced to use "Unsafe" factories because of their debts

[Titan50]

http://gallery.nofactzone.net/albums/userpics/normal_headdesk.jpg

[Tatterdemalion]

Fat1Fared, see the global warming thread for a rebuttal. I'm sure I have one there.

[PegasusJCrawford]

All I did when I read the title was lol really hard.

Know what...I'm all about treating animals with respect and equality and all that, but seriously?

[RationalInquirer]

Your username is "RationalInquirer." If I made an erroneous assumption regarding your username, and it doesn't actually represent you, then you are saying you're not a rational inquirer. Which would mean that you are either irrational or you do not make inquiries. And since I've seen you make inquiries on the forum, then that would mean that you're not rational. Which is essentially what I was accusing you of.

So we agree. Great, that saves us a lot of arguing.

Fair enough. I don't want to argue either, so we'll just leave it at that. By the way, you soemthing about a new thread? I'll look over it when I have time.

[Fat1Fared]

Tatter's I won't bother mate, I will not win that one, the media/politicians have already found how easily they can use the "Threat of Global Warming"

But don't believe everything they tell, a lot of it is more political, rather than worrying for planet

Like fact many of there actions have very little effect on global change, but do put a lot of restrictions on 3rd world countries abilities to improve there industries and economical positions

(Before anyone says I am burying my head in sand, I know it is real, but do not think we are always to blame)

Anyway now I am taking too far away from this posts point, so I will bring it back with Save the Fish sign <_^_>

[Tatterdemalion]

Tatter's I won't bother mate, I will not win that one, the media/politicians have already found how easily they can use the "Threat of Global Warming"

I thought you were an aspiring politician?

ut don't believe everything they tell, a lot of it is more political, rather than worrying for planet

Yes, but whether or not someone is truly concerned for something doesn't change the factuality or significance of the thing they are talking about. Even if we were to suppose for a hypothetical instance that no politician in the world today is legitimately concerned about the environment, and that everything they say is propaganda, the fact that something factual is being used to promote propaganda doesn't change the importance or factuality of the thing itself. So even if you completely separate global climate change from politicians and the media, it's still a matter to be deeply concerned about.

Don't let your negative attitude towards politicians skew your perspective.

(Before anyone says I am burying my head in sand, I know it is real, but do not think we are always to blame)

Although you can't deny that we through our actions do have a major negative impact. So even if we're not always to blame, the fact that we're still mostly to blame is something to be considered.

[Fat1Fared]

Is there a global warming thread as though you said there is one cannot see it, anyway this needs to go on right page as we are going to far from topic, here and we are already in trouble for doing that once

[klokwerk]

I feel guilty for eating so much Long John Silvers.

[xellos88]

This is probably the most stupid idea PETA ever had (and they had A LOT of them)...also cooking mama, PETA style (http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/index.asp):P

[KuroStarr]

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/about.asp
Wow, that page is heavily opinionated.

Hmm.... 'Sea Kittens'
I doubt anyone would go for that. Everyone[well, almost everyone] loves kittens, and naturally it would be awkward to say, "Yes, uh, waiter--May I have the grilled sea kitten please?"
Well, that is the whole idea...
Don't they know that fish are vital sources of food?
.
.
.
Dammit, now PETA is just being ridiculous.

[Tatterdemalion]

You know what's ironic? The plan is to rename a water dwelling animal so that it can sound more cute and stop people from killing them, right? Yet at the same time, fish are plentiful, and not seriously threatened by human fishing, etc. that much we know.

Well, what's ironic is that there's another genus that actually is in danger of extinction, the manateee. And what have people taken to calling manatees, which could actually use some good PR? Sea cows. I wonder what that implies.

Now that's irony for you.

[RationalInquirer]

You know what's ironic? The plan is to rename a water dwelling animal so that it can sound more cute and stop people from killing them, right? Yet at the same time, fish are plentiful, and not seriously threatened by human fishing, etc. that much we know.

Well, what's ironic is that there's another genus that actually is in danger of extinction, the manateee. And what have people taken to calling manatees, which could actually use some good PR? Sea cows. I wonder what that implies.

Now that's irony for you.

Thats right, if anything PETA should try and rename the Coelacanth into a shorter more easily pronouncable name. It is critically endangered and no organization, as far as I know, actively hunt for it.

[KuroStarr]

Yup. Poor Sea cows! D:

What I don't get is you want to name this:
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb229/stoptheworld2004/weirdfish.jpg

After this:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o68/Tetsusaigafighter/CAY6ODIE-1.jpg

Thats...thats not right! :/

I would use an uglier photo of a fish, but you know what? I didn't want to make anyone cry. The depths of the ocean is home to some f*ked up lookin' fish.

[Tatterdemalion]

Coelacanth

Everyone knows that the coelacanth is just a lie made up by the liberals to promote the myths of evolutionism and global warming. And the gay agenda, that too.

[KuroStarr]

orly?

[RationalInquirer]

Everyone knows that the coelacanth is just a lie made up by the liberals to promote the myths of evolutionism and global warming. And the gay agenda, that too.
But, But, what about the Frilled Shark? Surely you cannot ignore that! Unless...the Liberals! I knew it! I have always suspected them of being deceptive and sly. When I saw the footage on TV it must have been a robot in disguise. The liberals and their shadowy overlords secretly control the media. Conservatives, Freemasons, Mccarthyists, no one is safe! Run for your lives!

I would use an uglier photo of a fish, but you know what? I didn't want to make anyone cry. The depths of the ocean is home to some f*ked up lookin' fish.

http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134kjlh1cfn81vc34/flash/f-Shark-Cat-3136.jpg
Go ahead. Pet the nice Sea Kitten

[KuroStarr]

http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134kjlh1cfn81vc34/flash/f-Shark-Cat-3136.jpg
Go ahead. Pet the nice Sea Kitten
D:
B-but mommy, I dun wanna! *cries*

[Titan50]

In January 2009, PETA asked a school named Spearfish High School to change its name to Sea Kitten High School. In a letter to Steve Morford, principal of Spearfish High School, PETA said that the new name would "reflect the gentle nature of its current marine namesake." Morford did not share his feelings about PETA, but said that he would not take the request seriously.

...

[Fat1Fared]

You know what's ironic? The plan is to rename a water dwelling animal so that it can sound more cute and stop people from killing them, right? Yet at the same time, fish are plentiful, and not seriously threatened by human fishing, etc. that much we know.

Well, what's ironic is that there's another genus that actually is in danger of extinction, the manateee. And what have people taken to calling manatees, which could actually use some good PR? Sea cows. I wonder what that implies.

Now that's irony for you.

Tatterdemalion, for once, I am one going to take the whole environmental ground, a lot of major fish and other sea-life is in danger from over fishing, Japanese waters have been so over fished, they risked war with china to try illegally fish in their waters

And many different areas have had to place full bans on fishing in their waters, because sealife in them is disappearing so fast,

This has only got worse with the increase in western countries demands for new fish foods like sushi

Fishing is one major problem at min, as we love eating it so much we will pay a lot for it, meaning there are many poeple more than willing to fish negligently as shown when Japan went to hurt several majorly in danged whales under cover of science and then sold them for food.

A lot of once common fish such as Tuna and Salmon are now in real danger from over fishing

[KuroStarr]

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/book.asp
Dammit.
This isn't worse than cooking mama but you know what?...
It's pretty close.

[RationalInquirer]

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/book.asp
Dammit.
This isn't worse than cooking mama but you know what?...
It's pretty close.

Dr. Seuss, is that you? Wait...Nevermind, the drawings are just to frackin' hilarious.

[Titan50]

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/book.asp
Dammit.
This isn't worse than cooking mama but you know what?...
It's pretty close.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/facepalm_statue.jpg
http://seiryuulostmymusic.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/facepalm.jpghttp://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2241/facepalm2ic7copyrl2.jpg
http://nickmilne.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/facepalm2sn8.jpg

[Crusnik4703]

Wow, I knew that PETA was full of idiots, but this tops ANYTHING that ANY environmental group has ever done that I would consider retarded...

[KuroStarr]

But it's good for laughs.
I wonder if Stephan Colbert had covered this yet.
Though this topic has already done a good job of making fun of itself. :/

[MrsSallyBakura]

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/book.asp
Dammit.
This isn't worse than cooking mama but you know what?...
It's pretty close.

First and foremost, I am insulted to share a name with a fish.

Secondly, there was no story. Just a bunch of little situations.

Third, this would scar children, and in an unnecessary way. Of course, like you said, Cooking Mama is worse, but still.

Fourth, anyone who has to settle for brainwashing children in order to gain success, well, that's just sad.

[Tatterdemalion]

What's this about a Cooking Mama?

[HolyShadow]

Fourth, anyone who has to settle for brainwashing children in order to gain success, well, that's just sad.
Let's have our kids sing a song about Barack Obama!

[Tatterdemalion]

Let's have our kids sing a song about Barack Obama!

Is that supposed to be ironic or something?

[TPishek]

What's this about a Cooking Mama?

http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/

[Titan50]

http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/

Oh for the love of...




In 2008, Jennifer Thornburg, a PETA intern, legally changed her name to CutoutDissection.com, which is the same URL as a PETA website. Prior to this, three other PETA staff members or activists have changed their names to PETA website names. In 2003, Karin Robertson, a PETA Fish Empathy campaign worker, legally changed her name to GoVeg.com. In 2005, Chris Garnett, a PETA youth outreach coordinator, changed his name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com. Early in 2008, activist Rachel Feather changed her name to Rachel Fishinghurts.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/

I kind of thought that was funny.
Maybe I'm just evil

Although the sea kitten book was just WTF in a sad kind of way.

[KuroStarr]

I kind of thought that was funny.
Maybe I'm just evil

Although the sea kitten book was just WTF in a sad kind of way.
Exactly.
I laughed so hard at cooking mama.
But I just head/desked whenever I read the sea kitten book.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Let's have our kids sing a song about Barack Obama!

Is that supposed to be ironic or something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM

Granted the guy who put the video together made a pretty... exaggerated comparison between Obama and Hitler, but the singing children still give me a migraine.

But at any rate, PETA...

Anyone seen that Super Chick Sisters game? Or any of their other games in general? Terrible stuff, I tell you. Terrible in more ways than one...

[TPishek]

Even their 404 page is ridiculous. (http://www.peta.org/main404.html)

[MrsSallyBakura]

Even their 404 page is ridiculous. (http://www.peta.org/main404.html)

All right, they just can't be serious. This has to be some kind of overly drawn-out satire.

[Cocyta]

Yeah, just to piss them off, I still buy leather and fur.

muahaha!

[Titan50]

Even their 404 page is ridiculous. (http://www.peta.org/main404.html)

I want the PETA to go extinct REALLY FUCKING QUICKLY

[ChaosVincent1]

A question for all animal rights acrivists I say they're extremists.

If we can't test medications on animals, will you guys volunteer to take their places?
.....If the extremist says no, call the extremist a hypocrite. if they argue, call them an idiot and try to convince them that medecations need thorough testing before they can have FDA approval. Then ask the original question again. They will either be hypocrites or just plain insane for actually wanting to be a scientific test subject.

[Cocyta]

http://userimages.imvu.com/userdata/01/78/26/19/userpics/Snap_1268811590499d0cf3d27e8.jpg
Sea kitten: it's what's for dinner.

[klokwerk]

AWESOME!

[MrsSallyBakura]

A question for all animal rights acrivists I say they're extremists.

In their defense, yes many are probably extremists, but you can't clump a group of people together and say that they ALL have this certain personality trait. And not all people who fight for animal rights want them to have EQUAL rights to humans. They just want animals to be treated better is all.

Of course, we can't even clump PETA into a group of regular animal's rights activists. I've heard that some of what they do still hurts animals. I know there was some story about dogs where PETA didn't do anything to help them so the dogs all died or something... let me see if I can find it.

[TPishek]

And not all people who fight for animal rights want them to have EQUAL rights to humans. They just want animals to be treated better is all.


Technically, ALL animals rights activists want animals to have equal (or even better) rights than humans. Animal welfare activists, on the other hand, want humane treatment of animals.
This is being drilled into us because veterinarians are animal welfare activists de facto, and if we accidentally refer to it the wrong way (ie say "animal rights") when we're applying to vet school they literally will not let us in.

(Although I believe that in Europe, this distinction in nomenclature is not made?)

[KuroStarr]

Anyone seen that Super Chick Sisters game? Or any of their other games in general? Terrible stuff, I tell you. Terrible in more ways than one...
PETA: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DO TO THOSE CHICKENS!?!?!
Person: Dunno......But...it's delicious.

[HolyShadow]

I petition that this be moved to random discussion because it's just that asinine.

[Cocyta]

LOL

[HolyShadow]

PETA's existence is a sin against both God and Satan AT THE SAME TIME.

[YoshiYoko]

What P.E.T.A. doesn't realize is that this might back fire and peopel will start eatting real kittens. xD Kidding.

Seriously, we don't eat animal's based on their names. Just on their yumminess. And
Fish=Yummy.

[KuroStarr]

I say that PETA can be evil-er than 4-kids!
And that's not impossible...
Or is it?

[caps]

I thought it was adorable however stupid :D
I kinda wish Peta would scare people more, like we're destroying the life cycle, that kinda thing

[Tatterdemalion]

I propose that PETA activists be horsewhipped as a punishment for their actions.

I don;t know wht would be worse for them, the whipping or the irony.

It would probably be the irony.

[Eia]

I do love me some fried sea kitten.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

indeed,
but fried catfish has this dusty flavor that doesn't interest me.

[Eia]

indeed,
but fried catfish has this dusty flavor that doesn't interest me.

It's called mud. Cause they eat mud.

But good fried catfish doesn't taste like that, so you need to change your fried catfish buying locations.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

It's called mud. Cause they eat mud.

But good fried catfish doesn't taste like that, so you need to change your fried catfish buying locations.

I don't eat it that often.