Flour Power VS Peta

[chachi]

I dont agree with wearing fur at all. It is fine and good to protest but when you attack someone you've stepped over the line and most people arent going to support that kind of thing. I really admire the work Peta does educating people but they need to get rid of the over zealous crackpots that make them look bad

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by IndianaGirl

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!!

I didn't say it physically hurt them, I said it was a physical attack...and by every definition it was. That is crossing that line. At what point is too much too much to open someone's eyes, be it one person's or 1000s? When it actually hurts someone, when injury results...is that when it's too much? You could think of dozens of instances where you could attack someone, violate their rights, but not physically hurt them....is it justifyable if you throw a 'cause' behind it? I don't think so.

[Tammyh]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

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 wasn't aware that the animals were violently tortured to death, if this is the case of course it's horrible. But when I think of slaves I think of people who were raped, beaten, tortured, kidnapped, their children were taken from them and sold to other slave owners and in turn abused, the women were used to breed more slaves. I just cannot put animals used for fur on the same level of injustice as the slave movement.

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

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.

I agree w/ you, Misty. I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE supporter of animal rights but I feel this crossed the line. While I am in NO WAY a fan of Lohan, I don't think it was right to throw flour at her.

Funny as all heck? Definitely! LOL But the right thing to do? No, not in my opinion.

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

I didn't say it physically hurt them, I said it was a physical attack...and by every definition it was. That is crossing that line. At what point is too much too much to open someone's eyes, be it one person's or 1000s? When it actually hurts someone, when injury results...is that when it's too much? You could think of dozens of instances where you could attack someone, violate their rights, but not physically hurt them....is it justifyable if you throw a 'cause' behind it? I don't think so.

[IndianaGirl]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

I didn't say it physically hurt them, I said it was a physical attack...and by every definition it was. That is crossing that line. At what point is too much too much to open someone's eyes, be it one person's or 1000s? When it actually hurts someone, when injury results...is that when it's too much? You could think of dozens of instances where you could attack someone, violate their rights, but not physically hurt them....is it justifyable if you throw a 'cause' behind it? I don't think so.

There are some things I feel strongly about, other causes I could care less. Others may or may not admit to that, but I think it is only human.
PETA acts "crazy" to get this point across. I have said this before, I would not personally go out and throw flour on someone, but I understand their passion to make people aware. You can't get people to listen to you if your talking sweet and nice, thats just the way it is. I could care less if it was Lindsey Lohan or a nobody.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by IndianaGirl

There are some things I feel strongly about, other causes I could care less. Others may or may not admit to that, but I think it is only human.
PETA acts "crazy" to get this point across. I have said this before, I would not personally go out and throw flour on someone, but I understand their passion to make people aware. You can't get people to listen to you if your talking sweet and nice, thats just the way it is. I could care less if it was Lindsey Lohan or a nobody.

That is very true...many people will not stop to listen if they are being rational, but likewise, many people will be pushed away. It's a win/lose situation.
Point being though, you can't act in ways that violate others like and it be JUSTIFYABLE or ACCEPTABLE because they are doing it for a "cause." I understand they are doing it to get attention, but wrong is wrong and they crossed the line. Again, I understand why it was done, but those individuals were in the wrong to do it.

[Nikki+2]

I've been so good staying out of this one... I've really been patting myself on the back. Unfortunately it couldn't last forever.

The person who threw the four was just an anti-fur woman. That's it. She isn't PETA, she doesn't represent PETA and she wasn't doing it on PETA's behalf. She never even mentioned PETA. For the record, PETA has an official stance on throwing things (like paint) on fur wearers and that is they absolutely do not endorse it as an organization.

Having said that, I thought it was funny as hell.

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

I've been so good staying out of this one... I've really been patting myself on the back. Unfortunately it couldn't last forever.

The person who threw the four was just an anti-fur woman. That's it. She isn't PETA, she doesn't represent PETA and she wasn't doing it on PETA's behalf. She never even mentioned PETA. For the record, PETA has an official stance on throwing things (like paint) on fur wearers and that is they absolutely do not endorse it as an organization.

Having said that, I thought it was funny as hell.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

I've been so good staying out of this one... I've really been patting myself on the back. Unfortunately it couldn't last forever.

The person who threw the four was just an anti-fur woman. That's it. She isn't PETA, she doesn't represent PETA and she wasn't doing it on PETA's behalf. She never even mentioned PETA. For the record, PETA has an official stance on throwing things (like paint) on fur wearers and that is they absolutely do not endorse it as an organization.

Having said that, I thought it was funny as hell.

I am glad to hear it wasnt PETA endorsed

[bchgirl]

Personally the flour thrower could get more accomplished in directing her energy in other ways.

#1 reason no one is throwing paint anymore? Destruction of private property. Those coats come with BIG price tags.

[Harley_chik]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

I've been so good staying out of this one... I've really been patting myself on the back. Unfortunately it couldn't last forever.

The person who threw the four was just an anti-fur woman. That's it. She isn't PETA, she doesn't represent PETA and she wasn't doing it on PETA's behalf. She never even mentioned PETA. For the record, PETA has an official stance on throwing things (like paint) on fur wearers and that is they absolutely do not endorse it as an organization.

Having said that, I thought it was funny as hell.

I knew that would come up. Everytime some PETA member does something wrong, PETA mysteriously has no members. Why is that everytime they some Animal Right person does something that crosses the line, "they are just one person and they don't represent PETA?" Apparently even Ingrid Newkirk doesn't represent PETA. However if PETA find gets a few minutes of inhumane conditions at one farm, then we're all supposed to believe that the entire farm industry "tortures" animals? You can't have it both ways. You pet owners need to wake up. PETA doesn't support pet ownership, especially not when it comes to cute little purebred yorkies. It says plain and clear on their website that adoption is the only way until domestic animals, that includes yorkies, are irradicated.

[Rae Rae]

Originally Posted by IndianaGirl

Yeah, it matches her pasty skin

You guys crack me up!

[BubblPopElectrc]

When will we learn that PETA topics never go well?

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by Harley_chik

I knew that would come up. Everytime some PETA member does something wrong, PETA mysteriously has no members. Why is that everytime they some Animal Right person does something that crosses the line, "they are just one person and they don't represent PETA?" Apparently even Ingrid Newkirk doesn't represent PETA. However if PETA find gets a few minutes of inhumane conditions at one farm, then we're all supposed to believe that the entire farm industry "tortures" animals? You can't have it both ways. You pet owners need to wake up. PETA doesn't support pet ownership, especially not when it comes to cute little purebred yorkies. It says plain and clear on their website that adoption is the only way until domestic animals, that includes yorkies, are irradicated.

Are you serious? I almost feel like you can't be. Have you watched the video? The girl isn't wearing anything peta, she isn't carrying anything peta and she doesn't say anything about peta. How is this peta related? PETA is far from the only organization with anti fur campaigns. There are LOTS of anti-fur activists who are not involved with peta.

As for your other points they've been debated to death on this forum. If you are interested you can use the search function but there is almost no point in continually rehashing the same arguments.