Tricia Helfer in Peta Ad

[Donal]

Honestly, guys, if you can look at Tricia Helfer and want to discuss her ideas about animal rights, there is a problem.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Honestly, guys, if you can look at Tricia Helfer and want to discuss her ideas about animal rights, there is a problem.

QFT.

I really don't think this is her being stupid. It is the celebrity endorsment version of voting to give flags to orphans.

You guys just have a big thing about "oh, the organization at its core has crazy ideas, she is justifying killing seeing eye dogs!!!"

It is a poster for treating your cat nicely. Srsly.

 

[GreNME]

My thing is more about wanting Hollywood-types to shut their pie-holes about how they think I should be living my life when their own is so far removed from my experience and situation.

Yeah, she's hot, but once I see an actor go down this path I wash my hands of being a fan most of the time.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My thing is more about wanting Hollywood-types to shut their pie-holes about how they think I should be living my life when their own is so far removed from my experience and situation.

Yeah, she's hot, but once I see an actor go down this path I wash my hands of being a fan most of the time.

Yeah, if she was talking about using paper instead of plastic, or buying recycled tires, etc. that would be one thing.

This is about being nice to your cats. I can forgive her.

 

[GreNME]

I could forgive her if she was doing it for the SPCA or one of the state Humane Societies. Not PETA, who does next to nothing to support what she states she believes. That just gives me the impression of gullibility or ignorance, neither of which I find attractive.

 

[Donal]

My thing is more about wanting Hollywood-types to shut their pie-holes about how they think I should be living my life when their own is so far removed from my experience and situation.

So, ignore them. Good lord, if I gave a damn everytime one of my favorite rock stars got political or moralistic about something, I wouldn't be able to listen to any good music.

Outside of the whole "Free Mumia" fiasco, I don't really feel the need to get up in arms about celebrities droning on about their pet causes.

In some cases (like Heston and Brando during the Civil Rights Era) it is actually a really good thing. It brings attention to something that most of us would never even consider.

Yeah, she's hot, but once I see an actor go down this path I wash my hands of being a fan most of the time.

I think you are expecting a lot from people whose job is to look pretty and play make believe.

 

[GreNME]

I think you are expecting a lot from people whose job is to look pretty and play make believe.

I think you might be right.

 

[TraneWreck]

Not a surprise. All hot chicks want to be Vets until they realize they need to know a lot of science.

 

[The Painter]

PETA kills Animals

Go ahead, click it.

 

[applecorped]

I feel so dirty.

 

[Rolfe]

Remember Yahweh? Smart kid poster not seen for a number of years? Used to have a web site - Fundies say the darndest things, or something like that?

Last seen as a full-blown PETA activist.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Just remembered. Local fish restaurant. Had a collecting can on the counter for some good cause or other. I had to ask the assistant to turn it round so everyone could read the entire label.

PETAL
APPEAL

Rolfe.

 

[dudalb]

PETA does as much good as the KKK having a barbecue for orphans.

Or Al Capone opening a Soup Kitchen in Chicago in 1929.
What is it about PETA and The Chuch of $cientilogy that appeals to so many Hollywood types? Some kind of psychology is at work there.

 

[davefoc]

I sympathize a bit with PETA. I empathize with animals and their plight and have never been completely happy with the idea of eating them although I do.

One area, that just seems to me to be philosophically problematic is their stance on indoor cats in Roger's link.

I can see an argument for no domestic cats at all. But how is keeping an animal penned up in a house all day humane? Particularly an animal that desperately wants to go outside. If animal rights is your thing, isn't it inconsistent to justify keeping an animal solely to provide a little entertainment for its owner when the owner comes home while the animal spends the vast majority of its day in lonely boredom.

Roger's PETA link goes on about how much better off cats are that stay in all the time are (with some other non-sense thrown in). Cool, would anybody here like to be restricted to a house 24/7 so that they can live a somewhat longer life? I doubt it and I suspect that the cats aren't too happy with that arrangement either.

 

[DC]

have never been completely happy with the idea of eating them although I do.

hehe i know that feeling

 

[Minadin]

I enjoy finding various new ways to eat animals. But, Ingrid Newkirk wants to have her remains BBQ'ed and fed to people (besides those parts which could be preserved and used as ornaments). She's insane. PETA's insane. It's worse because it seems like it should be a good cause.

 

[GreNME]

One area, that just seems to me to be philosophically problematic is their stance on indoor cats in Roger's link.

I can see an argument for no domestic cats at all. But how is keeping an animal penned up in a house all day humane? Particularly an animal that desperately wants to go outside. If animal rights is your thing, isn't it inconsistent to justify keeping an animal solely to provide a little entertainment for its owner when the owner comes home while the animal spends the vast majority of its day in lonely boredom.

Roger's PETA link goes on about how much better off cats are that stay in all the time are (with some other non-sense thrown in). Cool, would anybody here like to be restricted to a house 24/7 so that they can live a somewhat longer life? I doubt it and I suspect that the cats aren't too happy with that arrangement either.

That's actually a great point, and (I think) worth discussing, though probably not relating to the hot-ness of Helfer p Tsukasa Buddha and Donal).

The biggest problem with cats being out, even only occasionally, is that they manage to overtake the other fauna in practically any environment they're introduced to. They manage to enjoy the same place on the food chain as the bigger cat species while also having the rapid breeding abilities of smaller mammals. It's definitely a moral conundrum.

 

[ShowerComic]

This is about being nice to your cats. I can forgive her.

What gets me is it's Peta selling this ad, Peta which sees all pet ownership as exploitation. Also it's hard to image any pet owner not treating their cats well. -- Granted I'm a former cat owner. (Family had them) That and I see the opposite in this commercial, like someone is buying cats just to abuse them.
-- who would do that ?

 

[GreNME]

Sometimes, PETA can really dig their own hole. [Example]

From the article, regarding service dogs:

There will never be a perfect world, but in the world we're in now, we support some working dog situations and decry others. Hearing dog programs that pull dogs from animal shelters and ensure that they are in safe and loving homes have our stamp of approval; they live with the family for their entire life, they learn interesting things, enjoy life, and love helping. On the other hand, we oppose most seeing-eye-dog programs because the dogs are bred as if there are no equally intelligent dogs literally dying for homes in shelters, they are kept in harnesses almost 24/7, people are prohibited from petting or playing with them and they cannot romp and run and interact with other dogs; and their lives are repeatedly disrupted (they are trained for months in one home and bond, then sent to a second, and after years of bonding with the person they have "served," they are whisked away again because they are old and no longer "useful"). We have a member who is blind who actually moved states to avoid "returning" her beloved dog. We feel that the human community should do more to support blind people, and give dogs a break. A deaf person can see if a dog has a medical issue such as blood in her urine, a blind person living alone cannot, and so on.

There are so many lies and misdirections in that quote I don't even know where to begin. Her anecdotal "member" who "moved states" is one of those types of stories I call BS on, but since the anecdotes remain overly vague like that there's no further information provided to take it apart. As for the alleged "relationship" between PETA and police dogs, Nachminovitch distorts reality to suit her own twisted view of the world. PETA had zilch to do with anything remotely related to police dogs, except that the organization is patently against it. Newkirk was the head of the D.C. municipal pounds for several years, and was a whistleblower of a few animal shelters, at least one of which actually got in trouble for cruelty. Just like most of these fringe movement people, Newkirk's importance is incredibly overblown in order to make it look as if she achieved more than she actually did. She's an activist who gradually got activist enough to make her own organization to promote the lifestyle she would be happy to impose on the rest of the world because she thinks it's best.

My own response to the article in the comments section (which are moderated, so the comment may or may not ever show up):

What Nachminovitch failed to point out is that she must have apparently adopted, according to PETA's adoption numbers for 2007, 11.7% of ALL the dogs that PETA adopted out in the latest year with their numbers reported. Municipal animal shelters, many of which are horribly run, adopt out more than 12-17 dogs per year, which is PETA's average.

Nachminovitch is simply another in a very tightly-knit group of PETA leaders who is committed to doing their best to misdirecting the general public discourse on animal welfare for the sake of their own personal crusades to have the whole world eating a vegetarian/vegan diet and no domesticated animals. The whole point of PETA is to provide an outlet for people who have made certain lifestyle choices who feel that the rest of the world should follow their not-so-humble example, completely ignoring the facts in favor of their zealous rhetoric. It's a pity that Miss Barnett, much like any other journalist who has been given the opportunity to ask the really meaty questions, has instead chosen to avoid critical discourse in order to give PETA some more free press time.

Don't miss next week, when yet another gullible celebrity does an endorsement for PETA, possibly even in the nude or in a white hood (PETA's preferred advert format lately).