Rodman in PETA ad

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lance

Guest
The tattoo-resplendent former NBA star appears nude, in profile, in the celebrity anti-fur ad for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Rodman’s 6-foot-8 presence appears with the slogan, “Think Ink, Not Mink: Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin and Let Animals Keep Theirs.”

Is this the best spokesperson PETA could get? Looks like they ‘ain’t long for this world’ if this is the best they could do. 😃
 
Well if he appeard nude they are indeed through:eek: God Bless
 
40.png
Lance:
The tattoo-resplendent former NBA star appears nude, in profile, in the celebrity anti-fur ad for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Rodman’s 6-foot-8 presence appears with the slogan, “Think Ink, Not Mink: Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin and Let Animals Keep Theirs.”

Is this the best spokesperson PETA could get? Looks like they ‘ain’t long for this world’ if this is the best they could do. 😃
Click to expand...
I am disappointed that he didn’t wear his bridal veil.
 
In my opinion, it is a very good match. I think about as much of one as the other.
 
I think you’ll find that PETA isn’t ‘long for this world,’ but it will only continue to grow. Also, since when do you Hollywood-hating republicans judge how something/something is doing based on who endorses him/her/it? Believe me, if you want a list of celebrities who are vegetarians, I’ll gladly provide it…
 
PETA is full of a bunch of nuts. I certainly don’t take any PETA member seriously. It’s funny when they claim it’s mean to harvest honey from bees.
Time for me to go get my T-Bone, which was “home grown”. :cool:
 
I recall a few years back, during a basketball game, Rodman while sitting on his backside kicked another defenseless player as hard as he could in the groin. It was so blatent and so sadistic I couldn’t help but wonder how a personcould do such a blatently horrendous thing to another human.

This is a man who cares about the quality of the life of an animal? If this is true PETA did not do thier homework.
 
Mijoy PETA nuts, as a rule of thumb, don’t like human beings. They would rather save the rat than have a scientist find a cure for cancer using a rat.
 
40.png
Catholicvegan:
I think you’ll find that PETA isn’t ‘long for this world,’ but it will only continue to grow. Also, since when do you Hollywood-hating republicans judge how something/something is doing based on who endorses him/her/it? Believe me, if you want a list of celebrities who are vegetarians, I’ll gladly provide it…
Click to expand...
No thanks, and not all vegetarians are PETA fruitcakes. My daughter is a vegetarian and sees nothing wrong with using animals for medical research or wearing leather.
 
40.png
Lance:
The tattoo-resplendent former NBA star appears nude, in profile, in the celebrity anti-fur ad for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Rodman’s 6-foot-8 presence appears with the slogan, “Think Ink, Not Mink: Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin and Let Animals Keep Theirs.”
Click to expand...
Are they suggesting that it is ethically okay to now tattoo or dye the skin/fur of animals? How inconsistent. You can mutilate/deface but just don’t kill those little fur balls? :rolleyes:
 
PETA has a long history of offensive ads, especially offensive to feminist. My favorite was the one of a half dressed women laying provocatively on a pile of hay with the heading “Nobody Like an 8 Second Ride” printed on it… There are many more.
 
40.png
Catholicvegan:
I think you’ll find that PETA isn’t ‘long for this world,’ but it will only continue to grow. Also, since when do you Hollywood-hating republicans judge how something/something is doing based on who endorses him/her/it? Believe me, if you want a list of celebrities who are vegetarians, I’ll gladly provide it…
Click to expand...
If you are a Vegan, I hope you’re taking some Vitamin B12 pills or getting a periodic shot. There is NO satisfactory source for Vitamin B12 in the plant world.

I remember a bumper sticker that read “PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals”. The PETA folks are fringe; so are most Hollywood celebrities for that matter. I don’t take either seriously. Hitler was a vegetarian too…
 
40.png
felra:
Are they suggesting that it is ethically okay to now tattoo or dye the skin/fur of animals? How inconsistent. You can mutilate/deface but just don’t kill those little fur balls?
Click to expand...
I took the point of the ad as being to adorn yourself with “ink” (tatoos) instead of fur.

I hate to point out the obvious (since I have little regard for PETA and no problem with furs) but the ad has more than achieved its purpose of attracting attention as we all debate its relative merits and its been splashed all over the media. PETA has made quite a return on its investment (especially since I doubt it takes much to get D. Rodman to drop trou)
 
40.png
Lilyofthevalley:
Mijoy PETA nuts, as a rule of thumb, don’t like human beings. They would rather save the rat than have a scientist find a cure for cancer using a rat.
Click to expand...
I notice that the same arguments used in favour of experiments on animals are used in favour of experiments on human embryo’s.

By the way a PETA linked organisation is jesusveg.com/index2.html without endorsing PETA I would say that they sometimes make interesting points.

Did God give humans dominion over animals?
Code: 
				 [](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow399.html)[**If God doesn't ordain meat-eating, why are there so many laws about what meat is and isn't clean, and why doesn't Jesus condemn meat-eating outright?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow10398.html)

				 **
				**

				 [**"I understand that many Christians embrace veganism because God's plan is one of love and peace. How can they advocate vegetarianism if they don't believe Jesus was a vegetarian? **](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow11198.html)

				 
				[**I believe that the Bible is literally true, that it is God speaking through human beings. So that means Jesus ate fish after the resurrection and fed them to people in the multiplication miracle. Also, it means that Paul tells me it's OK to eat animals. And God sure kills a lot of animals (and human beings). Why should I be a vegetarian?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow.html)

				  						[](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow.html)[**Paul's letters to Timothy (first letter, chapter 4) and to the Romans (chapter 14) say that all food is good to eat. He also calls abstinence from meat a false teaching. How do you reconcile vegetarianism with these teachings?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow699.html)

				
				 [](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow699.html)[**Why don't we have a passage reading, "Thou shalt not eat meat," or a clear statement that Jesus didn't eat animal flesh?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow799.html)

				 
				

				 [**How can you use Scripture to promote vegetarianism while discounting Scripture that disagrees with your asessment?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow399.html)

				  						[](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow999.html)
**
Doesn’t God give humans permission to eat meat in Genesis 9?**
Code: 
				 [](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow1199.html)[**Why don't you focus your attention on abortion or child abuse? Why do you care about animals?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow100.html)

				 **
				[What about Peter's vision in Acts, where the animals come down in the cloth?](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow1099.html)**

				 [](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow1099.html)


				[**Doesn't God call for animal sacrifice?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow10198.html)

				  
				[**Why are you focusing on Christianity?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow10298.html)

				  
				[](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow499.html)
				[**It's natural to kill for food. Animals kill one another in the wild. Why shouldn't we?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow299.html)

				  
				[**I consume the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus, so how can I reconcile that with being a vegetarian?**](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow1299.html)

				 [](http://www.jesusveg.com/qow1199.html)

				        [**What          next--rights for vegetables?**](http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp)
 

I notice that the same arguments used in favour of experiments on animals are used in favour of experiments on human embryo’s.​

Ironic, isn’t it? There is a big difference between a rat and a person. Also, there is a bid difference between medical experiments and experiments for the sake of experiments.
Medical experiments for diabetis, cancer,heart disease and other life threatening conditions are needed.
Experiments for make up and cleaning products are not.​

What next–rights for vegetables?​

Save the aloe plant~
 
Dear Lance,

Well, as to your remark about all vegetarians not being “PETA fruitcakes,” all I have to say is that it seems a bit odd to refuse to eat meat but at the same time say “sure, I’ll wear that leather.” I won’t eat the cow, but I’ll take it’s skin for my clothing- interesting logic.

Dear INRI,

You can say what you want about Hitler being a vegetarian. I have a question for you: what if Hitler believed in Creationism? Does that mean we shouldn’t believe in it? Gandhi was a vegetarian too. How does that effect your opinion? Do you make all your judgements about ideas based in those who think that way? Or do you consider the basis for the ideas themselves?
 
I guess people have lots of different reasons for being vegetarian. I don’t eat veal, it has noting to do with how they are raised or slaughtered. I just don’t care for the taste. So maybe some people just don’t care for the taste of meat. I have nothing against being a vegetarian, how ever when PETA feels free to toss paint on someone because they are wearing fur or leather that is going too far. I can tell you if one of these nuts ever accosted me someone would get a beating. They might beat me and I would certainly try my best to beat them. Probably not a Christian thing to do but that is how I feel.
 
40.png
Catholicvegan:
Dear INRI,

You can say what you want about Hitler being a vegetarian. I have a question for you: what if Hitler believed in Creationism? Does that mean we shouldn’t believe in it? Gandhi was a vegetarian too. How does that effect your opinion? Do you make all your judgements about ideas based in those who think that way? Or do you consider the basis for the ideas themselves?
Click to expand...
My apologies. My intent was not to smear vegetarians, merely to point out that some, no necessarily you, seem to think that vegetarianism makes one morally superior to us carnivores.

As for your other point, I do look at the ideas put out by a certain person, but the person putting them out does affect how much credibility I attach to those ideas. For example, when Hillary Clinton talks about showing respect for pro-lifers, I know that that statement bears no resemblance to her actions and is in fact a cynical manipulation designed to curry favor with those who are otherwise disinclined to vote for her.

As to the topic of the thread, PETA has about zero credibility with me because their arguments are outlandish and because they themselves are big beneficiaries of that which they propose to ban, namely animal experimentation. No computer can adequately model the effects of vaccines on live animals. We have not been able to synthesize a single cell de novo, let alone synthetic bone marrow. There are idiosyncratic reactions to numerous substances in a living organism that are completely unpredictable by any a priori knowledge. For my money, it is better to test this on a lab mouse than on a human being. The anti-fur campaign is only step to PETA’s main objective which is to get all people to draw moral equivalence between human beings and animals.
 
40.png
INRI:
. The anti-fur campaign is only step to PETA’s main objective which is to get all people to draw moral equivalence between human beings and animals.
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for PETA, whom I do not support, but I think Animal Liberationists do not draw a moral equivalence between humans and animals. What I think they do is believe that animals feel pain and experience sufferings in ways that are closely similar to humans. Countries which forbid acts of cruelty, like pouring boiling water over cats, affirm this same belief.

If therefore animals experience suffering much as we do then we are obligated not to inflict such suffering without overwhelmingly powerful reasons. The debate then becomes~ what constitutes an overwhelmingly good reason to inflict suffering? In any given situation are there other options?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top