PETA just grossed me out!!

[Lancer]

They just like to flap in the breeze while feeling noble.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


Well, you certainly refuted my arguments quite effectively there, and with good evidence.

I'm not trying to refute your arguments. That said, you support a system of exploitaion, not me.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I usually just ignore Elok when he is being this ridiculous.

I can see why others ignore you when you're being ridiculous. I'm not trying to convince you as to the veracity of my opinion, and you're not convincing me otherwise.

But I am responding to your suggestion that I think and believe something that I don't. That's the root of our disagreement here.

I don't find anything that you've said about PETA sexist. They aren't making women look bad. If anything they are making male dominated society look bad.

If anything, they're only continuing to make themselves look rather odious.

[Kidlicious]

Mrs. Snuggles,

When you start making an argument that PETA is antifeminist that isn't ridiculous I may respond to you further.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by GePap
No one forces female PETA members to carry out the stunts they carry out, and I think they do it knowing full well that naked women draw far more media attention than naked men.

Oh, I know there's no coercion there.

Just as there's no coercion in reality TV shows, where vapid and scantily-clad young women with scant self-respect parade themselves on a national arena for a pittiance of a reward, or do everything but prostitute themselves out over the internet for a quick snatch at fame, like Ms. Tequila. There's no coercion in sating the prurient interest when Britney goes Basic Instinct on us. There's arguably very little coercion in the Girls Gone Wild series.

Heck, one could argue there's no coercion used in the Blaxploitation flicks of the '70s. It's exploitation just the same, which is the sense I still get whenever seeing a PETA ad.

But I hardly think it's advancing equality or women's rights. If anything, it's eroding the respect that was supposed to come along with the movement.

But you're also correct. Women being placed into those positions would generate more interest then men.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Mrs. Snuggles,

When you start making an argument that PETA is antifeminist that isn't ridiculous I may respond to you further.

Kid,

When you retract the notion that I think PETA is seeking to enslave women, we won't have this argument--because I don't really care what you think about PETA, and I'm quite convinced that they're a nasty piece of work.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not trying to refute your arguments. That said, you support a system of exploitaion, not me.

Yes, we all know spell-checking is exploitaive.

So, you seriously think that, in the unlikely event human breast milk becomes a popular substitute for cows' milk, all demand will be supplied by donors? There won't, say, be cases of Mexican or homeless women being paid a pittance to stick themselves full of prolactin and start pumping? You know, the same general way we meet all demand in excess of what we can supply with homegrown, ethically run labor? People really don't give a damn who gets hurt making their consumer goods provided said goods are safe for them and affordable.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than the whole country wanting to slurp down a stranger's boob-nectar. If you can imagine one, why not the other?

And I repeat, why is the capitalist having to lecture the communist on the potential of economic growth for evil? You're going to have to turn in your hammer and sickle to your local party leader.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That said, you support a system of exploitaion, not me.

Er, do you pay your taxes?

[Kidlicious]

Feminists and Animal Rights Advocates both believe in social justice

http://blog.peta.org/archives/feminism/

Feminist icon Gloria Steinem made a strong statement this week on behalf of the primates who suffer in Covance Inc.'s drug-testing laboratories. When Steinem found out that Covance was listed as a sponsor at a fundraising event that she's attending in Madison, Wisconsin, she asked that the company be immediately disassociated from the event. Her offices issued the following statement:

“Gloria Steinem expressed her severe discomfort at participating at an event for [a local human services agency] sponsored by Covance after she was alerted to the fact that thousands of animals suffer in the Covance laboratories. She stated, ‘Animal abuse is so connected to domestic abuse -- literally in a household, but societally in a more general way, too.’ Using one's power to harm others is contrary to Ms. Steinem's life's work and Covance was dropped as a sponsor for the event.”
What I love about this story is not just the big black eye to Covance's PR machine in Madison (where the company has a high profile due to its massive animal-experimentation lab outside the city), but the fact that Steinem explicitly puts animal rights in the wider context of social justice. She situates the issue, as it should be, alongside the broader issue of fighting the oppressive mentality that companies like Covance share with domestic abusers or any perpetrators of violence who believe that "might makes right."

Hopefully, this will be food for thought for all the people who comment on this blog wondering why animal rights people don't do more to fight other forms of oppression. The point is that people who care about animal rights, like Gloria Steinem, just have a better view of the big picture. Injustice and violence needs to be stamped out wherever it crops up—and no matter who the victims are.

[Elok]

It would've come closer to refuting or even addressing Mrs. Snuggles's argument if you'd cited cases of PETA members supporting feminism. It still wouldn't have exactly met the point, but it'd be in the same ballpark. As it is, we have a serious fail. All you're telling us is that a well-known feminist supports an animal-rights cause, without her even mentioning the organization.

[Q Classic]

The Republican party claims its against bailouts. Doesn't stop them.

Gloria Steinem, while I respect her views, doesn't necessarily speak for me, and I find it amusing that you would assume that just because she may or may not like them, I would too--or even change my mind.

I've told you, quite simply, why we have this disagreement. I have no intention of trying to convince you of my viewpoint, nor will you convince me of yours. All you need to do to resolve this discussion is retract that one statement.

But you're finding that hard to do, aren't you?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Oh, I know there's no coercion there.

Just as there's no coercion in reality TV shows, where vapid and scantily-clad young women with scant self-respect parade themselves on a national arena for a pittiance of a reward, or do everything but prostitute themselves out over the internet for a quick snatch at fame, like Ms. Tequila. There's no coercion in sating the prurient interest when Britney goes Basic Instinct on us. There's arguably very little coercion in the Girls Gone Wild series.

Heck, one could argue there's no coercion used in the Blaxploitation flicks of the '70s. It's exploitation just the same, which is the sense I still get whenever seeing a PETA ad.

But I hardly think it's advancing equality or women's rights. If anything, it's eroding the respect that was supposed to come along with the movement.

Sorry, but how is this attitude not in itself sexist? Women have as much right to be stupid, or dress badly as men. Judging their nakedness to somehow be worse or more toxic than say male nakedness is a strange way to promote sex equality. To me this smacks of the arguements in the Islamic world that making women dress up is there to help women keep their honor and respect by desexualising them and keeping the evil horny eyes of men off women.

Would you judge the men who whored themselves in that Tila Tequila show better than the women, or her? And given that she was supposedly the "prize", how id she hoar herself? You might say she hoared herself to fame, but then anyone who gets a reality show in some respect does so, male or female.

But you're also correct. Women being placed into those positions would generate more interest then men.

PETA has shown itself very good at getting attention.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
The Republican party claims its against bailouts. Doesn't stop them.

Gloria Steinem, while I respect her views, doesn't necessarily speak for me, and I find it amusing that you would assume that just because she may or may not like them, I would too--or even change my mind.

I've told you, quite simply, why we have this disagreement. I have no intention of trying to convince you of my viewpoint, nor will you convince me of yours. All you need to do to resolve this discussion is retract that one statement.

But you're finding that hard to do, aren't you?

I looked back at your post and you are clearly being stupid and trolling.

Also, showing the human body isn't sexist.

[Q Classic]

Sorry, but how is this attitude not in itself sexist? Women have as much right to be stupid, or dress badly as men. Judging their nakedness to somehow be worse or more toxic than say male nakedness is a strange way to promote sex equality. To me this smacks of the arguements in the Islamic world that making women dress up is there to help women keep their honor and respect by desexualising them and keeping the evil horny eyes of men off women.

Hmm. I suppose my language could suggest that interpretation. We were discussing women, however, not so much men, which is why my examples were about women.

That sort of misguided fame-seeking behavior at the cost of self-respect (or, indeed, because of a distinct lack of it) isn't isolated to just women.

Would you judge the men who whored themselves in that Tila Tequila show better than the women, or her?

Actually, no. They're just as bad.

And given that she was supposedly the "prize", how id she whoar herself? You might say she whoared herself to fame, but then anyone who gets a reality show in some respect does so, male or female.

And I'm against that sort of behavior, regardless of which gender it comes from.

It's just that again, we were talking about women there--so all of my examples were women.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I looked back at your post and you are clearly being stupid and trolling.

Also, showing the human body isn't sexist.

That first post of mine, from which you mistakenly derived a certain belief, wasn't a troll, nor was it stupid. I stated my point of view, which was that PETA, regardless of their ideals, is rather ridiculous, and that I remained unconvinced by this campaign to change my position on dairy.

But, stupid talk radio allegations such as yours deserve a standard talk radio response.

As far as showing the human body, no, it's not. It's the pattern from PETA and their methods that I dislike--which I do view as sexist.