Comments on: And now

By: K-rantz

K-rantz — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:59:09 +0000

maybe a staple job gone wrong????

By: Cate

Cate — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:48:55 +0000

I agree with Palie Q… well, mostly. I am against ANYTHING that comes from animals, including meat and leather. How would you feel if you were killed just to be eaten or worn? And if you think you cant live without murdering these innocent animals, you are wrong. There are many fake meat prodcts that taste just like the real thing, especially food made by Morning Star. There is also faux fur, suade, and leather. They even make ugg-like boots with no animal products. How can you say you are a true animal lover if you support eating and wearing them?

By: Platy

Platy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:58:05 +0000

mmm… nude steaks…. =D~~

By: swn

swn — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:39:33 +0000

P.E.T.A.
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

By: bitter troll

bitter troll — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:28:08 +0000

your eating a period?

EPIC EWWWWWWWWW

By: Deckboy

Deckboy — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:20:04 +0000

Oh David, yet another spiteful comment…. Are you n Gomer like brothers or something? Me thinks David here also needs to get laid really really really super badly…. [David's woeful reply was redacted]

By: Pali Q

Pali Q — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:15:56 +0000

I completely support these womens rights to protest in this manner. Everyone has the right to a peaceful protest.

I also support what they’re saying. Those of you who are comparing wearing fur to wearing leather are a bit mixed up.

Leather comes from cows. We also eat the cows. If we didn’t make leather clothes from the skin of the cows, then the skin would just rot away and be wasted. Making leather coats and things is resourceful and as a carnivore, and an animal lover, I respect that.
It’s what the Indians did, using every part of the animal. I’m not against leather.

I am against fur, however. The animals that fur coats and things are made from are not a food source. They’re simply killed, skinned, and tossed away like trash. They live only to give their skin and fur, which we as a culture in this day and age do not need. Fur was used for warmth and comfort, and it was the only thing available to our ancestors. We don’t NEED fur any more. We have plenty of other things to use in it’s place. The killing of animals only for their fur is needless and cruel.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:27:07 +0000

Is that Simonetta Stefanelli? The girl who was Apollonia in The Godfather? Sure looks like her!

By: daveosaurus

daveosaurus — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:08:27 +0000

I personally thought she was turning into a shark..

By: chainedpunkgirl

chainedpunkgirl — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:42:03 +0000

No, they don’t get eaten. They become cocks, which we have no use for. Their meat tastes different, and they grind them up once they are sexed to reveal they are boys.

eggs = a period, not an abortion.

By: Isengrim

Isengrim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:32:39 +0000

In Ontario, it’s perfectly legal for a woman to go around topless. Something about equal rights – men are allowed to go topless in hot weather and all.

That being said, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Hell, I dno’t think it’s a good idea when men do it. Most men, anyway, from what I’ve seen.

It seems that anyone who really does have anything to show off (male or female) tends to keep it politely under wraps.

By: Missa

Missa — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:50:30 +0000

sadly, the at least half the world IS a a mass of idiotic ditzes. *sigh*

By: Missa

Missa — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:48:17 +0000

hmm…I wear cotton and not fur because fur is freakin expensive, unless one my hunter friends would like to make me something out of deer fur or better yet, bear fur. warm and cozy. and leather is expensive too, which is why I only have one genuine leather bound book and no real leather coats or shoes or gloves or something.

By: Missa

Missa — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:44:53 +0000

public indecency (such as being nude on public property, or where people can easily see you from public property) is illegal. That’s why you don’t generally see a bunch of people going around in their birthday suits during the hottest days of the summer.

By: Missa

Missa — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:40:17 +0000

Yeah I think we eat the males. Except for a few that are left to fertilize some of the eggs. As long as males, females, and eggs are kept in controlled, separate environments most of the time, the whole thing works quite well for us all.

By: Katie-cup

Katie-cup — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:58:25 +0000

lmao. Agreed.

By: theconqueror

theconqueror — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:42:06 +0000

“Fur is Murder”
Peta is porn

By: theconqueror

theconqueror — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:39:54 +0000

Don’t they get eaten?

By: Caed

Caed — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:10:46 +0000

Laughing so hard that anything you might have been drinking at the time comes out your nose/gets spat out

By: Chi Chi

Chi Chi — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:36:59 +0000

Haha. Great one! Miss fur is a fox.

By: Lizzy

Lizzy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:39:59 +0000

True, eggs bought in stores are not fertilized.

But o’course, we must not forget that for all the chickens being born for the purpose of egg laying- all the males are thrown into a dumpster to die. Which is just delayed abortion.. kind of.

Anyyyhoo.

By: Mcface

Mcface — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:09:46 +0000

ew.. look at the wrinkles..

By: Littlemiss

Littlemiss — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:08:39 +0000

I agree. I don’t wear fur, but I’m not about to parade around naked to make the statement. Granted, I also eat meat, which might have something to do with it.

By: PortlandMark

PortlandMark — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:30:42 +0000

I don’t know what repressive country you live in, but public nudity isn’t not a crime. Not in Oregon, at least. That said, I wouldn’t advise trying it at the next PTA meeting…

By: LT

LT — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:15:52 +0000

David’s point, I expect is that the eggs we buy in stores are unfertilized.

By: Kohaku

Kohaku — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:25:47 +0000

Chicken eggs can also be fertilized, thats how you get baby chickens…

By: hergieburbur

hergieburbur — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:28:54 +0000

Actually, its just as bad for animals if nobody eats meat or uses animal products as if we do. Its called competition for limited resources.

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:26:12 +0000

Intelligence is being able to get your point across without relying on shock value. _This_ is not intelligent

By: mawieee

mawieee — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:24:01 +0000

yeah. nice xtra skin there… definitely not ribs – if your ribs were that far apart, uhhhh u have issues. but seriously folks, animals will be killed, whether you eat/wear them or not. humans were omnivores – meant to eat veges and meat and grains and all that good stuff. so do what nature intended. eat em all.

By: ema

ema — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:12:55 +0000

people dont shower in public either, hopefully

By: ema

ema — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:03:44 +0000

“seriously you are voicing your opinion on stating that someone shouldnt be offended by someone being offended?”

how does this make any sense, oh logic master?
Now, it’s the 1800’s, what happened to the 1950’s? Seriously, I see nothing so great about any of the new progressive morality of the 1960’s and beyond. It’s brought us nothing but venerial diseases and teenage pregnancy. But that is not the point. I don’t care if these people protest all they want buck naked with there rears in the air, I don’t have to like it and if I am disgusted by it I am going to say I am disgusted and I have a perfect right to say so.

By: ema

ema — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:54:57 +0000

um, you can use the internet without seeing nudity you know, or maybe you don’t… also, it is illegal to be nude in public, thank goodness. im not ashamed of my body and i don’t see any reason to parade it around in front of strangers for any reason, thats because i have self esteem, not because i am ashamed. the 1950’s had it right in my opinion.

By: TheLarrikin

TheLarrikin — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:49:06 +0000

“I don’t think ema was saying that there’s a time and place for a protest, I think she was s aying there’s a better time and place to be naked…” – Psilence

“I agree.” – me

You’re the one who checked your brain at the door (as in, left it, in case you can’t comprehend the phrase).

By: hueydoc

hueydoc — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:40:34 +0000

Seats! I mean seats!

By: hueydoc

hueydoc — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:38:50 +0000

I hope the stadium cleaned those setas after they left……ewwwww!

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:32:31 +0000

How did I contradict myself? For those who believe in God, there’s the idea that he gave people free will and the ability to do whatever they choose. However, just because he gave people the ability to slaughter animals for fashion and have perverted thoughts about random naked women on the street doesn’t mean that it’s justified or moral.

I suppose in retrospect that since EF-AH-GEE only referred to the fact that it was a right and not a moral choice, my point may seem somewhat misplaced, but his flippant attitude just kind of irked me, somehow…

By: Psychoceramics

Psychoceramics — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:22:33 +0000

because the farmer’s trying to make money off of it. they’ll do anything to get those fuckers to… um… fuck

By: Psychoceramics

Psychoceramics — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:21:12 +0000

Reading comprehension fail.

By: BGurl

BGurl — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:18:17 +0000

I think the problem is that in a forum such as this, it’s easy to read too much into one another’s comments. You seem to have taken my first post as a rhetorical question, which could easily make you think that I feel myself morally superior. It wasn’t meant as such.
I only meant to poke a little fun by suggesting that they may be wrong either way, and that the only way they could support their (moral) claim that it’s better to be naked than wear fur is if there is an objective moral standard which supports it. I wasn’t necessarily saying they were immoral, only that they may be illogical.
I think the question is a good one to consider, though. Who creates moral standards? I’d be interested to know your opinion at the very least, but even more interested if you had a good argument to support it.

By: srst

srst — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:00:49 +0000

sanity issues. i’d like to believe that half the world isn’t a mass of idiotic ditzes bopping around thinking this shit.
like we should totally just like farm like nearly dead things cause like then they totally wouldnt be almost dead anymore and we could like eat a dinosaur oh em gee!

By: Evil Pundit

Evil Pundit — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:58:56 +0000

No, I’m just normal.

By: watson

watson — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:57:11 +0000

Or are capable of writing. do you shower with your eyes closed?

By: watson

watson — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:55:49 +0000

dude are you 50 or from the 1950s?

By: gammaing ur rays

gammaing ur rays — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:52:35 +0000

or write.

seriously you are voicing your opinion on stating that someone shouldnt be offended by someone being offended? hypocrisy just called, they said you’re all out of logic.
i think peta is retarded and people are way too hideous to be running around naked but fuck off with the lets protest unless it offends me. but you know, continue living in the 1800s, seems to be great policy.

By: Evil Pundit

Evil Pundit — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:50:06 +0000

Ewww, gross.

By: Evil Pundit

Evil Pundit — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:49:00 +0000

Yes, it disgusted me when I found out that PETA “animal shelters” simply killed the animals, because they spent all their money on propaganda.

They are total hypocrites.

By: gammaing ur rays

gammaing ur rays — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:47:17 +0000

you might want to avoid the internet–or the public–or the world post 1950s.

i am no supporter for public nudity but seriously being ashamed of your body is pathetic. they are about as naked as a bathing suit. when you pop out of the womb in a knitted 3 piece suit, let me know.

By: Evil Pundit

Evil Pundit — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:46:50 +0000

Way to contradict yourself, genius.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:17:38 +0000

To better answer your question, PETA is a pathetic and phony organization that gets very little done and would rather spend their millions of dollars of annual income harassing obstinate women in fur coats and shoving edgy propaganda than actually saving any animals. They waste their time parading around and stirring up controversy and then go right back to their facilities and euthanize as many as 90% of their “rescued” animals because, as their president openly admits “It costs more money to care for and adopt out animals.”

It’s so frustrating when people don’t stand for what they speak for.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:07:42 +0000

I’d like to burn this EF-AH-GEE.

And for the record, just because God gave humans the right to do something doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing to do.