PETA versus Tanooki wearing Mario

[Haoie]

Next up: PETA frees Donkey Kong from an eternity of throwing barrels for entertainment

[G-Boobie]

My favorite PETA moment was the lunatics demanding that Ben and Jerry make ice cream using human breast milk. Remember that?

I love PETA. They never cease to amuse me.

[buzz_n64]

[Buyatari]

I'm not a fan of PETA, but I don't really see anything wrong with this. It's an amusing parody, and the tanuki fur industry is a real issue if you care about that sort of thing.

The other game on there is to stop cruelty to chickens. Chickens...Are you kidding me? What is next fish? Clams? Mosquitos? If ever there was an animal whose sole purpose in life was to feed humans the chicken was it. If you take away chicken as a food source what value does it have to anyone?

Look if you want to hurt the fur trade go ahead I don't care as I'm generally warm anyway but don't go after the food that goes into my belly.

[Aussie2B]

The other game on there is to stop cruelty to chickens. Chickens...Are you kidding me? What is next fish? Clams? Mosquitos? If ever there was an animal whose sole purpose in life was to feed humans the chicken was it. If you take away chicken as a food source what value does it have to anyone?

While I know PETA has a "Everybody should be vegan" stance, the goal to stop cruelty to chickens is a very important one. I mean, what, just because we eat it, we should treat it like shit while it's alive? At least let it have a comfortable life in the short time it has. I guarantee that'll make for better food. There are absolute horrific conditions in many chicken farms. We're talking cages so small that they can't even move, with no solid surface for them to stand on, with cages stacked upon cages so the shit just falls onto the chickens below. It's deplorable. And who wants to eat meat or eggs that come from that?

I strongly implore that everyone here buy free-range chicken and eggs if any of guys aren't already. It probably helps the economy too since the small-time farms are more likely to treat their animals with decency and respect. I really enjoyed the years in which my dad had 5 chickens. They were a lot of fun, and we had more eggs than we knew what to do with. And even the best grocery store eggs couldn't compare. I'm glad our chickens at least had good lives.

[Flashback2012]

3. Dinosaurs are loyal friends, but all bets are off if you come up short on a jump. Hop off his back to reach the platform and laugh as the sucker falls to his death.

You mean like this?

[thom_m]

Now I have two reasons for hating PETA: their radical views AND the crappy flash games they make!

Now, seriously, whichever mission they may have, it's hard not to hate an organization when their child-oriented propaganda goes as far as this:
"You Mommy Kills Animals!!"
"Your Daddy Kills Animals!!"

[Buyatari]

While I know PETA has a "Everybody should be vegan" stance, the goal to stop cruelty to chickens is a very important one. I mean, what, just because we eat it, we should treat it like shit while it's alive? At least let it have a comfortable life in the short time it has. I guarantee that'll make for better food. There are absolute horrific conditions in many chicken farms. We're talking cages so small that they can't even move, with no solid surface for them to stand on, with cages stacked upon cages so the shit just falls onto the chickens below. It's deplorable. And who wants to eat meat or eggs that come from that?

I strongly implore that everyone here buy free-range chicken and eggs if any of guys aren't already. It probably helps the economy too since the small-time farms are more likely to treat their animals with decency and respect. I really enjoyed the years in which my dad had 5 chickens. They were a lot of fun, and we had more eggs than we knew what to do with. And even the best grocery store eggs couldn't compare. I'm glad our chickens at least had good lives.

Well if it makes cheaper better food then I am all for it. Why would any company in the food business disagree with that? If it increases costs then it might not be worth it to a company like Mcdonalds.

[SpaceHarrier]

I, for one, wasn't previously aware of any tanooki fur trade. So I guess PETA accomplished a tiny bit of awareness there. Now there is only to act on this newfound knowledge.

I want to wear tanooki ass as a hat.

[Aussie2B]

Well if it makes cheaper better food then I am all for it. Why would any company in the food business disagree with that? If it increases costs then it might not be worth it to a company like Mcdonalds.

It's not likely to be cheaper, but it's worth it. I'd like to think showing respect for life (and for food) is a little more important than the almighty dollar. I will pay more for cleaner, healthier, tastier food any day of the week, and no amount justifies cruelty. If you can't afford to properly take care of animals, then you shouldn't have animals in the first place. This goes for individuals all the way up to mega corporations.

[Amon_Re]

Well if it makes cheaper better food then I am all for it. Why would any company in the food business disagree with that? If it increases costs then it might not be worth it to a company like Mcdonalds.

I'm willing to pay extra for meat coming from animals whom been treated humanely. Money is less important than the needless suffering of animals (them being food or not).

Wanting to decrease needless suffering is the only humane thing to do.

That being said, PETA should go to hell:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...uthanasia.html

"The organization has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued."

[Amon_Re]

It's not likely to be cheaper, but it's worth it. I'd like to think showing respect for life (and for food) is a little more important than the almighty dollar. I will pay more for cleaner, healthier, tastier food any day of the week, and no amount justifies cruelty. If you can't afford to properly take care of animals, then you shouldn't have animals in the first place. This goes for individuals all the way up to mega corporations.

I second this

[j_factor]

cheaper better food
Mcdonalds.

This does not compute.

[Sunnyvale]

It's not likely to be cheaper, but it's worth it. I'd like to think showing respect for life (and for food) is a little more important than the almighty dollar. I will pay more for cleaner, healthier, tastier food any day of the week, and no amount justifies cruelty. If you can't afford to properly take care of animals, then you shouldn't have animals in the first place. This goes for individuals all the way up to mega corporations.

In a perfect world, sure. But in the real world, people are still starving, and would trade their kids for 2 ounces of meat. So finances is an issue, except not for us. I can eat bacon, steak, or lobster, right now. Others... not. And I know the argument that this is asking for: Big business, Haliburton, GM foods, yaddayaddayadda. But that's besides the point.

Idealistically, none of us would have to eat, right? Realistically...

Fuck them chickens if it feeds one kid.

[Amon_Re]

In a perfect world, sure. But in the real world, people are still starving, and would trade their kids for 2 ounces of meat. So finances is an issue, except not for us. I can eat bacon, steak, or lobster, right now. Others... not. And I know the argument that this is asking for: Big business, Haliburton, GM foods, yaddayaddayadda. But that's besides the point.

Idealistically, none of us would have to eat, right? Realistically...

Fuck them chickens if it feeds one kid.

1) There kids like have more meat then 2 ounces. Trading them wouldn't make sense
2) People whom are starving already shouldn't be eating fast food anyway as that food is:
a) Not healthy
b) Not really cheaper
3) Proper treatment of animals does not always result in higher costs for the end user, but lower profits. The fat cats will have to make do with one diamond-studded swimming pool instead of two.
4) You shouldn't fuck your dinner

[NerdXCrewWill]

1) There kids like have more meat then 2 ounces. Trading them wouldn't make sense
2) People whom are starving already shouldn't be eating fast food anyway as that food is:
a) Not healthy
b) Not really cheaper
3) Proper treatment of animals does not always result in higher costs for the end user, but lower profits. The fat cats will have to make do with one diamond-studded swimming pool instead of two.
4) You shouldn't fuck your dinner

I agree with this, but I especially like point #1.

[treismac]

While I know PETA has a "Everybody should be vegan" stance, the goal to stop cruelty to chickens is a very important one. I mean, what, just because we eat it, we should treat it like shit while it's alive? At least let it have a comfortable life in the short time it has. I guarantee that'll make for better food. There are absolute horrific conditions in many chicken farms. We're talking cages so small that they can't even move, with no solid surface for them to stand on, with cages stacked upon cages so the shit just falls onto the chickens below. It's deplorable. And who wants to eat meat or eggs that come from that?

I strongly implore that everyone here buy free-range chicken and eggs if any of guys aren't already. It probably helps the economy too since the small-time farms are more likely to treat their animals with decency and respect. I really enjoyed the years in which my dad had 5 chickens. They were a lot of fun, and we had more eggs than we knew what to do with. And even the best grocery store eggs couldn't compare. I'm glad our chickens at least had good lives.

I'm with you, Aussie. Minimizing suffering for any and everything is a good and compassionate idea.

[treismac]

Well if it makes cheaper better food then I am all for it. Why would any company in the food business disagree with that? If it increases costs then it might not be worth it to a company like Mcdonalds.

Just for the hell of it, let's take this argument to a ridiculous level. What if corporate scientist devised a torture technique that made the food tastier and cheaper, but increased the agony of the animals 100 fold? I understand that it is difficult to imagine anything being tasty at McDonalds but try. Does a point come when we say that what benefits us costs others too much? This question could be applied to many other cases of course.

To me, it is one thing for a starving family to do what they must to survive and quite another thing for a multinational corporation to do what they can to make more money.

[treismac]

In a perfect world, sure. But in the real world, people are still starving, and would trade their kids for 2 ounces of meat. So finances is an issue, except not for us. I can eat bacon, steak, or lobster, right now. Others... not. And I know the argument that this is asking for: Big business, Haliburton, GM foods, yaddayaddayadda. But that's besides the point.

Idealistically, none of us would have to eat, right? Realistically...

Fuck them chickens if it feeds one kid.

I would respectfully say that it isn't besides the point, Sunnyvale420. The extra money saved by McDonalds deciding to treat animals inhumane rather than human does not put food on the plates of the starving, it only makes the megarich richer. BUT!!! If it did feed one kid, I'm with you on the fornicating of chickens, sir.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

PETA chooses to get their message out by stoking controversy and then riding the publicity (hence, threads like this popping up on EVERY game site). Whether or not it works or not is debatable. Perhaps it helps with fundraising.

There are certainly hundreds of other animal welfare organizations that don't take the same route as PETA, but do a lot of good work. Unfortunately, people think PETA is the only group out there since it's always in the news cycle.

The notion that video games cause people to act out (or wear) what they see on the screen is stupid.