garnite 8 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Animals are meant to eat each other, humans are animals too. It's the circle of life. If you can't handle it than keep it yourself and live a peaceful life on tofu. but you see that's where everyone is missing the point because when you equate humans with non human animals in this way, your statement introduces moral relativism. animals also eat their prey alive, kill their offspring, and are polygamous, incestuous, faeces eating rapists. if everything is okay because animals do it, then humans are pointlessly deluding ourselves with our sense of right and wrong. i don't know about you, but i DON'T want to live in a world where things are inherently "meant" to be without discussion or consideration - the same argument used against sodomy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stra 6 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 And your point is?????? There's a difference between wearing and eating, but you seem to have missed that part. P.S. Horses, cows, giraffes, etc, etc are all herbivores. Oh yes, excuse me as I wear my next season cow jacket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stra 6 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 but you see that's where everyone is missing the point because when you equate humans with non human animals in this way, your statement introduces moral relativism. animals also eat their prey alive, kill their offspring, and are polygamous, incestuous, faeces eating rapists. if everything is okay because animals do it, then humans are pointlessly deluding ourselves with our sense of right and wrong. i don't know about you, but i DON'T want to live in a world where things are inherently "meant" to be without discussion or consideration - the same argument used against sodomy. Homos-xuality is found in all animals, maybe you should stop trying to be such an intellectual ethical do-gooder (those that gave us religion 2000 years ago, bless them) and be more like them. See how your argument can be turned around as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jersey 0 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 PETA needs to shut the **** up. Everyone should know that they in fact KILL more animals than they save. The animals they take in are neglected and uncared for because they are too ****ing focused on doing **** like this. This is a fact. Pure hypocrisy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garnite 8 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Homos-xuality is found in all animals, maybe you should stop trying to be such an intellectual ethical do-gooder (those that gave us religion 2000 years ago, bless them) and be more like them. See how your argument can be turned around as well. yes, any argument can be turned around easily when you twist someone's words. yes, homos-xuality is found in animals. i didn't say the contrary. i said i don't want to live in a world where things are inherently "meant" to be without discussion. when i equated this with the anti-homos-xuality debate, i was talking about penis goes in vagina and any other form of s-x is a damnable deviance that must not be tolerated. i think if you had read more closely you'd have caught that. your statement about religion is also wrong on every aspect but that's not for now. :) and sorry, be more like who? i disregarded the part in parentheses (because that would create a paradox where you're telling me to be like something i should stop trying to be like) as your statement doesn't logically follow because it reads like i should be more like animals (who i in a sense previously condemned) or gay people. completely not getting what you said, sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iconoclast 2 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 The difference between non-human animals eating other non-human animals, and humans eating animals - which we have done for millions of years, is that we are capable of sentient thought. Humans can make a conscious decision to not act purely on instinct, which we do everyday in some way or another. And we usually make those decisions to not act purely on instinct based on a moral code we have developed over thousands of years of human civilisation. This sentience is what separates us from non-human animals. So just because it may be instinctual for us, as animals, to eat other animals, doesn't mean we should (or shouldn't). We can if we want to, but our ability to think about our own thoughts and actions has allowed us to develop ideas and morals about what we consider is the 'right' behaviour, the right way to live our lives, that goes beyond 'human nature' or 'instinct'. I am not a vegetarian by the way, but I do understand the vegetarian point of view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stra 6 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 yes, any argument can be turned around easily when you twist someone's words. yes, homos-xuality is found in animals. i didn't say the contrary. i said i don't want to live in a world where things are inherently "meant" to be without discussion. when i equated this with the anti-homos-xuality debate, i was talking about penis goes in vagina and any other form of s-x is a damnable deviance that must not be tolerated. i think if you had read more closely you'd have caught that. your statement about religion is also wrong on every aspect but that's not for now. :) and sorry, be more like who? i disregarded the part in parentheses (because that would create a paradox where you're telling me to be like something i should stop trying to be like) as your statement doesn't logically follow because it reads like i should be more like animals (who i in a sense previously condemned) or gay people. completely not getting what you said, sorry. It's because you don't understand what is logical and ethical. What you imply, knowingly or not. Oh and i'm right about religion, i'm certain as PETA and their hypocrite lap dogs are sure about their ethical views. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypocrateen 107 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I think what she was saying the letter is that when it comes to art she's not always going to take a moral stance. She sees a designer fur coat and sees a work of art.. other people see a vain display of the product of animal slaughter. I agree with you. But you know, at the end of the day I don't really get the fans that got upset over this. They were looking for something to justify her against the media and the general public shade she is actually getting. I don't understand, is it about the music or not? Because IMO she can wear her own guts or something and I wouldn't really care. I didn't care when she wore the meat dress and I won't care because I respect everyone's opinion (although I really liked the message behind it). It's like they have to demonstrate something to these people, that the person they worship is like the best and perfect and flawless human being with good point of views etc. in the whole world when we know she really isn't. Let them think she is heartless and stuff. I care about the music and the message she tries to spread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scheisse ._. 31 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 No, you didn't say that. That was me posing a question... you were asking me why i think raising chickens in a 40*40 cm cage is okay or maybe i misunderstood.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howiet1971 20 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I am really surprised to see that most of Gaga’s fans on hear support her choice to wear fur. It’s 2012; it is no longer acceptable to wear fur and hasn’t been for a long time! What has happened to the youth of today that they support their icons so unflinchingly? It’s very sad to me. PETA, whilst have some extreme ways of getting results, are fighting for those who cannot speak for themselves, and have to make big shock statements to get noticed, because our uncaring and passive society doesn’t take notice otherwise. They should be respected and not ridiculed or vilified. Gaga cannot say she supports animal rights when she wears fur; it’s an oxymoron. The animals are bred and killed specifically for glamour, and not for food. They more than often live and die in excruciating pain, and animals heartbeats have been found to be beating up to 10 minutes after their skin has been removed, because they are more often than not skinned alive; rabbits, foxes, dogs and so many more. Her comment “hypocritical not to acknowledge the python, ostrich, cow hide, leather, lamb, alligator†is correct. It should not be ok to kill any of these animals FOR FASHION either!!! However, cow hide etc. is a byproduct of the food industry, therefore every part of the animal is eaten and used so it is more acceptable to wear leather shoes for example. We are not eskimos where we need to kills seals etc. to keep us warm; we now have choices we can make, other options other than killing animals FOR FASHION; we should have moved on by now. I am aware of the horrors of the food industry as I made a point of finding out where and how my food gets to me plate, and I was horrified by it. (read ‘skinny b---h’) I am a vegetarian (not a vegan) and do not eat meat for ethical, spiritual, environmental reasons, but I do have dairy products and have a pair of leather shoes. No doubt one day I will become vegan but I am not there yet. I believe that no other life on this planet is anymore valid than mine. Gaga’s initial response asking the press to please mention Hermes in their copy is disrespectful, flippant and arrogant and a **** you to everyone who cares about animal rights. She is acting as a mannequin for Hermes because she has been given a free coat, saying “does not mean my morals are rigid and that I won't bend at the sight of an absolute art piece of a coat.†What??? How can anyone respect that answer? Effectively she was changed by greed and money, not by ‘art’. We should all be horrified that she can so easily bend her views! I have followed Gaga’s career since the Just dance and have loved her music, and found her creativity to be completely inspiring, but this has completely changed my view point on her. Realising that she is prepared to bend her morals so easily has come as a surprise. I am all for choice, i am for free speech and in one way I respect her response as it appears at the most honest. But this does not make it 'ok'. I am not a militant vege; I even cook chicken etc. for my friends, but she has previously commented on her dislike of fur, and the way she has responded has been appalling, therefore making her a hypocrite. Even if the coats turn out to be faux fur, her actions and responses since this commotion have supported the fur trade, and has used this for nothing but press. I am a person with principles, and as much as I adore her music and artistry, will no longer spend another penny on her. Will it make a difference? No; because there will be many more sycophantic fans that will not care, not question and accept everything she does as if she is the second coming. This is not the way to be a fan. Everything an idol spouts is not fact, we have to inspire our idols as much as they inspire us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howiet1971 20 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 but you see that's where everyone is missing the point because when you equate humans with non human animals in this way, your statement introduces moral relativism. animals also eat their prey alive, kill their offspring, and are polygamous, incestuous, faeces eating rapists. if everything is okay because animals do it, then humans are pointlessly deluding ourselves with our sense of right and wrong. i don't know about you, but i DON'T want to live in a world where things are inherently "meant" to be without discussion or consideration - the same argument used against sodomy. Exactly! We have evolved (apparently); we are no longer 'animals'! We have developed the ability to think, to choose, to make other choices, to decide not to kill, to rape, to eat animals, to mistreat another living thing, to decide between right and wrong etc... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howiet1971 20 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 its not just the fur but her responses are annoying me, sorry Exactly; they were flippant and arrogant I don't understand why I *should* care. It doesn't matter at all to anyone if an animal suffers. Are you being serious???? If so what a horrible little man you are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howiet1971 20 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 If you don't like fur then don't wear it. Simple. It's not your business what Gaga, or anyone else, wears. Then its not my business to feed the starving, to promote human rights, tospeakup against war in other countries etc... BULL**** Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howiet1971 20 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 This fanbase SHE WORE MEAT, FOR GOD SAKE! Yes, and why? "if we don’t stand up for what we believe in and if we don’t fight for our rights pretty soon, we’re going to have as much rights as the meat on own bones. And, I am not a piece of meat.†It at least had 'some' political statement, a purpose. Her fur coat has none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howiet1971 20 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 It IS fake, confirmed, see elsewhere in the topic people found the link to the exact coat she wore. It says it's high-pile fur, which is the name they give to synthetic/faux fur. But she was indeed making a statement by not confirming or denying what she wore - she's not a hypocrite, which one can not say about PETA and a huuuge part of the public. Amazing reply of hers! :clap: Bby not coming out and confirming it's fake, (as yuo woudl think she would want to do) and the nature of her responses, means she has come out in SUPPORT of real fur... if it is fake, her behaviour is a huge error of judement. Wow, such a long response for no real answer. Now I'm kinda assuming that it was real fur...which I don't love but it's not a big* deal to me. .... I'm just taking it day by day waiting for the full FAME commercial. That trailer got me SO pumped wow - so 'shallow'. :( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.