PETA is nucking futs.

[FatuousTwat]

I was watching current (satellite station) and saw this story. Someone's comment was "They should make celebrity flavours!".

[KallDrexx]

Necroing cause I found this pretty funny.  PETA is enraged that the latest Mario game has Mario in a Tanooki suit.

"When on a mission to rescue the princess, Mario has been known to use any means necessary to defeat his enemy, even wearing the skin of a raccoon dog to give him special powers," the site reads. "Tanooki may just be a 'suit' in Mario games, but in real life, tanuki are raccoon dogs who are skinned alive for their fur. By wearing tanooki, Mario is sending the message that it's OK to wear fur. Play Super Tanooki Skin 2D and help Tanooki reclaim his fur!"

...

This is the second time in the last year that PETA has criticized a video game. In 2010, the group released a play on the Xbox360 downloadable game Super Meat Boy, changing the title to "Super Tofu Boy."

 

[tgr]

They've gone after BF3 as well. Apparently someone in PETA actually managed to play through the SP part to find this gem:

“The realistic computer game Battlefield 3 treats animals in a sadistic manner. The game gives players the option to kill a rat with a combat knife in the back in order to then lift it by its tail, then toss it away,” the press release says, adding that “killing virtual animals” can have “a brutalizing effect […] on the young male audience.”

The title of this thread doesn't even begin to describe how nuts they must be to unironically mean whatever it is they vomit forth.

[K9]

If they don't like BF3 they are REALLY going to hate skyrim 

[Nyght]

Much better if we are only slaughter humans and are trying to ethnically cleanse other races.     

[Ratman_tf]

I'm not quite sure what to make of PETA. They're quite willing to kill animals and then turn around and ask people to go to ludicrous lengths to not harm animals.

I'm suspecting that they're a performance art group, like Flash Mobs, only retarted instead of clever.

[Tmon]

My friend's dad used to do a pretty good business with People for The Eating Tasty Animals t-shirts till he got a nasty letter from a lawyer. 

[Ingmar]

Yeah a lot of times when they go in and 'rescue' animals from hoarders and such they turn right around and destroy them - and they in fact have a habit of working specifically and directly against the no-kill movement. It is utterly baffling to me.

[Lantyssa]

It probably has something to do with the fact that they're insane.

[tgr]

My friend's dad used to do a pretty good business with People for The Eating Tasty Animals t-shirts till he got a nasty letter from a lawyer. 

Why? Did he infringe on any copyrights?

[Khaldun]

After Skyrim, I am now very completely inured to the brutal killing of dragons. I'd even eat their meat and wear their skins! I am contributing to the insane brutalization of dragons! I'm not even a young male, I'm an OLD MALE. OCCUPY the GREYBEARDS!

[Miasma]

Edit: Heh wrong thread.

[Tmon]

My friend's dad used to do a pretty good business with People for The Eating Tasty Animals t-shirts till he got a nasty letter from a lawyer.  

Why? Did he infringe on any copyrights?

Probably not.  But it was around the same time that they managed to get peta.com away from a guy that used it for his People for the Eating of Tasty Animals website.  So he didn't feel like seeing what would happen if he kept on selling them.

[HaemishM]

Yeah a lot of times when they go in and 'rescue' animals from hoarders and such they turn right around and destroy them - and they in fact have a habit of working specifically and directly against the no-kill movement. It is utterly baffling to me.

That is... goddamn insane.

[NowhereMan]

I think a lot of it gets sort of justified by them on the grounds that it is crueller for animals to be kept in captivity than to be killed and so cats and dogs will be better off destroyed than rehoused, which also goes to their long term goal of making keeping pets illegal. There's a lot of crazy shit when you get down to the people actually driving PETA's agenda way beyond a lot of their active membership being assholes who spend their whole lives protesting people for eating honey that involves the exploitation of bees or whatever.

[Ratman_tf]

That is... goddamn insane.

I believe their rationalization is that keeping animals is slavery, but domesticated animals cannot survive well (or at all) without humans, so it's more "humane" to kill them. It's hard to track down an offical response, as PETA killing thousands of animals every year is something I imagine they don't want to comment on.

[MahrinSkel]

I'm a fan of hot naked chicks in cages.  Maybe that came out wrong....

--Dave

[Khaldun]

PETA is solidly positioned at the place where conferring rights on animals goes totally incoherent. E.g., it's one thing to say, "Don't be cruel" and another to say, "animals have rights substantially indistinguishable from those of humans". As soon as you even get close to that, all carnivorous animals become murderers unless you invoke the "it's in their nature" clause. But if you invoke that, then: a) domestic animals whose 'nature' is now to be co-resident with and dependent upon human beings ought to be a non-problem philosophically and b) at least some human consumption and use of animals ought to be as much of a non-problem as ants farming aphids is: e.g., it is in our nature.

[Merusk]

No, because they'll counter-argue that getting protein from animals is only acceptable from animals because they have neither the cognitive ability or technology to understand they can get it from other sources.   It's in our nature to kill when angered but we don't accept that as unavoidable. We must advance past such a base reaction and move on to a more enlightened state and embrace plant protein.

 

I always argued at least animals can run away. Shame on them for stalking poor defenseless carrots like that.