Peta is doing this
Posted by therosered on Jan 13, 2008 · Member since Jan 2008 · 4 posts
what about this story?
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20068762,00.html
My only comment is that using a famous person for their fame even though they wear fur is wrong. It is hypocritical and corrupt. and they go after Jennifer Lopez for loving her fur coats?????? I also find it odd that people will ignore this and say well at least she is advocating the animals birth control" It is like people have blinders on. Corruption at it's finest. They recognize that she loves her fur coats, yet they attack Jennifer for wearing fur??
A movement should be made to go for the original values of PETA and withdrawal support for PETA.
I am just so disgusted at the lack of any moral reason behind these weak excuses.
PETA sucks. No surprise there.
Yeah, it is weird. There is another thread, that brought this up, and the Kimora Lee Simmons add. http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=21123.0
I am not sure what they are thinking.
It seems to make sense, PETA is a large organization with a lot of different sectors and issues. People sometimes support some issues but not others, and PETA is happy to accept the help of volunteers in whichever sector they are willing to support. Its no different than meat eaters going to a ABC or fur rally/protest, except it is a celebrity.
And theres a lot of people who wear fur, they go after Jennifer Lopez because she wears a lot of fur, is well known, and is not already especially loved by society. They could target all fur wearing celebrities but PETA is already spread very thin as it is, its a strategic approach for them to hold campaigns targeting specific companies or individuals. Trying to blanket-attack all fur wearers weakens peoples interest and support in the campaign. So is it wrong to target Jennifer Lopez and not other fur wearers? I guess it could be argued that it is wrong, but even if it is wrong it still isnt that big of a deal, its impossible to live act completely immorally, and in this case the benefits of targeting Lopez are clear whilst the immorality of strategically focusing on one individual is incredibly cloudy.
They don't single out J-Lo
http://www.furisdead.com/feat_worst_dressed.asp
But, yes they are a large organization, with several smaller causes within the framework of their larger cause
I think when they are caught going against their own words, people who like them make weak excuses. That actress wears more than one fur, they just won't talk against her because she is doing something for them (hypocrisy at it's finest).
She's upfront about, PETA's upfront about it.
I realize it's probably best to find someone that buys 100% into your cause, rather than one aspect of it, but does everyone who encourages animal neutering and spaying have to be vegan?
There aren't many organizations, religions, political parties, groups and social causes that I buy 100% of their agenda.
No disgust here. Flame me, I can take it.
This is what is good, that people don't follow PETA blindly and they recognize the corruption for what it is worth. It is sad that anything made for good is tainted such as PETA, but thats what all groups are down the line .... greedy. I find it also sad that followers are willing to accept this corruption as a "must" to survive. Just like politics "vote for the least evil one" this has been coming for along time. It is time these truths surface.
I am 42 and know them from the inside and this little bit is nothing compared to the rest of the crap.
I do not flame. I just find it curious that when people/followers can't defend their organizations they have the same excuses. PETA is too big to change and too corrupt and people who like them try to justify the wrongs they do.
Here in Europe, where I live, PETA seems to have lost the plot about 10 years ago. It's more about political power and influence than about the animals. I get the feeling there's a lot of money involved for someone--and it's not the animals that are reaping the benefit.