oo yea ive never seen that show but ive heard of bob barker, im glad they stopped doing that. :thumbup:

Puppies and Kittens should never be used for meat or fur.There is enough other kinds of meat to eat.

Hello....im Angela...and im new here and this is my first reply

so about this, i lost all respect for peta after i read this article....I love animals...and i think they should have rights....but peta is very contradicting to itself and very hypocritical. I found an article that was posted in the San Francisco Chronicle that made me think twice about their motives. Read it and tell what you guys think...it breaks my heart knowing that the "only" voice for animals would rather kill helpless dogs and cats then find them a loving home:cry:. Besides its against Peta's morals to own a animal as a pet...so i guess that makes pretty much all of us here the enemy to them:mad:.

Better dead than fed, PETA says

we don't need to eat meat,don't need to wear fur or leather, and we certainly don't need beef gelatine in half the food on the shelves !:mad:

PETA could be a great organization to help protect domestic and wild animals, but for me personally, they have totally tainted their reputation with crazy acts of thrown blood and other objects and liquids. I think it is crazy to attack a human just because they dont agree with you, even if it is PETA. I would never even go to a PETA meeting because I feel like they are crazy, they get press alright, but to me it is the wrong kind of press. And, yes, they are totally using celebrities to make a point.

I actually dont think there is anything wrong with using celebrities to make a point but Im sure they can put their furry heads together and figure out a non-violent way to do it.

All I know is, if some PETA freak poured anything on me, I will have to whip their ass. LOL

I never said that! :confused: I just do not think we need a LAW to prevent people from wearing fur or leather or eating meat.

Should there be a law against people owning dogs or cats as pets? There are many people from PETA who think so. And throwing flour (or paint, which is what they used to do) is battery - and there is a law against that!

Im a very passive person by nature. I rarely am strongly for or against anything, I always see the gray in the middle. But with Peta, I feel strongly. They do what they have to do to get their message across. Do you think if they said, "Please don't wear fur, it hurts animals" and then walked away from that person. The person will laugh at them and continue to care less!! That is why they act "crazy" as some as stated. There is no other way to get the message out there but to be radical about it! Animal rights is one thing I can speak up for because we are their voice, PERIOD.

Dito to that! I'm not a Lohan fan in the slightest, but considering the attitude she usually has and the reputation for being a b***h, you really have to give it to her for not retaliating. I mean if someone threw something at me, it would take all the self control I have not to beat the crap out of them! lol

I didn't see where you said anything like that either.
I don't see a problem of wearing fur, eating meat, etc.... We do have enough laws out there that don't need to be there. But what does owning dog or a cat have anything to do with wearing fur, I love my pets and would do anything to keep them from being harmed in any way.

Right now we have enough to worry about with what is going on in the world, life, living, jobs etc... to really worry about wearing fur and things like that.
This is just the way I fill, and I'm sorry if you don't agree with me. But there is more important things in life to worry about, so we can keep living and make this place a better world.

Angela, That link you provided to the Debra Saunders editorial carried by the SF chronical was interesting reading!

here is it again: Better dead than fed, PETA says

The most important point was this quote from the Center for Consumer Freedom: "In 2003, PETA euthanized over 85 percent of the animals it took in," said a press release from the lobby, "finding adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By comparison, the Norfolk (Va.) SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals and Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent."

I wonder why they only had data from 03' but still that is an ugly statistic.

I never knew that PETA was against owning pets, but it makes sense based on their actions. These pets usually eat meat, and that is anathema to PETA, so why not euthanize rescued pets?:mad:

I suppose they have a point, but PETA can take my yorkies away only when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers! (sorry Charlton).

Okay I didn't read the other posts. I just wanted you to know where I was coming from, just in case.

thank you Shawnzeppi!

I read that article a couple of years back....also if you just google "Peta kills" lots of different things pop up....there is even a web site called Peta kills animals...which as you can guess is very bias against Peta...with newer statistics....im not guaranteeing how accurate it is...but very interesting indeed.

PETA Kills Animals | PetaKillsAnimals.com

And this is a page from the PETA's own site stating their beliefs about pet ownership and why its a problem
About PETA >> FAQs >> Companion Animals

*note* I MADE A POST EARLIER...ITS A COPY OF THE 1ST....SORRY ABOUT THAT...IM TRYING TO LEARN THIS FORUM THING...i dont know if it will show up...but if it does...just iqnore it :)

Three pages of conversation, looks like PETA has done their job well, once again :).

I think Lindsay looked much better in flour than in fur. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it matches her pasty skin :thumbup:

First, let me start by saying I do not like Lindsay or Sam and I would never wear fur. I received a donation request from PETA on the same day that I read about the flour being poured on Lindsay. Needless to say, I did not give a donation because of PETA's tactics. Go to the source - the people who make the fur clothing instead of pouring flour or paint on people. I would have had them arrested.

Go to the source - the people who make the fur clothing instead of pouring flour or paint on people.

But don't people need to take some sort of responsibility for buying the fur? To go to the source is also going to the buyer IMO :rolleyes:

wearing fur is a really offensive thing to do
 

Does the same thing apply to eating meat or wearing a leather belt? :confused: Just wondering!

The people who wear the fur *are* the source - they drive the market. If people stop buying fur, it will stop being produced as there will cease to be a market for it. :)

But, I get where you're coming from too. I think those who farm fur or work in the fur industry should be arrested for the horrendous cruelty that we've all seen on film (I think we all know which footage I'm speaking of, the worst I've seen in my life).

Whether folks like it or not, one of PETA's main objectives is awareness so that people start talking - and here again, they've done their job well. :)

Did you know that a lot of fur trim (like on coats or boots) is actually REAL fur even though it doesn't say so on the tag? I didn't know that! :eek:

Also, if the product is below a certain price (forgot the exact amount but you can call Fur Kill's main number and ask because that is what I did) then they do not have to specify that is REAL fur and not synthetic. If you buy a jacket for $250, most people will assume the fur is fake because the jacket isn't that expensive. Most fur costs well into the thousands -- so just from the price alone you KNOW it's real fur. THAT'S how they trick people. People figure well I'm only paying $100, so this fur has to be fake because real fur is expensive. No so anymore! :(

This link is really imformative: bones

I'll just post a few bits and pieces from the website:

"Recently, the use of fur trim has become a major part of the fur industry. In the past, the fur industry’s emphasis was on full-length coats. Now trim is becoming a mainstay of the trade."

"By disguising small amounts of fur through shearing, dying, and plucking, furriers are able to market their cruel products to an unknowing audience."

"Major furriers have changed the focus of their advertising and are trying to keep their industry alive by pushing fur trim on such items as bikinis, blankets, hats, jeans, scarves, skirts, knitted sweaters, ponchos, purses, and vests."

"The sale of fur coats is down, but the fur industry can claim victory in making fur trim socially acceptable. The latest figures from the Fur Information Council of America (FICA) reveals the fur trim market to be worth nearly $500 million annually."

"Fur trim items are available everywhere and in many cases will not be marked as real fur. According to fur industry publications, furriers believe fur-trimmed garments will become more important than all-fur garments in terms of repeat business because such items might be replaced in only a few years, whereas a fur coat may last for 20 years or more. Furriers also believe that fur trim is what helped bring younger consumers back."

My daughter who is 15 now, went through a phase of Safari decor when she was in the 5th thru 7th grade. She just absolutely loved the it and her favorite animal was the leopard. Her room was even decorated in Safari decor but we never put any fake fur in there. Ever since she was in the 3rd grade, she has wanted to go to college to be a vet. She absolutely loves animals.

She is a freshman now, but when she was in the 6th grade, my mother-in-law bought her a fake leopard print blazer for Christmas and she thought it was absolutely beautiful. She wore it one time to school. The students at school tormented and bullied her all day long for wearing that blazer. It didn't matter to them that it was fake. And it really was obviously fake. Anyway, she came home crying that day from everything that happened and told me to "get rid of it". That was the very last time she wore it.

I'm sorry but to compare wearing fur to slavery is to make light of the horror and injustice to those that were slaves. You lost me on that one.

There will always be stupid people or those that are uninformed that will buy fur. If manufacturers can't produce, people can't buy.

wearing fur just seems so INTENTIONALLY cruel to me.
 

well, i think it's not good to eat meat and/or wear leather. but i don't think it's the same as wearing fur.

to me, eating meat is less evil than wearing leather, and wearing leather is less evil than wearing fur (but than again, what isn't?)

eating meat and wearing leather will hopefully one day be viewed as a barbaric thing to do as the society matures and progresses. we are not there yet, but i believe that we'll get there.

wearing fur just seems so INTENTIONALLY cruel to me.

with eating meat and using leather product you at least have the society on your side (meaning, personal beliefs aside, IT IS the norm to eat meat and use leather product since the majority of the people do)

we are all living beings capable of suffering. there is NO difference.
 

i am sorry if you found the comparison offensive. everything about wearing fur is offensive, therefore making any comparisons will likely be unpleasant...i am not making light of the horror and injustice to those that were slaves (are you making light of the animals that were violently tortured to death?)

i am confused? are you saying that one is more horrible than the other? and that comparing them is not cool and doesn't make sense?
anyways, i am not making light of anything. they are both extremely horrible things.

we are all living beings capable of suffering. there is NO difference.

I don't think eating meat is "evil" at all. It is a way of survival. So since animals kill EACH OTHER for meat, does that make THEM evil? It's the same thing and especially since technically we are all animals.

evil is a STRONG word!
 

Yes, i agree. maybe evil is the wrong word to use. let me re-phrase.

to me, eating meat is less mean than wearing leather, and wearing leather is less mean than wearing fur (but than again, what isn't?)

animals are not evil for killing for food. but it's a very different story to use machinery to kill animals.

dogs for example, use sharp teeth. take away machinery/weapons, how would people kill animals to eat?

also, animals don't catch and skin another animal in order to be "fashionable".

Very true. :thumbup:

I don't agree with fur for fashion. I think the practice and trade is horrible and cruel. However, wearing fur is not illegal, it's a choice people make and have a right to make, agree with it or not.
That being said, regardless of how strongly you feel against it, that does NOT give anyone that right to physically attack another person. If you feel strongly enough about it that you want to speak out and participate in movements towards educating and protesting the practice, that's one thing, physical violence is another and there is no justification for that.
Tactics like that are what make PETA a big joke to alot of people and what costs them alot of credibility in the eyes and ears of alot of would-be supporters of their efforts. When you cross that line and take it to the extreme, any positive aspect of your efforts are overshadowed and discredited. A true 'one bad apple spoils the whole bunch' type situation.

I don't think flour being thrown on one is physically hurting them. Its not like a bat or something that could cause serious harm. Whether its right or wrong in peoples eyes, I only care if it will make one person stop wearing fur!!