Catholic League slams PETA ad featuring Joanna Krupa holding crucifix over nude body

[spiritual_gunfighter]

Joanna Krupa has the Catholic League barking about her latest pictorial.

The model appears nude, sporting only angel wings and a strategically placed crucifix in a new PETA ad with the tagline, "Be an angel for animals," encouraging pet lovers to adopt.

In another ad for the same campaign, Krupa appears topless with a dog in one arm and a rosary dangling from the other.

"The fact is that cats and dogs are a lot safer in pet stores than they are in the hands of PETA employees," Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement. "Moreover, pet stores don't rip off Christian iconography and engage in cheap irreligious claims. PETA is a fraud.

"Those who support this organization sorely need a reality check. They also need a course in Ethics 101."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_catholic_league_slams_peta_ad_featuring_joanna_krupa_holding_crucifix_over_nude_.html#ixzz0YeWOSDMF


PETA pissing off Christians and meat eaters at the same time. Man, I love PETA.

[tonysam]

1. No, they just alienate more people with their stupid, sexist stunts.

They're an extremist group. Period.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

3. Yeah I love it n/t

[redqueen]

4. You love that they hate women?

Yeah... not so surprising, really.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

6. PETA hates women?

I thought they hated people being cruel to animals, thanks for the update.

[tonysam]

9. They don't care about "cruelty." They want animal "rights."

"Rights" do not exist for animals because animals aren't people.

Yeah, they're sexists to the core as well.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

11. "Rights do not exist for animals because animals aren't people"

since you said it it must be true.

[Ignis]

53. That thar shore is some deep philosophizin', huh?

:crazy:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

56. That person is going to give Immanuel Kant a run for his money for sure.

[Ignis]

57. Well, he was a real pissant anyway.

Or so I've heard sung.

[keroro gunsou]

88. was he also

very rarely stable? :D

[Ignis]

91. S'what I hear, Bruce.

:toast:

[ET Awful]

13. I see . . . so animals do not have the right to be free from abuse, neglect and torture?

Thanks for the info.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

15. I really hope Tonysam isnt torturing animals n/t

[ET Awful]

17. I doubt he is. I just think that he has no clue what he's talking about. n/t

[WonderGrunion]

95. I think they do have those rights.

However, they do not have the right to keep from being eaten. :popcorn: <--- Popcorn chicken.

[ET Awful]

117. Ah, but unless you are raising the animals yourself or know exactly who is and how they

are being slaughtered, odds are they are being denied the rights you just said they were entitled to.

Or do you hold animals you eat up to different standards than animals you pet?

[joeybee12]

25. Now I get it!

You're trying to be stupid!!!!

[Ignis]

59. It's gotta be an act. But really, it's some consumate acting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7146739&mesg_id=7148358

[redqueen]

21. You're welcome. (nt)

[tonysam]

7. Hell, PETA hates EVERYTHING

They hate human beings, they hate animals, they hate everything. Hell, they even hate plants because they EAT them.

[redqueen]

20. They are indeed batshit crazy, it's true.

I hate misogynists, so I hate PETA.

[Ignis]

54. Interesting. Is everyone who has donated to PETA a misogynist?

If not, what particular $ amount makes one a misogynist?

Someone should really tell my cadre of lesbian vegetarian friends who live in Oakland that they're a bunch of stinkin' misogynists for donating their time and money to PETA.

I'm sure they'll be crushed. ;(

[redqueen]

58. Did I say that? Why would you make that leap?

If your lesbian vegetarian friends have no problem with the objectification of women, that's their problem.

[Ignis]

60. What leap, exactly?

You did say that you hate PETA because you hate misogynists, didn't you?

And since PETA is merely an organization made up of individuals, I'm asking you to define which of those individuals are misogynists.

[redqueen]

61. The ones who condone the objectification of women. (nt)

[Ignis]

63. Right, which is why I tied it back to $ donations.

What level of donation to PETA makes one a misogynist?

- Is it anything greater than or equal to $0.01?
- Is it anything over a fixed amount--let's say $25/year?
- What about those who donate their time but not their money?

[redqueen]

67. One does not even need to donate in order to be a misogynist. (nt)

[Ignis]

68. How does that relate to PETA, though?

If you're just making a sweeping statement that misogyny is bad, m'kay, I doubt you'll get a lot of argument from DUers (or you shouldn't, anyway, but who knows these days...).

But you still haven't defined which members of PETA are misogynists, other than via a self-referential definition.

[redqueen]

73. I had no intention of personalizing this... and I'm not sure why

you're so intent on doing so.

PETA, the organization (i.e. their ad people) use objectified images of women. That makes them bona fide assholes. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with it either doesn't understand the objectification of women, or doesn't have a problem with it (i.e. they are misogynists).

[Ignis]

76. Oh, I'm not a PETA member, so it's not personal for me.

But I have many friends who are, and they are most certainly not misogynists.

So it seems you're saying that PETA's advertising/creative departments are populated solely by misogynists. Does that include the women in those departments? All of them, or merely some of them?

[redqueen]

82. There are PETA members on DU... and I wouldn't accuse them

of being misogynists.

And to repeat myself (since it is apparently necessary), some people can be unaware of what objectification means, or why it's harmful. Those people I would not consider misogynists.

And with that, I'm done talking to you. Have a good day.

[Ignis]

84. You wouldn't accuse them, or they aren't misogynists?

I do hope you won't really scurry away. I realize I ask uncomfortable questions, but they're not ill-intentioned.

[redqueen]

87. It's depressing that you are making me spell this out.

I wouldn't accuse them because I don't know if they are or not.

Christ.

Enough.

[Ignis]

90. When you use a broad brush, you should expect questions.

Don't want to be pestered to death by pedantic assholes like me?

Then don't make sweeping statements that strongly imply that all members of Group X share Characteristic Y--particularly when that characteristic is obviously pejorative and outside the scope of your ability to know.

It's as simple as that, really. :hi:

[redqueen]

93. PETA is not a person. I was talking about their ads.

What's simple is that I was talking about their ads. Hope you enjoyed your little exercise in assholery. I know that's a hobby of a lot of people around here... so I imagine you most likely did.

[Ignis]

97. And now it's Angry Insult Time? Oh well.

An entire organization cannot be misogynistic, unless that goal/method is directly spelled out in their mission statement or similar document.

The GOP, for example, is what I would consider a misogynistic organization, because it specifically seeks to defeat the ERA and other pro-equality efforts. But does that mean that every single member of the GOP is a misogynist?

Saying "PETA are misogynists" is not the same as saying "this particular PETA ad is misogynistic."

[redqueen]

100. Thanks for the correction. PETA puts out way too many misogynistic ads for my tastes. (nt)

[Ignis]

102. I agree. (nt)

[dustbunnie]

157. Objectification does not necessarily equal misogyny.

People objectify each other all the time... and that even includes sexual partners who love each other very much.

[Ignis]

51. OK, that's it; I'm convinced you're using reductio ad absurdum

No one can be that silly that consistently. PETA hates plants? That's comedy gold! :rofl:

I applaud your efforts at exposing Anti-PETA Crusaders for the loons they really are.

Great theatre, though! :thumbsup:

[tonysam]

5. Only people unaware of PETA's true goals "love" it.

There is nothing to love about a crackpot group.

[ET Awful]

16. So what are their "true" goals? Perhaps you should enlighten everyone.

Yup, they're a bit whacko, but if you think their goals are something other than what they state them to be, please let us know what their "true" goals are.

[Ignis]

52. Just ask Rick Berman. He's been paid a lot of $$ to sell you The Truth.

:rofl:

[arcadian]

2. The Catholic League? Who cares?

I've only just heard of them and I'll forget about them in 10 minutes.

[gateley]

8. What does the Catholic League think they'll accomplish by this criticism? Do

something helpful and Christian-ish, Joanna. Like your leader probably would have. :eyes:

[mike_c]

10. I'm no fan of PETA, but the catholic church institutionalizes delusion...

...and has zero credibility on ANYTHING as far as I'm concerned. When the Pope goes on television to admit that his organization has devoted two thousand years to worshiping invisible friends in the sky, I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, the catholic league is just another delusional bunch with a dubious grasp on reality.

[ET Awful]

12. The Catholic League is ignoring what PETA is protesting in this case . . .

The vast majority of animals in pet stores come from puppy/kitten mills and are the product of extreme abuse and neglect, not to mention higher risk of congenital diseases and other ailments.

As to PETA . . . half the time they're off their rockers, the other half, they have a good point to make. In this case, I'll side with PETA.

Anyone who disagrees needs to do some research on puppy mills and find out what they're actually supporting.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

14. The salient point which you have pointed out is lost on people

which may be to PETA's detriment unfortunately. I realize why PETA does what it does and most of the time I love it, but sometimes it can get in the way of the message.

[ET Awful]

18. Yup, that's their main problem.

It starts to be somewhat like the pro-life demonstrators that hold up big posters of aborted fetuses and such.

If you offend too many people, you dilute your message and even people that might otherwise have agreed with you will turn away.

(Note: the above should not be taken as an endorsement of pro-lifers or PETA, merely drawing a comparison).

[redqueen]

23. Spot on. (nt)

[ET Awful]

26. Come to think of it, another good comparison would be the GOP . . .

Witness folks like the owner of Little Green Footballs tiring of the insanity and parting ways.

Same thing. If you act insane for too long, you erode any support you might have otherwise gotten.

[redqueen]

22. I agree with the message they're trying to promote.

I despise their use of objectification (not to mention their idiotic shock ads) to get attention.

[defendandprotect]

37. Animal abuse/slaughter is such a taboo subject that it does make PETA look nuts, occasionally...

The exploitation of animals -- especially as given license to by "Manifest Destiny" and

"Man's Dominion Over Nature" religious concepts -- is something that the Vatican/RCC

have a bedded interest in preserving --


And it's a subject which needs even more attention -- more regularly!!

[seabeyond]

47. The exploitation of animals ... so exploit women to get point across. nt

[ET Awful]

62. Maybe you should ask the women who share PETA's views and thus volunteer to engage in

PETA's protests and other actions if they feel exploited?

[seabeyond]

64. people willingly allow for different reason. doesnt mean it isnt happening. nt

[ET Awful]

70. So your argument is that women who willingly engage in demosntrations for PETA are too stupid to

know the difference?

Sounds sexist to me.

[seabeyond]

71. did i use the word stupid. no. i didnt. are you always so dishonest in your

arguments.

sounds assinine to me.

[ET Awful]

80. You're the one being dishonest, not I. You insinuate that women who support a cause

are being exploited because they support that cause. The implication made by such a position is that you believe they are too stupid to know they're being exploited.

Or is just that because YOU would feel exploited, they must be being exploited?

It's not exploitation if they do it with full knowledge and full support of their goal. They are well aware of what they are doing, why they are doing it and the consequences of their actions. That's not exploitation, it's passionate support of a cause.

We aren't talking about poor innocent children here. We're talking about adults who knowingly engage in an action in support of a cause.

Do you think people who hold a "die-in" against a war are being exploited? What about women who bare their breasts in public to protest against anti-breast feeding statutes? Are they being exploited? Are nudists being exploited when they take off their clothes in support of their nudist beliefs?

Basically, your position is that if a woman engages in "immodest" behavior in support of a cause or group, they are being exploited. I submit that this is not the case. They are engaging in an age-old form of rebellion which involves disregarding what you or anyone else finds acceptable and doing so for the shock value in support of a cause.

What you call exploitation, they call protest.

[seabeyond]

101. they had an ad about womens pubic hair. they had an ad with women fucking veggies

this woman that runs the company seems to have such an obsession with the female form, i wonder.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

103. Note you said "woman" that runs the company n/t

[seabeyond]

104. of course i recognize.

and it is as i said above, because it is female doesnt mean it isnt happening. yes, i am truly curious why this woman is chosing this behavior. regardless, they use women in objectifying manner to push their agenda. there are women that make the most fuckin sexist advert to sell their product. then justify it

[ET Awful]

116. Are you now suggesting that your objection stems from your suspion about Ingrid Newkirks

orientation?

[seabeyond]

118. no. i am saying that they are an orginization that objectify women. nt

[Ignis]

66. Oh, we don't have to ASK. We KNOW.

:crazy:

[defendandprotect]

110. I think the ad is beautiful ... obviously air brushed ... and Joanna Krupa

happens to be a practicing Catholic -- as she mentions in the article -- doing what she

thinks the Catholic Church should be doing -- i.e., protecting animals unable to defend

themselves.

Obviously, she's a working model, though I don't know if she got paid for this or whether

she volunteered.

About time the cross was put to some positive use -- rather than used as a tool to create fear.



http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_catholic_league_slams_peta_ad_featuring_joanna_krupa_holding_crucifix_over_nude_.html#ixzz0YeWOSDMF

[Nihil]

130. I agree ...

... both about the "beautiful" and your comment below:

> About time the cross was put to some positive use -- rather than used
> as a tool to create fear.

In addition, it is a reasonable shape to provide "shelter" for the three
points on her body that the mores of the region demand are not revealed
whilst allowing all the rest to be visible.

BTW: yes, I know that a Tau cross would be better - and more historically
accurate for that matter - but there is such a thing as artistic interpretation!
:hi:

[SidDithers]

19. Any time the Catholic League gets pissed off...

I figure somebody must be doing something right.

Sid

[spiritual_gunfighter]

24. That was why I posted it mainly n/t

[Jamastiene]

122. Exactly. n/t

[Ian David]

27. The Catholic "League" is Donahue and six paid staffers. n/t

[CatholicEdHead]

50. Yep, they are not part of and even more hyper-sensitvie

than the Catholic Church itself. :crazy: Donahue is just an attention whore.

[damntexdem]

28. A plague on both their houses.

Crucifixes optional.

[flvegan]

29. I wish we could have a PETA thread every day.

[redqueen]

34. If you're serious, it'd be very easy.

Just pick a new sexist ad (either objectifying or insulting, they offer both) to post in an OP - one per day... they have enough to keep that going for quite a while.

And there will be many who will eat it up, and a few who will object... so it's sure to attract attention either way.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

36. THE OUTRAGE...IT BURNS!!!! N/T

[redqueen]

38. Nobody is trying to force you to care about the objectification of women. (nt)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

39. My girlfriend hates PETA for the same reason

and we are both vegans, so okay I will give you that one. You win.

[flvegan]

69. I'll post one of the nude/semi-nude ones they did with a male.

I'll look forward to your outrage then, too.

[Behind the Aegis]

72. POST IT! I dare you!

You wouldn't dare exploit men!!!





:evilgrin: waiting for pics!

[flvegan]

77. Won't somebody please

stop the exploitation of poor Dennis Rodman???

[Behind the Aegis]

79. LOL!

I feel so violated!

Though I don't think he's all that attractive.

[flvegan]

83. I went for maximum skin. Plus

I wanted to choose someone that had shown a long past history of being very comfortable showing of his body, much like the subject of the OP.

[Behind the Aegis]

86. Fully understand your point.

Besides, while he might not make my ticker tock, it isn't to say he has that effect on others. Then again, I don't think it is explotive, given the message.

If you want more skin, there is one with Stev-O from "Jackass" (also not hot in my opinion).

[redqueen]

75. Good... I'm looking forward to it as well.

Objectification is wrong, no matter the subject.

[Ignis]

78. Does that include cases where the subject is an animal? (nt)

[superduperfarleft]

81. Oh this should be good.

:spank:

[Ignis]

92. Shush, you.

You're supposed to be playing Bad Vegan to my Good Vegan role, anyway. :D

Edit: Smiley fail.

[flvegan]

85. I've got 10-1 odds

on your words getting spun Fox style into your comparing animals to women.

:popcorn:

[Ignis]

98. No bet.

Not because I'm not a betting man, but because my inconvenient question is incredibly likely to simply be ignored.

And it's no fun to bet on a race that never happens. :(

[spiritual_gunfighter]

35. I know I love them! n/t

[joeybee12]

30. Any group or person that pisses off the Catholic League...

...is ok in my book.

[defendandprotect]

31. Because the "god" of the Garden of Eden was against apple eating ... but for animal-slaughter!!

[defendandprotect]

32. k i c k

[defendandprotect]

33. I'm for any who fight against abuse of animals -- including "meat-eating" . . .!!!

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are two crocks which are

licenses for exploitation of animal-life --

for profit!!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

40. +1 n/t

[seabeyond]

41. objectifying a female is thumbs up for every agenda, cause and sale. nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

42. Dont ruin my cool post with facts n/t

[seabeyond]

43. i like your girlfriend

give her a hug for me and tell her what a jerk you were today.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

45. I will and yes I was n/t

[seabeyond]

46. lmao..... ohhhhh

how can i be pissed. lol

[defendandprotect]

111. Who has possibly exploited women more than the Catholic Church--???

How seriously irrational to miss that reality -- !!!

You might also remind yourself of the exploitation involved in sexual abuse of

children by Catholic priests -- !!

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

113. so peta is now actively crusading against the catholic religion. that is what this ad was about?

you tell me that i am missing the reality.

now, thru naked women peta is not only defending animals but the children being abused by the catholic church

[defendandprotect]

114. Did you read what Joanna Krupa, a practicing Catholic, said about the Church

and what its responsibilities toward helpless animals should be?

You asked a question about "objectification" -- and obviously you didn't like the

answer -- and want to ignore the reality of patriarchal religion and its exploitation of females.

Donahue commented on the ad using religious symbols -- but symbols are available for us all to use

in conveying messages and concepts.

Joanna's comments are logical -- "What would Jesus do?" Would he fault the model who is a practicing

Catholic, or would be fault the Catholic Church for it's lack of compassion in regard to abused

animals?

If you want to raise questions of exploitation -- especially vs women -- the logical place to

start is with patriarchy and its underpinning: organized patriarchal religion.

In fact, the Vatican still does not even acknowledge the full personhood of females as it

acknowledges the full personhood of males!

And certainly one would think that if Donahue can take the time to speak out against a PETA ad

which is trying to protect abused animals, that he might also take the time to speak out against

his own church and its brutal treatment of children?

Not only the sexual abuse, but the purposeful and decades-long efforts by the Church to avoid having

these priests reported and brought to justice.

[seabeyond]

123. so our freedom from patriarchy is getting naked to entertain males? nt

[defendandprotect]

139. Our freedom from patriarchy is in defeating it and its"Manifest Destiny" and

"Man's Dominion Over Nature" which are licenses to exploit nature, natural resources,

animal life -- and even other human beings according to various myths of inferiority . . .

for the benefit of the few.



It's a simple pyramid --

Patriarchy
Organized patriarchal religion
Capitalism

All systems of exploitation --



and deciding with your own conscience whether you care more about someone's nakedness

or the abuse of animals -- !!!



:eyes:

[redqueen]

143. "someone's nakedness"

I love how you oversimplify it to try to make a point. Intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.

Nakedness in and of itself is no big deal... using women's naked bodies and sexuality to make money is abhorrent (to some people)... no matter the so-called good excuse.

[defendandprotect]

146. While I agree with you in large part re exploitation of women . . .

you're not suggesting that Joanna Krupa doesn't share the sentiments of PETA re

abused animals -- ?

Or, that she is not only proud to be associated with the campaign,

but that she is now calling on the Catholic Church to also take on responsibility

for speaking out for abused animals-- ???

I don't see Donahue's position as being the same as yours -- he is anti-nakedness of women

and anti-the use of the cross in this ad.

Oversimplifying this issue would be ignoring that the biggest critic of the ad -- the

Roman Catholic Church -- has for thousands of years exploited women, children, African-Americans,

Native Americans and many others!!

Nor have their a leg to stand on re "morality" given their sexual abuse of children.

So which is worse, redqueen?

What PETA did in this ad -- or what the RCC has done for thousands of years?

[Jamastiene]

124. Are you against "objectifying" men too? Or is it just women?

See post 77: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7146739&mesg_id=7148764

[seabeyond]

126. they predominately use females. they have females fuckin veggies. how can they out do

that for this years super bowl. they have issues with womens pubic hair, god knows what that has to do with saving animals. they ridicule womens bodies if not perfect as they model a gorgeous woman naked and then airbrush her to perfection.

they purposely and with intent do this to cause outrage. to make people angry. to hear the word sexist. that is their intent. and then when it happens supporters show up and say... hey.... you arent allowed to call them sexist.

when their whole purpose is being just that. offensive. but yawl, dont be offended supporters say.

that is beyond stupid.

they are getting exactly their goal

[defendandprotect]

141. Think you've lost the point of the thread . . .

if not much more -- !!!

But, basically I don't see any concern from you for violence against women, nor concern for

abused animals.


But they certainly do seem to make you "angry" . . . though I'm not sure over what except

the "airbrushing of pubic hair" and not being able to call PETA "sexist" . . . ????


:eyes:

[seabeyond]

142. because i dont see getting naked answer to animal abuse, patriarchy and religion

i am for all these things? get real

there is no reason for the naked in this photo but to be naked
there is no reason to have women fuckin veggie to stop eating meat
there is no reason to talk about womens pubic hair to stop animal abuse

but you seem to think all that relates to protection of animals.

i dont

i see it as an organization being as extreme as possible to get attention in the cheapest, simplistic, most sexist of manner. a way many orgs use women to sell their product, repulse us against torture or advocate a cause, whatever excuse one can use.

all in the sake of money.....

peta states this is what they do and no excuses. when called on it the supporters say, no they arent. peta knows they are. we know they are. supporters seem to be the only ones blind to it. or purposely so

how do they top fucking veggies for this year superbowl. rape a woman and associate it to rape of animals??? is that too far. is anything too far for you or does peta have free hand to do whatever, with no responsibility

[defendandprotect]

144. Well... when you get down to it, there was no reason to create naked people . . .

whoever did it should have provided some clothing and posted a note that

we MUST wear them at all times!!!

:evilgrin:

Let's face it, you hate PETA and probably their cause --

You've said twice now that PETA has used women to "F" vegetables?

Is that simply your interpretation or do you have a link to that?

There's nothing wrong with nakedness, as long as it's voluntary --

and, given the amount of airbrushing, it could be anyone's body --

very modest, indeed!

[seabeyond]

145. blind support. same as a repug with bush/palin. as long as the message fits your agenda

nothing else matters. excuses, justification and ignorance.

[defendandprotect]

147. To ignore the exploitations of the Catholic Church while criticizing those

trying to bring attention to the worldwide exploitation of animals -- i.e., 12 million

animals slaughtered every day for "meat" -- is beyond disingenuous.

And, you're on ignore --

Why waste any more time with you?

[seabeyond]

153. you excuse sexism for cause. torture movie excuses sexism to educate

ads excuse sexism for the buck.

when are we no longer gonna make excuses.

[defendandprotect]

140. misplaced --

[spanone]

44. does the catholic church own the patent to the crucifix? fuck them.

[truebrit71]

48. Never mind..

..delete

[Jack Rabbit]

49. Shut up, both of you

The best thing to do with PETA and the Catholic League is to ignore both. Ms. Krupa and her allies would have me stop eating my favorite meals and Mr. Donohue would have me live in a nation of laws, as long as the law reflects the will of the Synod of Bishops.

I suppose Mr. Donohue has evidence to support the statement that dogs or cats are safer in pet stores than in the hands of PETA members. I may agree with Mr. Donohue that the PETA abuse Christian iconography to make "cheap irreligious claims," but that doesn't make them frauds or unethical. PETA is as committed to their cause of making the world vegetarian as is Mr. Donohue is to his of making the world abortion-free, and each is as annoying as the other in the way they go about it.

Waiter, I'll have the prime rib, medium rare.

[Behind the Aegis]

55. Meh.

Could care less for PETA and the Catholic League...***snort***, that said, I think the ad is quite nice.

[mitchum]

65. "Hey, we hold an exclusive copyright on that instrument of torture and death!"

whatever

[walldude]

74. No fan of PETA, they are their own worst enemy.. that said

The Catholics, until they stop harboring pedophiles, can shut the fuck up.

[Sheepshank]

89. So consider the Venus fly trap

is it to be revered because it is a plant or villified by PETA because it eats meat? Since one cannot reason with a venus fly trap to become vegan, do you just, you know, eradicate them to save the fly?

BTW is fly considered meat?

Why does PETA always come across as stupid, and zealous in the extreme? Is that moranic? Extreme zealot?

[Ignis]

94. Please consider investing in a Biology textbook. (nt)

[Sheepshank]

105. Please consider

sticking you head up your ass and finding that last tinsy sense of humor you seem to have misplaced.

[Ignis]

107. Aww, don't go away mad. Just go away.

PETA has never attempted to condemn, castigate, or legislate whether or not plants can eat flies.

Next question from the Smartest, Funniest Guy on DU?

[Sheepshank]

109. and you consider

yourself some sort of glorified welcome mat or door knob that can help someone out of DU? Really? You carry that kind of mantle bestowed all by yourself to yourself? Some may be lead to believe you are some sort of humorless narcissist.

I'm having way too much fun to leave. Thanks for empty invite though.

[Ignis]

112. It's true that I am not your peer in grace, charm, or wits.

Thus I must decline your polite invitation to engage in self-proctology. I am quite certain, however, that someone of your proclivities has "plenty more where that came from."

:hi:

So if you'd like to discuss biology, the central nervous system, and ethics, I'd be happy to oblige! Otherwise, back under your bridge and re-bait your hook.

[Sheepshank]

131. oh totally

Tons more where that came from. But they seem much better served on a platter to someone who understands jokes and can laugh a little, rather than to someone who continually offers exiting instructions and calls others "troll" because of a difference of opinion, or merely poking a little fun at PETA.

[Ignis]

133. Try harder to be funny, and I might laugh at your trolling attempts.

But as it stands, you've shown us that you have nothing in your bag but ham-fisted personal attacks. Why would I laugh at something that evokes Pathos and Bathos? I'm more likely to be moved to tears at the state of the American educational system.

So I suggest you put me on Ignore if my criticism of your dim-witted understanding of biology offends you. I'm not likely to stop just because you called me names. That cowardly shit might work wherever you're FRom, but most DUers have a spine.

:hi:

[Sheepshank]

154. you're ballsy enough

to attempt to come across as something more heavy weight than reality has already proven. Why would I cast comical pearls before swine? Haven't I already told you it would be a waste of time and effort? Maybe your memory has gone the way of your humor....somewhere beyond your anus. Your assumption that I have attended any American learning institution is so sad. So go ahead, cry away. You accuse me of name calling when you clearly have done the same. There's a term for that.....hmmmm what was that now, oh yeah, hypocrit. Given your pathetic roundabout run of reasoning, your spine is proving to be crooked, sir.

[WillyT]

96. Could Be Worse...

:wow:

[Jamastiene]

125. Dupe n/t

[Jamastiene]

127. Damn! Put a warning on that next time, will ya?

People are trying to eat here.

The second* to LAST thing I ever want to see is a nekkid Will Ferrell. :puke:

*And I'm not saying who the absolute LAST one is.

[Odin2005]

99. Cute lady, stupid, pathetically sexist ad.

I could care less about the damn cross.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

121. Why dont you care about Christians feelings? n/t

[gratuitous]

106. That's not a crucifix

And Joanna Krupa appears to be old enough to make her own decisions about how she presents herself. But silly me, I'd heard, believed, and taught that feminism was about women being safe enough, strong enough and secure enough to make their own decisions. Apparently I was misinformed; women can only make decisions for themselves that pass muster with the self-appointed Objectification Brigades.

[flvegan]

115. Uh oh.

That's going to upset some folks.

nom :popcorn: nom

[ET Awful]

119. Yup, truth pisses people off sometimes.

:P (or maybe I should say truth emphasized with sarcasm?)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

120. Exactly n/t

[redqueen]

132. Women can choose to do whatever they like...

but those who disagree with the objectification of the female form don't have to like it.

[gratuitous]

134. Wait . . . what?

So, Ms. Krupa has made her own decision, you call it "objectification of the female form," and declare it unlikeable for that reason? I hate to get all pre-post-modern, but isn't it Krupa's call to decide what her presentation means, and not someone else's? Or is that too empowered?

[redqueen]

135. She can disagree that it's objectification, sure.

I never said my opinion was the be-all-end-all.

However I am far from alone in thinking that using naked women to promote animal rights qualifies as objectification. Many people see it as such.

[gratuitous]

137. Oh

Because I certainly got a far different impression from your other skabillion posts in this thread.

[redqueen]

138. Glad I could clear that up for you. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

149. While those who "disagree" ignore the RCC's exploitation of women . . . ????

And those who agree are supposed to ignore the RCC's sexual abuse of children?

Interesting take on it, redqueen --

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

150. And that's clearly what Joanna Krupa is doing . . . as she supports ending abuse of animals ...

[Lucian]

108. I love the ad.

[Jamastiene]

128. Anything that pisses the Catholics off is probably a good thing. n/t

[seabeyond]

129. no punishment for all our pedophiles, no jail time, no stopping them. that will really

show the catholics. rollin eyes.

[defendandprotect]

151. IMO, the Catholic Church claiming any moral position is oxymoronic.....

[Warren DeMontague]

136. If church was like that, I might go.

Yowza.

[Stevenmarc]

148. It's a fight between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber

[seabeyond]

152. all the posts i have made. and said so simply. yes. nt

[Jamastiene]

155. So, which are you?

Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber?

























:evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

156. .

[realisticphish]

165. +1

[HarveyDarkey]

158. OK, who do I dislike more

Catholic League or PETA?

Decisions, decisions.

[Warren DeMontague]

159. I'm gonna go with Catholic League.

As much as I find PETA annoying, Bill ShitMcFuckstain Donohue is way worse.

[HarveyDarkey]

160. I'm inclined to agree, although it's still a tossup

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2009/07/19/svTOSSUP_wideweb__470x377,0.jpg

[upi402]

161. Catholic League talking about "Ethics 101"??? lol

Hypocrites and delusional perverts talking about facts and ethics is like...


Man, I just can't think of anything this is like!

[Nikki Stone1]

162. I'll play devil's advocate here: if she were holding any other religious symbol, would DU

feel exactly the same way?

Should get Swamprat to photoshop a buddha, a star of David, a Muslim crescent moon design, etc. over Krupa's body. Then see how everyone feels.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. You can put a Flying Spaghetti Monster on her, I won't mind at all.

Preferably, a very small one.

[Behind the Aegis]

164. Go for it.

Only see if he can use a nice Jewish woman or man.

[Nikki Stone1]

169. What if the PETA ad used a Muslim woman

with a star of David over her as some kind of triple message: anti-meat, anti-religion, anti-war? I am only asking because PETA is really pushing some boundaries to call attention to themselves. What happens if they go there?

[Behind the Aegis]

170. Huh?

Why would a Muslim woman holding a Star of David be 'anti-religion?'

I don't care for most of PETA's campaigns nor for PETA, however, this ad wasn't even 'anti-meat.' I don't see it as exploitive of religion nor women.

What happens if they "go there?" Well, I guess we deal with it when it happens.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

167. Religion is pointless regardless of affiliation n/t

[proteus_lives]

166. PETA=Numbfucks.

They can shove those sexist ads up their asses.

[lynne]

168. The Catholics complained but I would think this could be offensive to ALL Christians -

- and I don't understand why PETA would work so hard to offend any group of people. If their mission is to promote the ethical treatment of animals, it would be to their benefit to relay that message without offending any subset of persons. Their message is lost in their controversial methods and they just manage to create enemies. None of which benefits their cause in any way.

They can help animals or they can piss people off. They can't do both. As a result, the animals suffer.