If there's ever been an organization that could be known for backhanded compliments, backhanded complaints and just plain backhanded EVERYTHING - it would almost definitely be PETA. Sometimes it even backhands its own logic just to get more public attention. For example, Ingrid Newkirk (the evil dictator of the evil empire) has it in her PETA mission statement that animals are not ours to own and should be free, which means NO PETS. So every time PETA gets in a tizzy about dogs and cats, I keep wondering why their stance isn't "no pets" every time.
Eventually I learned that PETA apparently just wants them all dead so nobody can own any. They want all the breeders shut down, they want all current pets spayed or neutered, and they routinely go around "rescuing" animals from shelters (when not protesting shelters) and kill them all in puppy-killing deathmobiles and dump the carcasses in dumpsters. Which means you can't breed them, nobody else can breed them, and they'll kill any of them not currently owned. All dogs and cats would be dead after this generation. Thanks, PETA. If that's not a backhanded slap in the face to all your members who think you're trying to HELP animals when in reality you want SPECIES GENOCIDE, I don't know what is.
But I digress, this is about Britney Spears. Seriously, it is. The problem is that PETA seems to want to excuse Britney while still calling her inexcusable. They want to give her leniency by shining a spotlight on her and berating her. It all begins with the "PETA Worst-Dressed-List" - a crock of shit that's basically a list of celebrities who wear fur or perhaps have a clothing line that uses fur, and uppity PETA members vote for which one they'd like to assassinate most. Britney was on their initial list this year and, despite being the front-runner in the first few days of voting, PETA recently decided to remove her from the list. Here's what PETA said about the decision (and watch for all the backhandedness):
Given her recent trip to the psych ward, it's becoming more and more clear that she's not entirely accountable for her actions — and that includes her poor fashion choices just as much as it does her bad parenting decisions.
With that in mind, we've decided to give Britney a bit of a break this year, and take her off the Worst-Dressed-List poll, despite the fact that she had established herself as a strong front-runner in the first two days of voting. Here's what PETA Vice President Dan Mathews had to say about the decision:
"People with l'il kids shouldn't dress like L'il Kim. But at this point, Britney needs a break — from everybody. Maybe when her head is clear, she'll have a change of heart about wearing fur. If not, we'll be back biting at her heels."
So there you have it, but the question is, did we make the right choice in giving Brit a break this year despite her unfortunate penchant for, um, flaunting her fur in public?
Okay, so they want to give her a break - but had to at the same time call her out for wearing fur anyway, insult her parenting, make an offhand remark about the public exposure incident and basically call her insane? That's just plain stupid and backhanded. Especially when you finish up your "let's leave Britney alone" message with a "we will not leave Britney alone" message.
I still can't tell if they seriously want to attempt leaving Britney alone, despite their jackassedly-persistent tendencies of insulting everything that doesn't fit into their collective mindview. Of course, once you remember that their collective mindview is more psychotic and insane than the ramblings of most mental patients - who's really the insane one here, PETA? For once, maybe it's not Britney Spears.
Besides, something tells me that this incident of backhandedly excusing Britney from the Worst-Dressed-List is going to get MORE publicity than the actual results of a PETA Worst-Dressed-List anyway. Which means you really haven't given her a break at all.
But I guess it just holds true that you can't believe a single word coming from an organization that considers "rescue" to take the form of a puppy-killing deathmobile.
(PETA's statement about Britney)
(PetaKillsAnimals.com)
Read more!
Showing posts with label Britney Spears. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Britney Spears. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Sunday, August 05, 2007
PETA: Dogs WE Love Are BETTER!
That's right, you read the title correctly - PETA is at it again.
This time, they're doing something even more ridiculous than usual: they're attacking celebrities for buying instead of adopting. PETA has just decided that animals in shelters "deserve" owners more than animals available for purchase from a breeder or just a common pet shop. Protests were organized (of course) and as the protesters donned their Paris Hilton and Britney Spears masks, they waved their signs reading things like:
"Shelter Dogs Are Dying and I Don't Care"
Alright, let me get something straight right off the bat: these celebrities are being attacked because they purchased dogs rather than adopted from an animal shelter.
Really think about this for three seconds. There are two dogs. One is in a shelter, one is in a pet shop. Both are available to be taken home as somebody's pet. But because one was bred and has papers and you genetically know where it came from - that makes it worse to bring home and love? That's PETA's argument. That because you wanted a prettier pet that is the breed of dog you were looking for in the first place instead of one "slated to die" in an animal shelter - that makes you someone they can target in a protest.
Know the most hilarious part of this whole story??
PETA is protesting because these unadopted shelter dogs are going to be put down - but PETA is responsible for putting down so many shelter animals every year.
Their signs should really read: "Why did you buy that dog? Now we have to go kill one from a shelter!"
This whole thing is just insane. PETA, you idiots, the LAST thing you should be protesting is a person willing to take in a dog and care for it - especially those with enough wealth to care for it luxuriously. After all, you held your little protest right by your latest crazy billboard about "animal birth control".
That's right - PETA thinks that the best way to save animals from the shelters (where PETA will likely kill them) is simply to spay/neuter all of the dogs and cats in California.
WAIT WAIT WAIT - isn't PETA the insane group that wants us to leave animals alone completely, not to anything harmful to them ever (even things that aren't harmful but sometimes LOOK harmful or could be harmful if done in the completely wrong way) and to let them all roam free to do as they please? And yet they want it MANDATED to chop off the sex organs of every dog and cat in the state of California??
Well, PETA, two can play at your little CRAZY GAME!
Since PETA is so fond of taking situations animals find themselves in and then relating it to actual tragedies of human circumstances (remember the animal cages made to look like Holocaust concentration camps?) - here's one for you, Ingrid Newkirk!
Africa. Too many Africans. They're all dying of disease and starvation due to poverty. There's just too many of them to share the little resources they have. So instead of coming in and putting them out of their misery (why hasn't anyone thought of euthanasia in Africa?) - we're just going to cut off the testicles of every African man and remove the uterus from all African women. In time, the population will acheive balance once more and the few Africans left who avoided castration or migrated from another continent can live peacefully without dying of starvation and poverty from overpopulation!
Okay, so the plight in African countries is a lot more complex than simple overpopulation - but socioeconomic trends show that lower tiers of socioeconomic status have lots more children, so as to provide a bigger support structure over time. So there IS a lot of breeding going on, and one COULD theorize that sterilization could improve things. By killing off families by destroying their support structure and letting another family have a chance at their food and shelter...
No matter how you look at it, it's a grim picture. One grim enough to warrant a shock video sequence from the masters of terrorist propaganda: PETA itself.
Back to the matter at hand: PETA is usually up in arms about people owning animals in the first place, aren't they? When did "animal liberation" suddenly become "animals-other-than-pets liberation"? As soon as I'd heard about a protest regarding Paris and Britney purchasing dogs, I thought it was going to be in protest against animal ownership and "animals are not ours to own" bullshit. But I was wrong.
Because even PETA agrees that animals can be owned, and that it gives the owner the right to do whatever they choose to with that animal.
Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. That's why I've got a link to the PETA employee trial where the lawyer for PETA stated exactly that in his closing arguments: "It was PETA's property, and she had the absolute legal authority to put the dog down."
Still really pisses me off that those puppy-killers got away with it all.
And here's a little bit of extra thought, thanks to a provoked defense in a comment on LJ:
It doesn't matter either way. PETA wants all pets dead, matter-of-factly.
They don't want us breeding dogs and cats. Because breeding them means there's going to be more of them getting owned instead of adoptable pets from shelters. And the bred pets might wind up in the shelters anyway, given pet-owning trends.
They don't want animals breeding by themselves. Because if they "accidentally" breed, that's more "unwanted" pets being put in shelters and being "slated to die" - sometimes by PETA's own hands in a "rescue mission". That's why they're sponsoring billboards for a movement to spay/neuter all dogs and cats in California.
So if they can't breed themselves, and we can't breed them - that's the extinction of dogs and cats. At PETA's hands, all their arguments coming together. Hell, they kill over 90% of the ones they "rescue" anyway, right?
PETA would rather have them all dead. That's the logic I get from it.
But then again, you can't trust PETA with any form of logic...
Read more!
This time, they're doing something even more ridiculous than usual: they're attacking celebrities for buying instead of adopting. PETA has just decided that animals in shelters "deserve" owners more than animals available for purchase from a breeder or just a common pet shop. Protests were organized (of course) and as the protesters donned their Paris Hilton and Britney Spears masks, they waved their signs reading things like:
"Shelter Dogs Are Dying and I Don't Care"
Alright, let me get something straight right off the bat: these celebrities are being attacked because they purchased dogs rather than adopted from an animal shelter.
Really think about this for three seconds. There are two dogs. One is in a shelter, one is in a pet shop. Both are available to be taken home as somebody's pet. But because one was bred and has papers and you genetically know where it came from - that makes it worse to bring home and love? That's PETA's argument. That because you wanted a prettier pet that is the breed of dog you were looking for in the first place instead of one "slated to die" in an animal shelter - that makes you someone they can target in a protest.
Know the most hilarious part of this whole story??
PETA is protesting because these unadopted shelter dogs are going to be put down - but PETA is responsible for putting down so many shelter animals every year.
Their signs should really read: "Why did you buy that dog? Now we have to go kill one from a shelter!"
This whole thing is just insane. PETA, you idiots, the LAST thing you should be protesting is a person willing to take in a dog and care for it - especially those with enough wealth to care for it luxuriously. After all, you held your little protest right by your latest crazy billboard about "animal birth control".
That's right - PETA thinks that the best way to save animals from the shelters (where PETA will likely kill them) is simply to spay/neuter all of the dogs and cats in California.
WAIT WAIT WAIT - isn't PETA the insane group that wants us to leave animals alone completely, not to anything harmful to them ever (even things that aren't harmful but sometimes LOOK harmful or could be harmful if done in the completely wrong way) and to let them all roam free to do as they please? And yet they want it MANDATED to chop off the sex organs of every dog and cat in the state of California??
Well, PETA, two can play at your little CRAZY GAME!
Since PETA is so fond of taking situations animals find themselves in and then relating it to actual tragedies of human circumstances (remember the animal cages made to look like Holocaust concentration camps?) - here's one for you, Ingrid Newkirk!
Africa. Too many Africans. They're all dying of disease and starvation due to poverty. There's just too many of them to share the little resources they have. So instead of coming in and putting them out of their misery (why hasn't anyone thought of euthanasia in Africa?) - we're just going to cut off the testicles of every African man and remove the uterus from all African women. In time, the population will acheive balance once more and the few Africans left who avoided castration or migrated from another continent can live peacefully without dying of starvation and poverty from overpopulation!
Okay, so the plight in African countries is a lot more complex than simple overpopulation - but socioeconomic trends show that lower tiers of socioeconomic status have lots more children, so as to provide a bigger support structure over time. So there IS a lot of breeding going on, and one COULD theorize that sterilization could improve things. By killing off families by destroying their support structure and letting another family have a chance at their food and shelter...
No matter how you look at it, it's a grim picture. One grim enough to warrant a shock video sequence from the masters of terrorist propaganda: PETA itself.
Back to the matter at hand: PETA is usually up in arms about people owning animals in the first place, aren't they? When did "animal liberation" suddenly become "animals-other-than-pets liberation"? As soon as I'd heard about a protest regarding Paris and Britney purchasing dogs, I thought it was going to be in protest against animal ownership and "animals are not ours to own" bullshit. But I was wrong.
Because even PETA agrees that animals can be owned, and that it gives the owner the right to do whatever they choose to with that animal.
Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. That's why I've got a link to the PETA employee trial where the lawyer for PETA stated exactly that in his closing arguments: "It was PETA's property, and she had the absolute legal authority to put the dog down."
Still really pisses me off that those puppy-killers got away with it all.
And here's a little bit of extra thought, thanks to a provoked defense in a comment on LJ:
It doesn't matter either way. PETA wants all pets dead, matter-of-factly.
They don't want us breeding dogs and cats. Because breeding them means there's going to be more of them getting owned instead of adoptable pets from shelters. And the bred pets might wind up in the shelters anyway, given pet-owning trends.
They don't want animals breeding by themselves. Because if they "accidentally" breed, that's more "unwanted" pets being put in shelters and being "slated to die" - sometimes by PETA's own hands in a "rescue mission". That's why they're sponsoring billboards for a movement to spay/neuter all dogs and cats in California.
So if they can't breed themselves, and we can't breed them - that's the extinction of dogs and cats. At PETA's hands, all their arguments coming together. Hell, they kill over 90% of the ones they "rescue" anyway, right?
PETA would rather have them all dead. That's the logic I get from it.
But then again, you can't trust PETA with any form of logic...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
