PETA slams Lady Gaga

[Gagz 2,579]

She wore meat though. What's the difference?

[Nagini 1,358]

I just can't at some of the people here who stay on Gaga's side for everything that she does and act like its okay. Whether someone wants to wear fur is up to them, but don't feed us in almost every interview explaining that the kermit the frog dress was supposed to symbolize anti-fur when you're just going to do the opposite.

[Lorde 0]

She wore meat though. What's the difference?

That animal was killed for the purposes of food, not for high fashion.

[Gagz 2,579]

That animal was killed for the purposes of food, not for high fashion.

But it wasn't used for food.

[high heeled fem 3]

But it wasn't used for food.

:clap:

[KillMeSarah 0]

1.) All I said is most of the types of animals that are killed for fur are also the types of animals killed for meat. The only relevant answers would be "Yes, they are some of the same types of animals." or "No, they aren't some of the same types of animals."

That's why I keep saying your posts are irrelevant to my original post. Your answer isn't referring to the types of animals killed. Your answer is referring to where the animals are slaughtered and who the corpses are sold to, not what types of animals they are. You still haven't given a relevant answer.

Why do I need to give you an answer if you already know? You said:

"You're forgetting that some animals are killed both for fur and for meat. Not just one or the other."

Which is not true. Rabbits on fur farms are killed for ONLY their fur. The same goes with foxes, chinchillas, etc. There are also beef cows (not used for leather) and leather cows (not used for beef), which you would know if you watched the documentary.

2.) I haven't EVER been rude or judgmental to you. That's an outright lie. I've tried being respectful to you even after you insulted me. Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean I'm "ignorant" or that I'm "In dire need of education in this matter". It just means I disagree. This is the real world, not everyone is going to have the same opinion as you, and it's childish and immature to insult people just because you don't agree with them.

What is childish and immature is your condescending language, name calling and assumptions about me, even extending into this post. You tried it on my status update as well, and it's not a good way to be appear respectful in a discussion.

And "you are in dire need of education" means just that- you wouldn't be asking me questions with obvious answers or making vague, inaccurate statements if we were on the same page. I would think you would want to get more education about the topic at hand so you can have something to found your opinion on, but you don't, which is why I said "ignorance is bliss."

3.) By insulting me, you directly broke the posting rules you agreed to when you registered to this forum. The first words on the rule list explain it all. "Be Respectful - Do not insult or bully others." It's that simple. You insulting me and calling me "ignorant" and "uneducated" in this topic was rude and unnecessary. That is why I said I would report you if you continued. Why does it take me "threatening" to report you for you to start being respectful? You should be respectful even if you don't agree with someone.

I stand by by assessments of ignorant and uneducated, due to the fact that your replies continue to indicate you don't have all the information, and your refusal to obtain that information further solidifies that fact. If you wanna take that as a massive insult, that is up to you. If it were me, I would just check out the information presented to me, since education is power and it can only make us stronger.

4.) I'm not watching the movie you keep suggesting because it's irrelevant to my post. Every argument you've made is irrelevant to my original post. Simple as that. I made a simple statement, either you agree or disagree. There's no need to question my "education" in this matter. It's a simple statement that can be made by anyone with common sense about where fur and wear meat comes from.

It doesn't take an expert to see that if you wear authentic leather, it most likely comes from a dead cow's hide, and if you eat beef or steak, it also comes from a dead cow. That's the ENTIRE purpose of my original post, to show that most of these animals that are being killed (goats, rabbits, etc.) are also eaten in different cultures. So it's pointless to try to "save" them from being killed for fur, just so they'll be killed for meat. That's why this specific topic is "black and white" according to you. Either you want the animals to die or you don't. Simply put.

How would you know, since you haven't watched it?

It seems like you are trying to now change your point, which used to be the same animal's body is used for fur/meat, to the same species of animals are used for fur, and for meat (separately).

You should know this already, but I'll type it out anyways: Rabbits which are bred on fur farms are specifically used for fur and only for fur. There would be no chance for them to ever be used for meat in that case. I'm not sure anyone eats Chinchilla- when encountering man, they either become pets or fur. Thus, the above point is invalid.

Saying that it is "pointless" to save any helpless animal is kind of unbelievable and sad to me.

It's not as simple as saying "either you want animals to die or you don't." That would mean people who believe in testing on animals for cancer research shouldn't bother being vegetarians? People who don't believe in keeping animals in captivity (such as in a zoo or at a circus) have no right to own a leather belt?

With your "all or nothing" logic, the only people who would be allowed to fight for animal rights are ones who possess all of these values & qualities:

vegan, anti-fur/anti-leather, against zoos/circuses/rodeos, anti-whaling, against hunting, never buys an animal from a breeder/pet store, makes sure everything they buy has 0% animal bi-products in it, makes sure everything they buy is guaranteed not tested on animals, E*T*C*

90% of the above listed is actually what I do, btw ^o^

What I don't do, however, is tell people that if they can't do all of the above, that they have no right to protest. That is insane and it sounds a lot like PETA. If everyone chose even one issue to passionately fight for, their efforts would not go to waste. It is not up to me or you to choose which areas people are for or against- everyone has to make that choice for themselves.

5.) When I was referring to people being either against or for animal cruelty, I was referring specifically to PETA (which if you haven't noticed is the exact topic that this thread is about), even though it can be applied to many people that claim to "want ethical treatment for animals", because animals being killed for meat isn't any more ethical than animals being killed for fur. As I've said before, either way an animal has still been tortured and killed.

PETA sucks.

And no, at the current state, neither the meat nor the fur industry are ethical. The difference is, fur isn't and doesn't need to be part of a lifestyle (unless you live in Alaska or somewhere really cold). Meat tastes good because man was meant to eat it, but until the standards of the industry change, my personal choice is to avoid it. If more people demanded change in the industry, it would eventually come. Obviously, change doesn't happen overnight, and spreading awareness (such as, recommending a documentary) is a step in the right direction. Chinese fur farms only exist because of fashion designers and celebrities who demand real fur and market it to the general public as trendy and glamorous. If everyone knew the horrors of how it was obtained, and more designers and celebs were compassionate enough to go anti-fur, the industry would shrivel up and die.

Which leads me to my last point: Gaga wearing real fur would be a huge step back for the anti-fur movement, because she is a fashion icon and an influential person. Her being vague about whether or not it's real is not helping. The fans and the media want answers. Whether or not Little Monsters love or hate PETA- we still want answers.

Edited August 16, 2012 by KillMeSarah

[la fama 13]

She wore meat though. What's the difference?

I'm sure she's rich enough to buy meat from animals that died of natural causes. A friend of mine only eats meat from animals that have died of natural causes, it's a lot more expensive, but I seriously doubt it'd be a stretch for her ;P

[Nemo 4,274]

Her being vague about whether or not it's real is not helping. The fans and the media want answers.

Hopefully you've seen her "Furgate" post: http://littlemonsters.com/text/502c1e67f35c0c5d3d00185c

(It says "Part 1" now, only because she posted a follow-up to say that she meant "hypocritical" instead of "hypercritical".)

[Nemo 4,274]

Oh, also read this: http://littlemonsters.com/image/502c6857b2d03c4f10000098

The part where she says "I am not a strict vegan" makes more sense in this context.

[blzr 1,562]

Meat tastes good because man was meant to eat it, but until the standards of the industry change, my personal choice is to avoid it.

Are you sure you have all the information?

Edit: Here is a great article on this topic - http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html .

Edited August 16, 2012 by TED

[Nemo 4,274]

Are you sure you have all the information?

Edit: Here is a great article on this topic - http://michaelblueja...eg/natural.html .

The truth is that there is no "meant to"; these sharp divisions don't really exist in nature. Humans are only half-adapted to a lot of things, including meat-eating. There's no question that our most recent ancestors ate meat, but back before them is another set of ancestors that didn't, and the change from one set of appropriate adaptations to the other is still incomplete. But, changes have occurred. We may not be true omnivores (much less carnivores), but we sure aren't true herbivores, either.

But I doubt that we'll continue to evolve in the carnivorous direction, for a number of reasons.

Edit: I'm only a few lines into the chart, and already I find it misleading. There are enormous differences in the jaws and facial muscles between humans and other great apes, and they do lie in the direction of carnivorous adaptations.

Edit 2: I should probably add that I don't consider this a valid argument for eating meat, anyway. Since, as I say, there is no "meant to" in nature, the question should not be "Are we meant to eat meat?", but rather, "Do we need to eat meat for optimum health?". We don't need to refer to our evolutionary history to answer that; we can just look at existing populations of humans today, since millions are vegetarians.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Nemo

[Lizzy 0]

Does anyone know about the pink coat yet??

[HybridWarhol 7]

Why do I need to give you an answer if you already know? You said:

"You're forgetting that some animals are killed both for fur and for meat. Not just one or the other."

Which is not true. Rabbits on fur farms are killed for ONLY their fur. The same goes with foxes, chinchillas, etc. There are also beef cows (not used for leather) and leather cows (not used for beef), which you would know if you watched the documentary.

What is childish and immature is your condescending language, name calling and assumptions about me, even extending into this post. You tried it on my status update as well, and it's not a good way to be appear respectful in a discussion.

And "you are in dire need of education" means just that- you wouldn't be asking me questions with obvious answers or making vague, inaccurate statements if we were on the same page. I would think you would want to get more education about the topic at hand so you can have something to found your opinion on, but you don't, which is why I said "ignorance is bliss."

I stand by by assessments of ignorant and uneducated, due to the fact that your replies continue to indicate you don't have all the information, and your refusal to obtain that information further solidifies that fact. If you wanna take that as a massive insult, that is up to you. If it were me, I would just check out the information presented to me, since education is power and it can only make us stronger.

How would you know, since you haven't watched it?

It seems like you are trying to now change your point, which used to be the same animal's body is used for fur/meat, to the same species of animals are used for fur, and for meat (separately).

You should know this already, but I'll type it out anyways: Rabbits which are bred on fur farms are specifically used for fur and only for fur. There would be no chance for them to ever be used for meat in that case. I'm not sure anyone eats Chinchilla- when encountering man, they either become pets or fur. Thus, the above point is invalid.

Saying that it is "pointless" to save any helpless animal is kind of unbelievable and sad to me.

It's not as simple as saying "either you want animals to die or you don't." That would mean people who believe in testing on animals for cancer research shouldn't bother being vegetarians? People who don't believe in keeping animals in captivity (such as in a zoo or at a circus) have no right to own a leather belt?

With your "all or nothing" logic, the only people who would be allowed to fight for animal rights are ones who possess all of these values & qualities:

vegan, anti-fur/anti-leather, against zoos/circuses/rodeos, anti-whaling, against hunting, never buys an animal from a breeder/pet store, makes sure everything they buy has 0% animal bi-products in it, makes sure everything they buy is guaranteed not tested on animals, E*T*C*

90% of the above listed is actually what I do, btw ^o^

What I don't do, however, is tell people that if they can't do all of the above, that they have no right to protest. That is insane and it sounds a lot like PETA. If everyone chose even one issue to passionately fight for, their efforts would not go to waste. It is not up to me or you to choose which areas people are for or against- everyone has to make that choice for themselves.

PETA sucks.

And no, at the current state, neither the meat nor the fur industry are ethical. The difference is, fur isn't and doesn't need to be part of a lifestyle (unless you live in Alaska or somewhere really cold). Meat tastes good because man was meant to eat it, but until the standards of the industry change, my personal choice is to avoid it. If more people demanded change in the industry, it would eventually come. Obviously, change doesn't happen overnight, and spreading awareness (such as, recommending a documentary) is a step in the right direction. Chinese fur farms only exist because of fashion designers and celebrities who demand real fur and market it to the general public as trendy and glamorous. If everyone knew the horrors of how it was obtained, and more designers and celebs were compassionate enough to go anti-fur, the industry would shrivel up and die.

Which leads me to my last point: Gaga wearing real fur would be a huge step back for the anti-fur movement, because she is a fashion icon and an influential person. Her being vague about whether or not it's real is not helping. The fans and the media want answers. Whether or not Little Monsters love or hate PETA- we still want answers.

1.) Still not the main point of my statement.

2.) I wasn't condescending to you in the slightest. I've been respectful, if you choose to take everything someone says as condescending, then that's your problem, not mine. And what status are you referring to? I've never even commented on any of your status. You must be mistaking me for someone else who is open-minded.

3.) You have no basis in insulting me in that manner. I've taken courses on ethics and animal treatment was a major part of it. You don't know me, so how can you call me uneducated just because I don't want to watch one of many videos about animal treatment. And you have no right to call me ignorant, considering you still are focused on giving me irrelevant points. THE VIDEO IS IRRELEVANT TO MY POINT. What part are you missing? You even addressed my original point below, why are you still even talking about this irrelevant video?

4.) I didn't change my point, that was my original point in the first place, which I've been trying to tell you this whole time. You're whole argument is based on one line of my post about a separate topic. You're finally addressing my original point.

5.) What part of TYPES of animals are you not getting? Of course the exact same rabbit isn't going to be used for meat after its been raised on a fur farm. I'm talking about the TYPES. A cow is a type of animal. Cows specifically are used both for beef and for leather.

6.) I was referrring to PETA. This is what my main point was about in the first place. Look at the title of the thread. Their motto is to save all animals from unethical treatment. That's the entire point of my statement. Yes it is pointless to try to save a cow from being killed for leather, just so it will be killed for meat the same day. The same goes for other animals that are often killed for both fashion and food.

7.) You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said that people who eat meat shouldn't have the RIGHT to protest or fight against animal cruelty. I NEVER said that. I'm happy with ANYONE who wants to put an end to all this cruelty, whether they're vegan or not. (I'm not vegan) Of course they have the right, I'm just saying it's hypocritical. Refer to my cow statement above if you want to know what I mean about the contradiction and hypocrisy of it. I never even brought up the topic of RIGHTS. My point is that a meat-eater fighting for animal rights is no more hypocritical a homophobe fighting for gay rights, or a slave-owner fighting for slave rights. They of course have the RIGHT to do it if they want, but it's still contradictory and hypocritical.

8.) Neither fur or meat HAVE to be part of someone's lifestyle. It's a CHOICE to eat meat just as much as it's a CHOICE to wear fur. You can live a long healthy life without either. And who's to say that mankind was MEANT to eat meat? Animals serve more purposes than just to fill someone's stomach. They weren't born for the sole purpose just to be eaten. To say that you eat meat just because it "tastes good" is no different than saying you wear fur because it "feels good". Both are products of the torture and death of animals.

9.) I don't know anyone that is that uneducated that they don't know that fur comes from an animal. People know what torture animals go through for designers to get their fur yet they STILL buy fur products. It's not a point of informing people that animals are suffering, the point is to making people CARE about the suffering animals.

10.) Gaga's fur has been confirmed by the designers to be fake. Gaga's point in her post at LM.com and my point here, is that even if it were real, what would be the difference? What exactly is the difference between wearing fur, and wearing a MEAT dress or a leather jacket? Gaga's already worn the flesh of dead animals multiple times in the past, so where's this stigma about fur coming from? Fur, leather, meat dress = Flesh of an animal

Those are my points.

Edited August 16, 2012 by TheNextOne

[Nemo 4,274]

Does anyone know about the pink coat yet??

I've seen people saying it was rabbit, but, as usual, they didn't back that up with anything, just asserted it. It's extremely artificial-looking to me -- divided up into squares and dyed pink! -- but of course that doesn't mean they didn't start with real fur. I just see no reason to assume it.

[Ozzy8923 9]

I don't know if this has been posted already, but I figured fans were interested regardless.

In light of Gaga's latest controversy (Fur controversy) PETA decided it would be appropriate to bash Gaga incessantly for her wearing fur. Well, it turns out Mother Monster sticks to her word and both fur coats she has been seen wearing ARE indeed FAKE.

Dominated by pants and flats, this collection pretty much evokes the spirit of 80s masculine fashion looks using various classic elements, which then followed by feminine subtlety, lightness, and elegance in number of shift dresses, faux-fur coats, and hyper-feminine blouses with a brightly colored print.

Christophe Lemaire's third outing at Hermès made a strong case for the cloak. They were everywhere in his Argentinian cowboy-inspired Fall 2012 collection  and in drapey leather, fringed cashmere, high-pile fur, and slouchy wool, they pretty much stole the show.

There you have it. It seems like PETA didn't do their research. ROCK THEM FAUX-FUR COATS GAGA!

Edited August 16, 2012 by ozzy8923