Bambino 24,290 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Why though? What they do is for a cause. I think that a lot of what they do is BS but was this really unexpected? Whether or not you think they're overreacting, that's what they care about. And I don't know why Gaga shouldn't be expected to stick to what she told Ellen. Everyone is just mad because Gaga is being held responsible for going back on what she said. I don't know a lot about they actually do but I'm pretty much that there are a lot of things that happen to animals around the world and all you do is attacking a pop singer for wearing fur, for example? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garnite 8 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I don't know a lot about they actually do but I'm pretty much that there are a lot of things that happen to animals around the world and all you do is attacking a pop singer for wearing fur, for example? why do you think that's all they do? don't you think they have enough people amongst their ranks so that when someone writes a few lines about lady gaga a couple of times, that doesn't defer them from the main issue? the main issue is getting the word out there. people need to know the truth about the fur industry. i can't see how this doesn't achieve that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
comrade 33 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 It doesn't matter if it's fake fur or not, are you people dense or what? She's still giving people the impression that it's alright to carry a dead animal around your neck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kupo 201 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 i have no intention of siding with Peta and their animal organizations because, just like you said, their tactics don't always operate in desirable ways no matter how good their reasons may be. But what im trying to signify, is that people are now hypothetically suggesting that the true and personal effects of wearing fur, isnt such a big deal, when it really is. Overall, i just feel like people shouldnt just justify right from wrong in the perspective of Gaga's actions and artistic integrity. This I can sorta get behind. I've seen in other threads where people see her wearing fur and are all, "I hope it's REAL!" and to that, I'm all... :wtf: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysboysboys 278 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Why are the most pretentious, highfaluting people making PETA's remarks, lol. why do you think that's all they do? don't you think they have enough people amongst their ranks so that when someone writes a few lines about lady gaga a couple of times, that doesn't defer them from the main issue? the main issue is getting the word out there. people need to know the truth about the fur industry. i can't see how this doesn't achieve that. In a way you can say PETA is being given more opportunity to speak, but is customer dissuasion really the core of what it should be doing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garnite 8 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Why are the most pretentious, highfaluting people making PETA's remarks, lol. In a way you can say PETA is being given more opportunity to speak, but is customer dissuasion really the core of what it should be doing? but that's not the core of what they're doing. try to be a bit more objective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysboysboys 278 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 but that's not the core of what they're doing. try to be a bit more objective. Why am I not objective? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garnite 8 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Why am I not objective? because i've got a feeling that you think that their goal is to tear down GAGA because it's LADY GAGA THE ULTIMATE MEDIA MARTYR, but they have stern words about fur for even a frivolous non celebrity like kim kardashian. all you have to consider to understand this is 1, they really hate fur, 2, they hate fur endorsements, 3, they don't like when someone plainly contradicts themselves on their behalf. when they call someone out for these iniquities, you're reading too much into it when you say that their "core" is customer dissuasion. they're only trying to spread the good word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysboysboys 278 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 because i've got a feeling that you think that their goal is to tear down GAGA because it's LADY GAGA THE ULTIMATE MEDIA MARTYR, but they have stern words about fur for even a frivolous non celebrity like kim kardashian. all you have to consider to understand this is 1, they really hate fur, 2, they hate fur endorsements, 3, they don't like when someone plainly contradicts themselves on their behalf. when they call someone out for these iniquities, you're reading too much into it when you say that their "core" is customer dissuasion. they're only trying to spread the good word. That is your feeling. I barely included celebrities in my comment, and even then it's not about Gaga-bashing. And yes, they are free to call out people for wearing fur. I did not disregard their dissuasion, I just said they could do better than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadHeavyMetalQueen 142 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Oh my god, when will the shut the **** up? :grr: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garnite 8 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 And yes, they are free to call out people for wearing fur. I did not disregard their dissuasion, I just said they could do better than that. it's not like they're calling for an international lady gaga boycott. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadHeavyMetalQueen 142 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The scarf looks so fake. O Omg it does! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kupo 201 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 why do you think that's all they do? don't you think they have enough people amongst their ranks so that when someone writes a few lines about lady gaga a couple of times, that doesn't defer them from the main issue? the main issue is getting the word out there. people need to know the truth about the fur industry. i can't see how this doesn't achieve that. But do you honestly think this is the best/most efficient way to actually attack the fur industry? To call a celebrity heartless when she's wearing a clearly faux stole? This is, like, the very definition of self-defeating. Throwing red-paint and flour bombing celebrities is the dumbest sort of thing an animal rights org can waste their time doing. The effects of those actions have done nothing for PETA's message. All they've really done is established the dialogue that sees them as domestic terrorists. And they've done nothing to educate the uneducated about the actual means used to procure fur. I suppose PETA can argue that these things drum up press and therefore funds, but if your organization's most well-known tactics actually establish dialogues completely beside your main mission (and really, counter to it), it's pretty clear that it's time to rethink your strategy. How about some well-researched literature? Some horrifying ad campaigns? Films that reveal the horrors of the fur industry? I know PETA has these things, but they're so infrequently their focus. Flour-bombing Kim Kardashian might have the masses cheering, but PETA can't feel too pleased with itself: that's not because anyone is rethinking fur, that's because the general population hates Kim Kardashian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nissa 51 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This I can sorta get behind. I've seen in other threads where people see her wearing fur and are all, "I hope it's REAL!" and to that, I'm all... I haven't seen those. That's sickening. :eww: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garnite 8 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 But do you honestly think this is the best/most efficient way to actually attack the fur industry? To call a celebrity heartless when she's wearing a clearly faux stole? This is, like, the very definition of self-defeating. no, but it's one way. i mean, it's not like every single one of peta's members are simultaneously focusing on this one specific scenario. i think if you passionately care about this as peta does, being ultra famous and wearing (=promoting) fashion in the image of fur is offensive for them. this is their prerogative. i just can't see the issue, sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.