Err...
Who'd o' thought that would cause any offence.
Anyway, I thought PETA were also anti-pet.
Catholics slam PETA nude adopt-a-mutt poster
The Catholic League has fired a broadside against animal rights outfit PETA after the campaigning organisation decided to ask Playboy model and Dancing With The Stars contestant Joanna Krupa to whip off her kit in defence of homeless mutts: Joanna Krupa's PETA poster The image - which clearly demonstrates Krupa sports no …
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 16:30 GMT peyton?
I agree, he's not impartial
Here in the States, I'm pretty sure we don't have any news channels that offer straight-forward news, sans agenda, 24/7. Some are more up-front than others in having hours of "news" and hours of "editorial". This guy indicated he's on a call-in show, so he falls into the latter category, I think.
Unfortunate, but our news has to win over advertisers the same as any other show, and to do that, they've got to create a loyal following. Presenting plain, unadulterated information all the time just doesn't cut it.
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 13:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Two sides of the same sick insane coin
Its really hard to tell which is the sicker organisation of these two. Both are insane, both have shown thet they will do anything they can to get there will. They both have insane and ridiculous world views. But at the end of the day the religious nuts have been around a lot longer and have made a lot more people suffer than PETA can over the next 1000 years. Outlaw PETA and exterminate Catholics and other religious mafias
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 13:38 GMT H2Nick
STFU
After recent reports that their Irish branch protected dozens of paedos masquerading as priests, they should just STFU & get their own house in order.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 13:38 GMT Stu
Religious scum
<Quote> They dont go to church over christmas any more so they dont really count </QUOTE>
Brilliant line! I thought people in church were meant to be great listeners- he should have been the first type of person I would expect to respect the opinions of others and not dismiss them because they dont go to church, they don't 'count' apparently.
I stopped watching the vid after he said that, suffice it to say, WOW, nice posters!
-
Friday 4th December 2009 00:45 GMT The Indomitable Gall
Calm down.
The guy's point was that some people who are not catholics -- catholics being people who pray in big churches and believe wine is blood -- call themselves catholics almost as though it is a nationality. It's not -- it's a way of life. If you don't live that way of life, how can you be a catholic?
His implication was that the "catholics" PETAburd mentioned probably fall into this category.
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 13:44 GMT The BigYin
It always depresses me...
...the way organisations like PETA and donkey sanctuaries get more support and media coverage that human-focused charities. They appear to have forgotten that humans are also animals (stemming from the same common ancestor that gave us chimps and gorillas etc - had to put that in to wind up the Catholics! :o) )
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:04 GMT Cynical Observer
Winding who up?
It's not Catholics who have a problem with evolution
http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm
You may be thinking of one or more of the American organisations that has a record of embracing scientific thinking so readily (not!)
As to support for human focused charities - wholeheartedly agree. While there's a disadvantaged child here in the UK or anywhere for that matter; while cancer care is still necessary then PETA (and RSPCA etc) can go whistle (Suppose the dogs will come running)
But the fact that seems to have slipped by is that many of those charities operating in the developing countries have their origins in religious organisations. (Or should we not mention that bit?)
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:59 GMT Richard 102
About animal charities
"organisations like PETA and donkey sanctuaries get more support and media coverage that human-focused charities"
I hear what you're saying, but I am pretty much fed up with charities. Very little of the money goes to the problems they allegedly are solving; most (if not all) goes to salary, staff, benefits, expenses, and advertisements. Remember, the primary function of a charity is to raise money. And if you say "No, thanks", they try to make you feel guilty. Well, I grew up Catholic; amateurs like the charity beggars can't make me feel guilty after all these years.
Now, having said that, I quit giving to human charities, unless they promise the spaying and neutering of politicians, or if they provide scholarships to the children of fallen soldiers, policemen, or firemen. (And even then, I want to see the financial reports.) The main reason is that, when I did help, I never got a thank you. All I got was "I need more! It's unfair!" Now, my wife and I foster dogs for a couple local shelters. Believe me, those dogs know how to say thank you. It is only through an iron will and constant focus that we haven't kept all of them. So I got no problem helping dogs over people. The more I see of people, the more I like dogs.
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 14:17 GMT Mark Jan
Try a different symbol
If using religious symbols like this is OK, why don't they use the crescent moon and star symbol of Islam? Crescent moon pointing down would look good on the boobs, and the star would do the rest of the job...
Can you imagine the reaction though!
The model would not be safe for the rest of her life (which would probably slightly impinge on her career and social life) and PETA's offices would be fire-bombed.
The Christian symbol and the Catholic Church is an easy target.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 14:27 GMT Marvin the Martian
Which of the two sides is sicker, Jacky?
I dunno, there's 3 sides, Bob. There's the deluded and mildly annoying PETA (deluded into thinking their appeals will convert anyone, just preaching to the choir; annoying if you're a fur-carrying celeb but otherwise unintrusive); there the vastly criminal catholic church (no point arguing or expounding); and there's this incredibly perverse CNN. Back to the studio for analysis by Dr. Dweeb.
Hurray, see mass killing and destruction and barbarism (they only became a global news byword in the 1991 gulf war), get the kids out to see --- ludicrously obviously photoshopped poster with all modesty preserved by a crucifix: must apologise and fake outrage for minutes (but show it anyway). What happened to reporting news? I understand it's a lead-in for a very partial "debate," but how can you not get sick of this patronising? If a viewer is honestly offended, they're offended no matter how much "look away now" you say so they despise you for showing it anyway.
Are they equally outraged at every naughty (underwear) campaign sporting the cliche angel/devil (making sure to show as much as they get away with)? We should be told. Shown, preferably.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 14:27 GMT JaitcH
Back in your pulpits, preachers.
I am fed up with some damn preacher telling ME what HE thinks I should see.
If his flock of sheep, as in spineless followers, want to follow what some Rome-based enterprise that's fine. But include me out. They already have their hands full keeping the preachers away from the little kids.
Given the problem with roaming, homeless pets PETA needs to use 'shock' tactics. I am upset with the positioning of the cross symbol. it is a little excessive, better that it was omitted.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:06 GMT The Indomitable Gall
Grow up.
Christian symbolism is associated with a Christian identity. It's rude to misappropriate or subvert someone's identity to your own ends -- at best it's putting words in people's mouths, at worst it's fraudulent misrepresentation. You wouldn't want PETA implying that they were endorsed by the GB Olympic team would you? They aren't, so they shouldn't. Why should they imply any divine mission if they're not endorsed by any organised religion? If they wanted to set up a "Church of Jesus Saviour of Puppies", that would be a different matter -- but they haven't, so they shouldn't be implying any religious whatjimidoobrit.
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:02 GMT zanto
i agree with Mark
the catholic church is too soft a target for anyone looking for cheap publicity.
and speaking as someone who actually loves animals, PETA is a fraud. but then again so are greenpeace and other organizations who hoodwink intellectually insecure people into supporting them just to appear to be smart and kewl.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Practising catholic... my archangel!
"As a practicing Catholic" says naked model shown pressing herself against the symbol of Christ's sacrifice for the redemption of mankind....
She seems to have let her passion for go's lesser creatures (and better publicity?) get the better of her. Mind you she was hardly into dressing modestly to start with.
Its obviously all a photoshop stitchup - she'd catch her death dressed like that in most cathedrals.
Still PETA will be happy even if her parish preist isn't.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:02 GMT 1of10
media seeking
PETA is just another sad organisation that till today couldn’t find better way of communicating their views. Always resort to shock tactics of media seeking stunts which make them unimportant fundamentalist idiots.
How many US citizens are left abandoned by their own system and by their own families?
But hey!!! For some (if not most), pets are more important than people or close relatives…
But from 1 to 10 for the picture I would give a 8 coz the crux was carefully positioned in front of her attributes... otherwise this picture with playboy bunny would be worth mark 10.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
PETA only ever go for easy targets
Christians, feeding children meat is child abuse, clebs in fur... etc
They never go for targets that might fight back .
Well PETA here's a challenge for you.
Put a poster stating halal is terrorism with picture of a bleeding goat outside the Finsbury Park mosque and lets see what sort of response you get?
No?
Chicken! (preferred southern fried)
AC as I should be working.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 15:38 GMT ElReg!comments!Pierre
No fur?
"The image - which clearly demonstrates Krupa sports no fur whatsoever"
I'm sorry I have to disagree with you on this one. The image merely "demonstrates" that Krupa sports almost no fur. The missing, erm bits of, erm, information might be documented elsewhere though, but I'm at work so I will refrain from investigating that crucial matter for now...
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 16:00 GMT Cole 1
To PeTA-haters:
"..They appear to have forgotten that humans are also animals.." in reference to PeTA et al getting more publicity than human-focused charities. Well, that may be true, though for every PeTA there are likely what, thousands of charities for impoverished/etc humans?
It seems lately that I've had to go on the defense for PeTA, while I don't really even like them (too abrasive and are a bunch of attention grubbers). There are a lot of reasons to criticise PeTA but this whole mess about PeTA euthanising 95% of the pets it takes in is and always has been a hit job by the industry groups directly opposed to PeTA.
The animals the PeTA takes in are the worst-off, most-abused and neglected cases. I have worked with shelter groups and rescues and, believe me, I have seen awful cases of abuse and neglect, cases which would make any person question what is wrong with humanity as a whole. PeTA are not euthanising your neighbor Bob's healthy cat. They're euthanising the poor dog taken from an ignorant ***hole who has left it chained outside its entire life and let it develop all sorts of disease and irreparable mental/physical damage. Giving it a painless release is doing it a bleeding service. Perhaps the only nice thing that's ever been done for it.
If you want to see some of the worst that humanity is capable of, go volunteer at an animal shelter for two weeks. I challenge you. It will change your life, if you've got a heart.
-
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 22:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
re: Fail
Sure, what more evidence do we need?
There are those who have claimed a rather different experience whilst volunteering with PETA -maybe they're making it up, but call me old-fashioned, but I don't necessarily believe the first bleeding heart tale on the Internet.
Anyway, PETA has provided financial support for the Animal Liberation Front and have likened the of animals to the Holocaust, so personally I don't think things are quite a black and white as some posters would like to make out...
-
-
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 21:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Cheap irreligious scams"? Talk about the pot...
Mr Donohue has a nerve - part from the fact that 99.99999% recurring of people don't give a damn what he thinks - if we want to discuss cheap irreligious scams we need look no further than the Church and organisations like his 'League'. Anyone remember ever voting for these self-appointed moral guardians?
I don't know if what Ms Krupa is doing is in good taste or not - but at least she's making an effort to make people think - rather than forbidding them to think, which is all people like Donahue ever seek to do.
Get a life Mr Donahue - and stop trying to run ours...
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 21:35 GMT Bounty
multiple fail
AC/cole 1, how would PETA get animals that are in worse condition than the pound since they both pick up strays? Do you dispute the fact that they put down 80-95% ? I'm not sure I understand your positions. Fact is PETA puts down animals more than other similar organizations, this is their policy as they feel it is more humane. I don't see a big problem with that position, so I don't understand why people try to side step it. They shoud defend the position. I can't honestly say what % of animals I would put down if I ran a shelter, but they should defend their policy directly. Putting down animals is one of the few things PETA does that I may agree with.
P.S. I always like to mix getting a boner with stray animals.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 22:03 GMT ThinkingOutLoud
Symbols
This reminds me of a sketch by the late, great, Bill Hicks, where he likened Christians' wearing of the crucifix to JFK supporters wearing a handgun necklace... All the same, isn't it?
Paris because she must be pissed off at not getting this gig. Guess we've all seen her chihuahua by now.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 22:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
Agreed that PETA is dodgy
This is kind of post-Madonna (the pop singer) publicity, where basically any kind of publicity is good. Let's see, gratuitous nudity (though the model looks GREAT)--check. Gratuitous nudity used in conjunction with religious symbol that is bound to offend Christians of some flavor--check.
I am sure that PETA thinks they are basically "scamming for a higher good", but this whole ad was served up with drawing the kind of reaction (and therefore getting more publicity) than it otherwise would have.
-
Thursday 3rd December 2009 22:34 GMT SirTainleyBarking
Two ways of getting you point across
Either offend or engage.
PETA are just publicity whores who want to offend and shout their point across.
10/10 for the muff shot, but 0/10 for me wanting to engage with anything apart from my right hand.
Other similarly themed associations such as BUAV go out into unusual territory (Such as having a stand against animal testing at a cosmetics industry show, and ENGAGING with people and discussing their POV)
Who will have the better long term effect in achieving the aims? Well lets just say it won't be PETA, but doubtless they will try and take the credit
-
Friday 4th December 2009 00:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Ignored the points
Completely aside from the fact that I find the advert in bad taste, did anyone notice that the lady from PETA completely sidestepped all questions directed at her? I mean she sounded like a broken record repeated the same lines over and over again.
anonymous to avoid getting personally flamed.
-
-
Friday 4th December 2009 12:45 GMT Tim Bates
Further maths required.
That ~$300 covers vet work required before releasing the dog to a new owner. Remember that they can't legally allow them out without chipping them, and their policy is to desex to avoid future unwanted animals. That alone would be over $200 worth from even a cheap vet.
On top of that, remember they also have operating costs, like food and power.
Buying one elsewhere still ends up needing the above desexing, chipping, etc.
-
-
Friday 4th December 2009 05:42 GMT Rattus Rattus
I found this poster to be absolutely shocking
because PETA are actually saying something sensible for once.
If you want to keep an animal, you should adopt it rather than buy one from a pet store, most pet store animals aren't kept in the best of conditions and many of the so-called breeders that supply the stores are worse. Buying from a store only provides financial incentive to keep this state of affairs going. My rats came from adoption and they've been a lot happier and healthier than any I've seen in a store.
Oh, yeah, nice bird, pity about the cross. At least it annoyed the Catholics though.
-
Friday 4th December 2009 12:19 GMT Peter Hood
Faith vs puppiez
Well now, 'faiths' are nutty - face it, knowing is safer than believing, or we'd all go comet hunting - but Peta have proved themselves equally nutty... ...selling animal welfare with sex. Now wait a minute, I have a representative from the British government here, says she is sick and tired of being used as 'window dressing', name of Caroline Flint, with her friends Harman, Jowell et al... ...can they have a word about this page Zeee gurl?
What a fscked up world.
Paris, 'cos she was in a movie like this once.
-
Friday 4th December 2009 12:24 GMT The Grump
PETA more believeable than Catholic Church
At least PETA is trying to do something to reduce animal suffering. and Cole1 is right - I have seen the work of these jack arses that like to set black cats of fire during Halloween. People that use dogs as burgular alarms, tied with tethers no longer than 3 foot, for all their lives. Crazy cat ladies who "collect" cats, but neglect them. and of course, Rotties trained from birth to attack anything that moves by f**king jerks who get off on it.
The Catholic church, after their "flat earth" program fell apart, and their "everything revolves around the earth" program failed, continue to preach about God answering prayers, another fail. Truest thing ever said about religeon: "God helps those who help themselves". Translation: don't depend on God for squat. If you don't make it happen, it's not gonna happen. Catholics do far more damage to people mentally than they can ever make up for with good works. At least PETA does something useful.
BTW, that picture would make a wonderful t-shirt, PETA. I would buy one. Probably would get me thrown out of Disneyworld, but I still want one. Paris, because she would have posed w/o the crucifix. Woo-hoo!
-
Friday 4th December 2009 15:52 GMT Dale Morgan
Americans are scary
I find it shocking that people of faith are offended by a naked women, if god wanted us to wear clothes Id of been born with clothes on.
clothes were invented by man so a naked women should be less offensive than a fully clothed women.
Its also weired that the followers of the most barbaric religion mankind has invented think they have a right to talk about ethics
-
Friday 4th December 2009 16:36 GMT kerlmann
@ Dale Morgan
I don't think it's the naked women that Christians find offensive, but the juxtaposition of the cross on her nudity. It's certainly lacking taste and tact, although she has at least come out and said she's a practising Catholic, so not done entirely for the sake of 'art'.
PETA must be loving all the publicity.
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
