Peta's Anna Wintour Holiday Card

[oolie coco]

I agree with Spike as well. We all know about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes - that doesn't mean we automatically support Scientology.

Just "hearing" about it doesn't really do anything.

 

[peacelover142002]

has PETA ever done anything productive and positive for the welfare of animals?

believe it or not, they actually have done some good. they have persuaded at least 2 major retailers that I know of (J. Crew and Wet Seal) to stop using fur, so as much as they take it to the extreme, it works sometimes.

 

[tinuvielberen]

believe it or not, they actually have done some good. they have persuaded at least 2 major retailers that I know of (J. Crew and Wet Seal) to stop using fur, so as much as they take it to the extreme, it works sometimes.

They also do lots of bad.

Since 1998, PeTA has killed 12,000 animals in its "shelters." Two PeTA workers have been indicted on multiple counts of felony animal cruelty.

PeTA has contributed to the legal defense of convicted arsonists.

PeTA has called for boycotts against the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the American Cancer Society, and the Pediatric AIDS foundation.

PeTA regularly exploits minorities in its ad campaigns and has used graphic images of violence against women.

If I were Anna Wintour, I'd have a different fur coat for every day of the month, and devote January's Vogue entirely to fur.

 

[Nader]

only they can make me want to club a seal

 

[Brazilian Girl]

Why did I click that link? I don't either, maybe we should put them in a cage with a lion and cover them all in barbeque sauce? Oh the irony...

for making a ridiculous drawing of that woman? now that's extreme.

Innocent animals are suffering more than she is. She probably couldn't care less about it anyways.

Personally I do not like this kind of campaign either, because I don't think these attacks to people are the way to go.

However, I'm surprised that people are stating that PETA does nothing to actually help the animals. They're not all about "campaigns" and "protests" you know. They are constantly, every single day, fighting for the welfare of animals, and they get concrete results. For instance, they got many stores like WetSeal and J.Crew to stop selling fur. They sent groups of people to rescue the animals that were victims of Katrina and Wilma etc. They got many brands to stop using Australian wool (because they use a very cruel and torturing technique to extract the wool or something). They got McDonalds to improve the conditions in which the chickens they breed live, and have been trying to do the same with KFC. They contact brands who experiment on animals trying to make them stop animal tests, trying to work with them on finding new solutions. They report all kinds of animal abuse (from abandoned circus elephants and abused tigers to people who blow up their pets) and write letters to the prosecutors and judges who are involved in each case, asking them to make justice and punish the people responsible the way they should be punished according to the law. These are just a few examples.
So you can't judge what they actually do for the animals based on how you feel about the way they choose to get attention to their cause.

Most of us agree that these sort of attacks are not the way to go, and we know that because we've seen it, we've been reading about it everything. But as for their work, you need to know what they do, then you can judge it. So visit their website (www.peta.org) or write them or call them up or something, inquire after what they do to actually help animals before getting to a conclusion about it.

It's not cool. You may not like what people do, but it's their choice to do it.

Torturing animals, or supporting that practice in any way, is not a choice that can be compared to the way you choose your favourite drink. The law says that animals have rights, and these rights should be respected. Fighting for the animal rights is not fighting against something you simply dislike, is fighting for justice (well, people who think that animal rights doesn't have anything to do with justice are people who think it's totally OK to torture an animal - and that kind of behaviour is unacceptable).

And one more thing, I think it's wrong to belittle the cause per se. You see the protests, think "this is nuts" and get to the conclusion: "they're all nuts, and fighting for this 'animal rights' thing is nuts". This is ignorance.

 

[Brazilian Girl]

If I were Anna Wintour, I'd have a different fur coat for every day of the month, and devote January's Vogue entirely to fur.

oh so the innocent animals that have nothing to do with it have to pay because of the fact that some people called PETA are too extreme?

 

[fashionista-ta]

Well, it's not even funny ... I could do better than that. For example ... Fur coat on outside, inside Anna's own ample or even abundant fur, with perhaps a cutout a la Gucci. "Anna, we like you in your own fur," OR "Anna, haven't you enough fur of your own without borrowing from wee animals?" Or Anna as Cruella deVille ... the possibilities are limitless

 

[erin_k]

why don't they target Shaq too???

 

[Ho-Coture]

oh so the innocent animals that have nothing to do with it have to pay because of the fact that some people called PETA are too extreme?

You do realize that PETA has Euthanised several animals and they were also charged with animal cruelty. Their hypocrosy is what annoys people, one of their leaders uses insulin but tells all other diabetes patients to boycott it. Pot calling the kettle black.

I am all for animal rights but not for supporting hypocrites that preach one thing but do another.

 

[Brazilian Girl]

oh so the innocent animals that have nothing to do with it have to pay because of the fact that some people called PETA are too extreme?

You do realize that PETA has Euthanised several animals and they were also charged with animal cruelty. Their hypocrosy is what annoys people, one of their leaders uses insulin but tells all other diabetes patients to boycott it. Pot calling the kettle black.

I am all for animal rights but not for supporting hypocrites that preach one thing but do another.

I agree with you on that.
But someone said:

If I were Anna Wintour, I'd have a different fur coat for every day of the month, and devote January's Vogue entirely to fur.

and what I meant was I don't think even more animals should suffer (because the more fur coats you order the more animals have to die to fulfil that demand) in order to Anna to "get back" at PETA or whoever else. It just doesn't make any sense to think like that and it'd be cruel.

But I'm not here defending PETA and their actions, I'm defending the animal rights cause, because whenever there's some kind of news regarding that issue, people go "oh those animal rights nutjobs", "you can't save animals because humans are more important" etc etc...

I was just surprised that people were saying that PETA does nothing to help animals, when there are things that are undeniably done. Now, if they were charged with animal cruelty and there's a whole dirty story hidden behind the appearences, that's another thing, that should be looked into immediately. But it doesn't necessarily mean that those people affiliated to PETA who DO good things for the animals had bad intentions just because they are affiliated to PETA. You know what I mean? Just because some people inside that group are hypocrits, doesn't necessarily mean all of them are, esp. because they probably believe very much in what they're doing.

Well, anyways, it's just a really complicated issue that really gets to my nerve and makes me deeply sad, that's all.

 

[Diorling]

Quite frankly PeTA is like thier own punchline. I mean who is going to take them SERIOUSLY. They need new PR people, if they even have any, or if they do it MUST be Sinead O'Connor.

It's not about animal cruelty, using fur. This is about PeTA being a bunch of stark raving maniacs.

I was eating a chicken sandwich and a woman came up to me and said I was eating carcass I was like "this is the best roadkill Ive ever had and Im from Kentucky"

 

[Deleted member 49693]

I was eating a chicken sandwich and a woman came up to me and said I was eating carcass I was like "this is the best roadkill Ive ever had and Im from Kentucky"

 

[tiffany]

For once it would be great if they did something positive.

I completely agree. Why not send out something with a positive message that convinces people not to wear fur without demonizing the people who do? They should be putting out messages to support animal rights, not to ridicule a magazine editor

What is so irritating is that animal rights is a worthy cause, one doesn't have to stoop to such a tacky level to promote animal rights

 

[Deleted member 1957]

i love it when pple mess with those DO NOT MESS WITH THEM people!

 

[JEM]

I think PETA is hurting themselves more than spreading awarness. They take their campaigns to such ridiculous extremes, that in the end, noone takes them seriously. This holiday card is disgusting for the eye indeed, but not because Anna Wintour is wearing fur, but because of the horrible drawing of her body. I mean i am fairly neutral on fur, and respect everyones opinion, but that card did not disgust me of wearing fur.
Targeting certain people is not going to help them either, they should actually teach people what really happens to animals, but not in such an almost comical way. Serious discussions to various schools, organizations would be much more beneficial for their cause, i think. Booing at Jennifer Lopez' premiere, or throwing pies at Anna Wintour makes them look like a bunch of fools, i am sorry to say.
And as a last note, absolutely noone will take them seriously if they themselves do not even stick to doing what they demand other people to do.

 

[happycanadian]

i think that card is beyond hilarious. i've often wondered what ms wintour looked like behind her garbs. . .

and i think that while PETA has become more known for crazy antics than for their actual cause, i think they truly have changed the way that many MANY people view fur as clothing.

 

[Heroin_Chic]

Tasteless & embarracing!

Is this never getting old? Will they ever leave Vogue alone!?

Really sad that Peta seems to concentrate on harrasing humans instead of helping animals!

 

[*Sunrise_Serena*]

Okay I really agree with most of you who say that their campaigns are tasteless and personally I don't like this and most of their other campaigns too...but please tell me who would care about what they have to say or about what they do if they wouldn't provoke!? I'm sure we wouldn't discuss about them if their campaigns were less provocative, like there is no thread on Greenpeace or something. I really agree that attacking people because they wear fur is not the right thing to do but that's probably the only way they get attention. Saying that they don't do anything for animals is complete rubbish too imo. Personally I can't stand fur either and I can't understand why people wear it but well I can't stop them and it's everyone's own decision. Maybe their measures to help animals aren't always right but at least they're doing something while a lot of people don't care about animals at all which is very sad.

 

[Hipkitten]

Agreed Spike.

So should we all just become vigilantes? I can just see it now, "Hey you there! Girl with your thong hanging out of your booty shorts, take that off now!", I say as I punch them in the face.

I plan on adopting this policy

 

[fashionicon]

Most of us agree that these sort of attacks are not the way to go, and we know that because we've seen it, we've been reading about it everything. But as for their work, you need to know what they do, then you can judge it. So visit their website (www.peta.org) or write them or call them up or something, inquire after what they do to actually help animals before getting to a conclusion about it.

And one more thing, I think it's wrong to belittle the cause per se. You see the protests, think "this is nuts" and get to the conclusion: "they're all nuts, and fighting for this 'animal rights' thing is nuts". This is ignorance.

I defnitley wouldn't have spoken on the subject if I knew nothing about them.

IMO, if people did more about them, than they would choose to spend their money on something else.

Wearing fur is a choice, and is also a need for some parts of the country. Though I would never be caught dead in fur, I don't think it would be a good idea for me to throw a pie at someone who does, or throw red paint on them.

You can't force your beleifs on someone else. And as someone has already stated, they are huge hyprocrites. Pamela Anderson sported a full-length leather outfit in Barbwire (even down to her thong, folks), and the very medicine she takes to live because of her Hepatitis, is made from animal content! Not to mention the pounds and pounds of silicon she injected to herself.

I don't even want to touch the exterme scare tactics the groups uses.

from echoonline.com
"Maybe you remember PETAs lovely Christmas ad campaign last year targeted at children. The organization created a comic book targeted at young children entitled Your Mommy Kills Animals. The cover features a maniacal woman in an apron wielding a hunting knife, stabbing a rabbit while she holds the animal by the ears. The cartoon is bloody and tasteless. This image can bee seen at www.furisdead.com/momfur.

The idea was for PETA members to distribute these comics to children so that their mothers will stop their murderous ways. The comic declares that lots of wonderful foxes, raccoons and other animals are kept by mean farmers who squish them into cages so small that they can hardly move. They never get to play or swim or have fun. All they can do is cry-just so your greedy mommy can have that fur coat to show off in when she walks the streets.

This would be almost comical if it were not directed at young and impressionable children. Whether you wear fur or not, whether you are a vegetarian or not, I think any reasonable person can agree that this kind of ad campaign is uncalled for and repulsive.

As bad the Your Mommy Kills Animals campaign was, the Holocaust on a Plate campaign makes it pale in comparison. In this campaign, PETAs goal was [make] the public aware of the parallels between the Jewish genocide of WWII and the horrific and inhumane treatment of animals raised and slaughtered for food. The ad campaign juxtaposed pictures of Jews in concentration camps with pigs and other animals behind barbed wire barriers. This is demeaning to not just Holocaust victims and survivors, not just Jews, but to human beings in general. "


Yeah, great for the kiddies.