Peta: assholes at being assholes

PETA's new billboard campaign in Florida is raising eyebrows and ire among women and health groups. A drawing on billboards in Jacksonville depicts an obese woman with the phrase, "Save The Whales, Lose The Blubber: Go Vegetarian."

In a press release, PETA stated:


A new PETA billboard campaign that was just launched in Jacksonville reminds people who are struggling to lose weight -- and who want to have enough energy to chase a beach ball -- that going vegetarian can be an effective way to shed those extra pounds that keep them from looking good in a bikini. <....>


Anyone wishing to achieve a hot "beach bod" is reminded that studies show that vegetarians are, on average, about 10 to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters. <...>

"Trying to hide your thunder thighs and balloon belly is no day at the beach," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "PETA has a free 'Vegetarian Starter Kit' for people who want to lose pounds while eating as much as they like.


Jessica at Feministing blasts the billboard as "fat-shaming" and that "PETA owes the residents of Jacksonville a serious apology."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/petas-new-save-the-whales_n_261134.html

And because women are more likely than men to join and support Peta.

And because women are more likely to become vegetarian than men.


If they had used a man, there wouldn't be a thread here about it, and no one would give a shit about it, because making a man the object of scorn is not a problem, as your post implies.

Their president is a woman, and she was quoted in the story. It is very clear by her comments that they used a woman, not a man, because their theme is "women can lose pounds immediately by going on a vegetarian diet, so they can look better in a swim suit."

:shrug:

I hardly feel bad for someone allegedly offending someone like M.M. - like he's a well mannered saint or something. (if you haven't noticed, I'm not a big fan of moore.)

In regard to the OP, I could care less what PETA does as long it's violating rights or breaking the law. Controversy, it's what they do. People need to not act so surprised, taken back, offended, etc... everyone's too sensitive nowdays.

whether you personally like the particular target of their bullshit or not.

If the woman was not white would the billboard be racist as well?

The content of the article contains statements to that effect by the Peta president. She says very bluntly they want women to know they can lose pounds immediately and look better in their swimsuits if they will go on a vegetarian diet.

The ad means exactly what it appears to mean: Peta is appealing to women's desires to look better in a swim suit, by showing a woman who appears to have outgrown her swim suit.

they are consistent in their attack, degradation, of females is what peta is

That's one of the PETA vice president's quotes from the article.

Is it sexist for an organization run by women to appeal to other women, who assumedly are concerned with their weight?

It may be obnoxious, but it's not sexist. It's targeting a primary market: women who care about their weight and how they look in a swim suit.

yet wide eyes and innocents tells me that was not their intent.

sucker beware anyone?

and i belileve they use women spokepeople to nullify the sexism a little more, but the higher ups are white males. again, how easily we are led

Understanding what Peta is doing and why they are doing it is one matter. Approving of it is an entirely different matter. I don't approve of what they're doing, but I understand what they're trying to do. It's marketing.

Probably their defense.
"A woman can't be sexist against other women"
"Blacks cant be racist agaisnt other blacks"
etc
etc
And why vegan? what's wrong with being a plain old fashioned vegetarian?
Is that not sheik enough anymore?

Who is the ad trying to win over? WOMEN.

Which women? Women who might be moved to try vegetarianism because they want to lose weight and look slimmer in a swim suit.

Is the ad sexist? NO.

Is it obnoxious to women who might be less than slim? Absolutely.

Is that sexism? No.


I'm not advocating for Peta or their ad, but I am disputing your bizarre and completely insupportable claim that this ad campaign is sexist.

Playing into the entire cultural sexist proposition of manufactured anxiety over unrealistic body images is a great way to "win over" women.

It is how billions of dollars of useless and harmful dietary supplements are sold.

Hurrah for anorexics and bulimics who become vegetarians by being "won over" by Peta.

They can "win over" schizophrenics by saying that the government radio implants in their teeth are powered by MEAT!

I'm discussing what Peta is doing and why they are doing it. I'm not endorsing it.

They are, as they usually are, using commercially-driven female body anxiety to promote vegetarianism.

They might just as well use threats of hellfire, since anxiety over mortality has proven effective in promoting religion.

Yes, if you eat meat, you will be fat, ugly, and sexually undesirable, quite unlike the skinny fashion models we use in our other stuff.

But because the organization is headed by a woman, it is impossible for the message to be sexist and insulting to women, for the same reason that Playboy magazine cannot be sexist, because it too is run by a woman.

It is utterly clear what they are doing. Using fear and manipulation to make a point. Hurrah for them.

This advertisement is also intended to win over women:

You're wrapped up in your world, where common sense and logic don't seem to play any role, so I'll just let you go chase your tail.

I explained to you my position on the ad and on Peta, but you want to find someone with whom to argue. I'm not wasting any more time with you.

:yourock: Spot on and HI-larious. :evilgrin:

Alot of women hate themselves. It's internalized. The ad was stupid and makes me want to lift a middle finger at PETA.

:popcorn:

Those magic four letters and their genious marketing that engrages most folks to no end and the folks who will defend them to the death.

There is no such thing as bad publicity, your detractors become your servants.

and though their reputation has made them a household name...it's not a good household name. They are hated passionately by far more folks (including those who would agree with them on many things...) than by folks who like them.

On internet discussion boards? If that is it, then you are indeed their servant.

There's brilliant, and too smart for one's own good, these people are great at attracting attention to themselves, but the subtext to this billboard is truly awful:

"You're a fat cow, but if you do what we say you can join the cool kids and be aloof and superior just like we are."

...its the publicity that turns off your supporters and causes them to bail. PETA is very good at that, which is why it remains a marginal, largely unimportant group - with the exception for the handful of times it reaches mainstream attention with some ridiculous stunt that only marginalizes them even further.

Good show!

They just flourished with the AIDS comparison in the 80s!

I can't stand PETA. They are like the anti-abortion freaks. Fuck em all.

Only the ignorant and the hateful believe that, as a group, large people are large because they are gluttons (The term "overweight", is itself prejudicial).

These idiots keep doing their cause more harm than good.

are you saying otherwise?

Most fat people are shaped the way they are by biological factors beyond their control.

Why are there more fat people in the U.S. than other countries?

or eating all the high calorie, high fat food available to us. :eyes:

Which would fall under diet and exercise.

The very poor can not afford healthy food, but most of us could eat better than we do and move a little more.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

tell me if you can see a difference in the two pictures below :)

:popcorn:

This doesn't surprise me.

:puke: Nothing shocking or radical about sexism in advertising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk

Ingrid Newkirk...president of Peta
Just sayin'.

So women are lower in the pecking order than animals. Great.

'So women are lower in the pecking order than animals'...because PETA will do anything for news coverage? doesn't make sense. Oh well, go on complaining how sexist this woman-founded and -headed organization is. I'm neutral on PETA but they don't strike me as sexist.

alex pacheco

http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1459

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Pacheco_(activist)

he was pres, now sittin on board

They have nothing to do with the question of whether PETA is sexist or not.

validate all behavior to a goal. anything is game.

sexism, using women to get attention, is not a stretch

so those "other" groups that advocate for human will be the one that addresses petas sexiam and racism in order to further their goal

some people may think beyond and actually work with the "human" groups to further their goal. peta.... not so much

:sarcasm: It's the age of Hypocrisy, seabeyond, everyone's doing it, where ya been?

Does this mean that a picture of man with a pot belly and the identical message would be man-hating? Or are you just going off on Peta in general? In case it's not clear, I'm only looking at this particular advert.

it is the...

hypocrisy

of who they are.

Is it the fact that the figure in the ad is female?
Or is it the fact of it being rather insensitive to fat people (eg 'lose the blubber')?

people consisting uses female at their expense in order to promote their agenda. so i will go along with the reason they are using the female is cause they always use the female at their expense in order to promote their agenda

IF they used a male

but they didnt use a male.

just feel good that any publicity is good publicity and bury head in the sand.

peta has a history. they have spoken out and made clear their agenda. why are you fighting it. they arent asking you to. they would probably argue with you, the defense you give them.

your repetitive, info free challenges and games suggest a certain disingenousness.

Seems to me you can't give a straight answer - for example, the case above of simply linking back to your earlier message by way of explanation, a literally circular argument. If yourself and SB didn't keep ducking the question I wouldn't keep asking it.

As for 'info free', I think pointing out that Peta is actually run by a woman is kinda relevant in discussing whether they're misogynist or not, but I can see how you'd rather ignore that bit of information.

I linked to what had been said, which if you had read, you wouldn't be asking the question. You can comprehend it. Why pretend not to?

Trying to force some response from those to whom you provide nothing by way of actual info or opinion?

I didn't ignore that the leader is a woman. I simply don't agree with you that women can't be misogynist or use misogynist advertising tactics. Speaking of logical fallacies. :eyes:

Your response to the observation of Peta's president being female was to take a random quote and say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals. When asked how you arrived at that conclusion you just linked back to your earlier message (about whether they got it from Carl's jr). That's not an argument, it's ducking the question.

You haven't shown how Peta are misogynist, or how this woman is misogynist or how this ad is misogynist. You just keep saying they are, with no actual argument. You complain they use misogynist advertising tactics, but they seem just as happy with naked men as naked women - maybe they're misogynist and misandrist?

I stated "Nothing shocking or radical about sexism in advertising."

That's a given. If you don't get that, you don't get anything.

I went to the link you provided and read it and pulled a quote from there. I didn't "say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals."

Since I never made that "conclusion" that is probably why your badgering did not succeed in getting me to defend "how I arrived at it." :crazy:

I don't have to "show" you anything and don't respond well to bullying, which you should know by now. I have also already ADDRESSED your last point.

I don't believe you. :thumbsdown:

I went to the link you provided and read it and pulled a quote from there. I didn't "say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals."

Since I never made that "conclusion" that is probably why your badgering did not succeed in getting me to defend "how I arrived at it." :crazy:

Really! You never made that conclusion? Let's do the timewarp...back to message #81!

81. "We are complete press sluts," she told The New Yorker. "It is our obligation."

So women are lower in the pecking order than animals. Great.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, it sure looks like you're drawing that "conclusion" to me!

REPEAT: I didn't "say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals." You said that. I quoted her. I made a statement. Draw your own conclusions. And leave me alone.

I quoted you by cutting and pasting from your #81...and the semantic difference between 'lower than animals' (my paraphrase above) and 'lower in the pecking order than animals' (your exact words) is zero. Any reasonable person would say those statements are equivalent and you know it.

Shove off.

You are so full of shit - picking on a single word while pretending the substance of what you said doesn't matter.

:evilfrown:

REPEAT FOR THE READING COMPREHENSION IMPAIRED:

I stated "Nothing shocking or radical about sexism in advertising."

That's a given. If you don't get that, you don't get anything.

I went to the link you provided and read it and pulled a quote from there. I didn't "say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals."

You didn't didn't "say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals."

You said (in reference to a Peta quote) "So women are lower in the pecking order than animals. Great."

...which is substantially the same thing, as anyone can see.

Meantime, you keep going on about sexism in advertising, despite having it pointed out to you that PETA does numerous adverts featuring naked men as well as naked women. It ain't sexist/misogynist if it treats both genders the same way, by definition.

You're agreeing with a misread and badgering campaign to get me to justify something I didn't say. :crazy:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6327920&mesg_id=6332634

This reply to anigbrowl's post with a link to info on PETA leader

OM
81. "We are complete press sluts," she told The New Yorker. "It is our obligation."
So women are lower in the pecking order than animals. Great.

Next, response to anigbrowl, "How do you conclude that" (I did not "conclude" what anigbrowl's misintrepreted form my post, so I didn't respond as if I had). I referred A to a previous post for context.

OM
8. So misogynists are coming up with these campaigns? Borrowed from Carl's Jr. no doubt
Nothing shocking or radical about sexism in advertising.

I did not responsd to anigbrowl's misinterpretation and projected "conclusion," because it was his/hers, not mine. S/he managed to make this whole BS subthread about proving their misread and demanding I justify their misinterpretation. That's what you're endorsing.



anigbrowl
149. Yet again you avoid the point
Your response to the observation of Peta's president being female was to take a random quote and say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals.


No, I didn't say "it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals.".
No, I didn't "take a random quote and say it proved" ANYTHING.
No, that was not my "response to the observation of Peta's president being female"
The post was a title line and one line of text. I'm not responsible for others' misinterpretations or for justifying or defending their versions of what I said.

omega minimo
155. And you obsessively miss the point
I stated "Nothing shocking or radical about sexism in advertising."

That's a given. If you don't get that, you don't get anything.

I went to the link you provided and read it and pulled a quote from there. I didn't "say it proved peta viewed women as lower than animals."

Since I never made that "conclusion" that is probably why your badgering did not succeed in getting me to defend "how I arrived at it."

but the reality is I don't care, nor do I want in on the dramafest.

and don't buy into someone else's projections and misrepresentations, or your own.

I would be happy to clarify. But not justify someone else's version of my words :freak:

"Save the Whales" is a typical juvenile taunt commonly used to humiliate fat WOMEN. Rarely used against men. In fact, the whole custom of fat-taunting in movies, tee-vee and other image driven media is focused against women.

I think that is their point: to get people to consider the relationship and similarities between animals and people. I don't think they are not extending it to people as you say, but trying to use imagery which (a) gets people's attention and (b) hopefully makes people draw a parallel between how animals are mistreated and how people are mistreated.

Again, fwiw, I disagree with the extent of most of their platforms and methods, but I think their extremism is part of their message and publicity. Also, I sometimes wonder just how accurate their enemies (such as the NRA) portray them.

:popcorn:

(but I DO want to give the :thumbsup: to the many men on DU who do NOT support sexism!!! -- just to make sure they know they are appreciated)

many men on DU who do NOT support sexism!!!

many men who do not support bigotry!

I remember reading someone on DU explain that it came about waaay back when people spoke on issues in the town square. When someone spoke exceptionally well, people would say "Hear Here!" as in Hear this, right here.

and throw another in to just make it that much more tough.

actually makes sense. so really about any way i type it will be a :thumbsup:

Uh. *ahem* yes... uhhhh.....

I meant "deepest apologies, I abhor head-screwer-arounder-with-ers" !

yes yes

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/178100.html

Hear hear
Meaning
A shout of acclamation or agreement.
Origin
Originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of 'hear him, hear him'. It is still often heard there although it is often used ironically these days.

I had a different etymology

:hi:

I'm thinking as hard as I can to come up with a snappy reply....

fail!

And yeah, we know the cool lurkers are here. :hi:

:Yo!:

You're capable of comprehending the post without your hand held.

You go in for this particular logical fallacy a lot. I don't know why.

"So misogynists are coming up with these campaigns? Borrowed from Carl's Jr. no doubt. Nothing shocking or radical about sexism in advertising."

That's fine. That's up to you. You seem to care what I think about what you think, while needing to attack. I don't know why. I don't insult you and pursue you to make it clear I think you "go in for this particular logical fallacy a lot."

If you want to argue this, perhaps you will clarify and enlighten us:

You don't agree that what "it" is sexist? This ad? Their campaign featuring degrading images of women? PETA?

Then please explain how you determine that it is not sexist. Or misogynistic.

What "logical fallacy"?

Tell us what you think, instead of picking away at others. Maybe you have a point to make. Thank you. :hi:

The logical fallacy is that you seem to be arguing it's misogynist because you think it's misogynist. I don't see anything especially misogynist about it. It's certainly size-ist or whatever you want to call it; I'm not particularly sympathetic towards that aspect of it, but on the other hand I'm not particularly sympathetic towards obese people in swimwear either so I guess they cancel out.

Not seeing any hatred of women here, however. And just because you call it so doesn't make it so. You seem unwilling to articulate why you think it's misogynist. And since you're the one making the claim, you ought to back it up.

I acknowledged you don't agree, questioned your need to attack and provided the opportunity for you to say what you think.

"That's fine. That's up to you. You seem to care what I think about what you think, while needing to attack. I don't know why."

"Tell us what you think, instead of picking away at others. Maybe you have a point to make. Thank you."

I was interested in listening to your thoughts on this but you choose to play games and haven't said anything.

You have already made the point that it is misogynist: they didn't use a man, did they? They don't, do they? They don't put men in cages or dress them in nothing instead of fur.

You had your chance. Game over. Don't come swooping in next time with petty jibes and pretend you have ideas to back them up. Thanks again.

Just depicting a women is not automatically misogynist. And actually, peta do have naked men as well as women:





Hmm...could it be that it's actually the media who use more of the naked female pics. I didn't have to look very hard for these.

the sexist ones of women and even the fatty "buff dad" you showed elsewhere.

Get back to us when the playing field is level. :thumbsup:

So let me get this straight...if women take off their clothes, it's because of men's misogyny. If men take off their clothes, it's because of their ego. Or something to do with their gaze. Or perspective. What kind of nonsensical double standard is this?

:thumbsdown:

They're just as happy to use pictures of naked men as naked women in their advertising. They certainly use nudity for the shock value, but they are gender neutral about it and therefore not misogyinist. But according to you, even guys undressing for PETA is part of some (presumably bad) male perspective.

it's a phallusy ;)

....:wow:
:bounce: :bounce:

:spray:

:rofl:

:blush:

I guess it's like Justice Potter Stewart on obscenity...'can't define it, but I know it when I see it'. Not much of a standard.

It's your opinion, not a fact.

:shrug:

"We are named People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

at the expense of females.... or any other group they would like to use, in anyway they deem publicity slut

:hi: :spray: For some, compassion can only go SO FAR. :shrug:


"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out."

Thinkers might think through the consequences of using misogynistic "media slut" tactics of the human species to protect animal species :think:

nt

Nevermind.

So you could argue that all that insulation i superfluous. At least in Miami...farther north, it might not be such a bad idea.

and offensive. They can kiss my fat ass.

into a joke. They are their own worst enemies, if they are looking for support this isn't the way to get it.


edit: still confused about nobel or is it noble?

They just wanna piss people off.

like those PETA assholes.

vegetarian or carnivore, an asshole is still just an asshole.

I don't like PETA that much, but I have been a vegetarian for a couple of decades and am not an asshole to anyone about it.

FWIW, I did lose weight when I stopped eating meat, partially because being vegetarian (especially 10-20 years ago) meant I had fewer choices when eating fast food, and started eating fresher home cooked meals more often. Was it the meat or the lack of High Fructose Corn Syrup? I suspect a bit of both, plus being more active.

Eat what you want to eat, but don't refuse the idea simply because of PETA. It's like saying "I don't want to be a Democrat because Fred 'God Hates Fags' Phelps is a Democrat."

that means, regardless of what PETA or anyone else says, i will never be going vegetarian. i can't stand vegetables, the vast majority of them make me gag, or the smell makes me sick (brussels sprouts, asparagus, green peppers) and they taste nasty unless you put a nice fattening sauce on them. same for many fruits, lettuce, salads. if i have to choke my food down, i'm not going to bother to spend the money on it and waste my time trying to eat it.

:evilgrin:

in a bad spoof movie way that was funny. How anyone can take them seriously is beyond me.

One doesn't have to be female or heavy to find this peta crap insulting.

More taunts. Way to go PETA. Will you be calling me "Jabba the Hut" next?

Assholes.

And they are assholes.

i think they've somewhat jumped the shark. you can barely find a PETA ad that doesn't revolve around some half naked celeb or college chick naked in a cage.

it gets your attention, but it's ineffective at accomplishing much outside of getting college guys to go to PETA meetings hoping to get laid.

I also know vegetarians who are overweight and happy and content.

These PETA idiots piss me off.

I don't eat meat I stay away from leather and I don't judge others.

i don't doubt you, but to hear (several/many) DUers tell it, vegetarians are all the epitome of health and fitness!!

of all their funding.

As soon as cats can write checks, I'm sure, these PR bits will start to work a lot better.

Does anything still take these assholes seriously?

the ability to delude one self to believe this kind of campaigning, turning off whole sectors of society, or more than one, to degrade humans to cast sympathy towards animals in hypocrisy is a clever way to gain support amazes me.

I'm dead serious too.

Every animal product they want replaced is either made from petroleum, or plants which are grown with the help of lots of petroleum products.

The "farting cattle theory" of global warming is a dead giveaway.

you wouldn't happen to have a link? :-)

This, I have to see.

No I am not a member of PETA. I am just lacking at the complete lack of meaning in your post above.

If so,that is completely crazy!

and elsewhere.

and eat it while I watch their gnashing of teeth.

message that we are commenting on.

And many of those criticizing PETA's approach made clear that they support animal rights and believe, as do I, that PETA does more harm than good in convincing the public at large to be more sensitive to those rights.

And assuming that obesity is related to animal rights is ludicrous. There are PLENTY of obese vegetarians. PETA has no business commenting on obesity. Zero.

Capisce?

their speech in this thread. PETA can say whatever it wishes. We can ridicule their idiocy as we wish. A perfect balance.

Not from other people.

We had a FReep troll on a couple days ago who was whining about Glenn Beck's advertisers cutting him out...claiming his 1st Amendment rights were being violated.

What you said wasn't a few logical steps away from that whackazoid's logic.

into a mealy-mouthed, spineless version of vegetarianism, and use sexist and racist marketing materials to do it.

PETA has nothing to do with animal rights, they only have to do with keeping Queen Ingrid's rent paid.

:eyes:

I can name two PETA idiots, that I know, that are overweight.

they are plunging fast into self parody.

go figure.

this isn't what the ad is about

it is always at the expense of a person and almost always a female.

:hide:

Who am I? Why am I here?

:rofl:

They're targeting for membership women they think they can interest in PETA, which they perceive to be women who are worried, even terrified, of carrying more weight than they wish to carry. Since that covers a lot of women, it's likely they're also targeting all who have eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia. Those shots of the woman with folds of fat would terrify those women and girls who wrongly perceive themselves to be obese.

I would suggest that PETA knows its most fertile ground for new membership is women between the ages of 18 and 40 who are very aware of their body weight and body fat, and using that concern to invite them to try vegetarianism.

I've never liked PETA and think they're largely self indulgent ass hats.

a bunch of self-involved assholes with good goals but totally fucked-up ways to advance those goals.

And now, planning tomorrow's lunch, we shall enjoy



and



Then, of course, for dinner, we'll definitely have a



and some great big



THANKS, PETA!!!! :hug:

Every single one.

Every vegetarian I know is slim.

And I love animals ... barbecued!

I don't think it is eating veggies or eating meat that determines one's percentage of body fat, however. That's partly hereditary, partly quantity of food, partly quality of food, and partly exercise or lack thereof.

Oh... okay, so you don't think it is sexist, but you do think it is deceptive?

The one you asked is not clear. What is supposedly deceptive? The Peta ad? It's not deceptive, as far as I can tell. Most people who might go to a vegetarian diet would lose weight, because they are being more careful about what they eat and not consuming animal fat. But there is plenty of fat that can be consumed from plants.

Vegetarians tend to be more mindful of eating in a healthy fashion than non vegetarians. Being a meat eater is the default position in America. That means most of the persons who have poor eating habits are meat eaters, not vegetarians.

Vegetarians tend to be more slender/less fat than non vegetarians. The causes, however, go beyond that simple food choice. If one eats a lot of pineapple, coconut, and starches, one can be huge, irrespective of being vegetarian. That's where quantity and quality of food come into play.

It's ultimately how fattening or caloric food is, and how much of it is consumed, which determines the potential for weight gain. That, heredity, and exercise, of course.

Your attempt to ask a question was incoherent.

"their theme is 'women can lose pounds immediately by going on a vegetarian diet, so they can look better in a swim suit.'"

But now you are saying that it's not so simple.

They can lose weight faster by vomiting their meals.

You can be vegetarian and not eat right. All those carbs....

Not that I care...but I'm not the one putting up a stupid sign like that!

Quite plump.

Just like the meat eaters I know. A vegetarian diet is not a guaranteed ticket to low BMI.

People eating tasty animals.

One obnoxious $5000 billboard, one $500 press release, and they get a million dollars or more worth of free international publicity.

If it wasn't obnoxious, they only get a billboard...

:thumbsdown:

peta public relation teams know actually what they are doing. they really do`t care who they offend or what actions they take...it`s all about getting people to look at them.

I guess one really does grow to resemble what they profess to hate

freaks...........I have no respect for them. I've seen vegetarians who were not at all thin! Their ads are disgusting, including the trashy "I'd rather go nude than wear fur" ones. Sexist, disrespectful shit that makes me want to go and eat a hamburger!

And thinness is so overrated, most men I know LOVE voluptuous women. It's Hollyweird that pushes that stupid boyish looking ideal.

What makes me sick is that you attack gays or any other group all hell breaks loose, but it's cool to attack someone who is not thin! It's all prejudice.

PETA HATES humans, they hate women.

The animals tell him they're embarrassed to be seen with PETA

:puke:

You just made me day with that pic :evilgrin:

Caption: " *weak cough, weak cough* "

:downs:

Buy maybe its just my bias as a lifelong skinny vegetarian

I wonder how PETA feels about vegans that happen to be overweight?

But honestly I wonder how for many years they have actually been vegan. Maintain a vegan diet for over 20 years and only those with the most relatively slowest metabolisms will remain overweight. Not to be a hater, but I suspect they became overweight before they became vegans.

Plenty of these people have always been overweight, now they're vegan and overweight. There's really zero connection.

The problem with this argument is that there's nothing inherently healthy about a vegan diet. You can be vegan on potato chips, soy hot dogs, and Jack Daniels, but that's not necessarily healthy. Furthermore, veganism isn't about people, it's about non-human animals. The argument should be that an animal's interest in not being used as a machine or a source of food needs to be respected, not that a vegan diet guarantees good health.

But leave it to PETA to completely fuck that up, as usual.

Potato chips and Jack Daniels is hardly sustainable

And I know some fat vegans who have been vegans over 20 years.

Our weight depends on many more factors than whether we eat meat or not. Trust me, I have several health issues that contribute to my obesity, but I have to admit I also sometimes eat unwisely to make myself feel better emotionally. It's a complicated world and anyone is a fool that tries to simplify our problems down to one factor.