Comments on: Jennifer Aniston May Be Next In Line For PETA Fur Attack

By: Mannywrd

Mannywrd — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:51:00 +0000

There is no such animal called pro-life. You can’t be dropping tons of bombs on kids far away and be pro-life. The pro-life in America is a political notion. Opposit tactics among the political parties grab hold of a realistic concept as selling feature. One who kills wild animals is a sick blood thirsty sob. We managed thru our history to destroy the buffalo..why? Why hunt and kill so few left?

By: smarty

smarty — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:49:36 +0000

Also, why is it that animal rights activists, like VegiTart, always assume that someone is “anti-animal” if they do not buy into the extremist animal rights agenda? Why Vegi-Tart are so many animal rights activists anti-human?

Couldn’t it be that those who oppose your views do so, not because they dislike animals, but because they favor freedom of choice? People should be allowed to make their own moralistic choices, Vegi. They do not need the likes of you telling them what is right and wrong. If you don’t like fur, don’t wear it. You say that you think its okay to intimidate celebrities into doing or not doing something. What if those same tactics were used on someone who just got an abortion. What if a pro-life person decided to publicly humiliate and intimidate a pregnant woman in order to discourage her from getting an abortion? Would that be acceptable to you? What is the difference between this and what you are advocating? Go ahead now, start the spin.

By: smarty

smarty — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:43:45 +0000

Patricia:

Like most fanatics, you do not even pay attention to anyone who disagrees with you. You know everything and that’s it. You did not even read my post. I know this because, if you did, you would see that your response does not make sense. I made an observation that goes beyond what you think. I said nothing about me wearing fur. I defended someone else’s right to wear it. Do you comprehend the difference? I further questionedn PETA’s intentions given their past actions and pointed out that animal rights activists really do very little to help animals. None of this even registered with you, because you’re a brain-washed follower.

By: Zuke

Zuke — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:34:17 +0000

I bet 99% of the people crying about bunny rabbits are prochoice.
Prove me wrong.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:02:58 +0000

Smarty, if you think fur coats are awesome, then wear them. You are only making yourself look like a selfish, materialistic jerk with not one ounce of compassion in your body. Since becoming an animal activist long ago, I have become ashamed to be human, especially when it comes to ignorant humans such as yourself.

By: gloria

gloria — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:12:41 +0000

100+ years ago, when an animal was killed it was used for food (meat), clothing (pelts), the oils were used to make soap, and even the bones were used for “boning” in women’s undergarmets. We’re not living 100 years ago. While it may have been necessary at one point in history, we have many more options available now for food, clothing, ect. We should be smarter. Man is also an animal – supposedly the most intelligent animal. I often wonder about that.

By: smarty

smarty — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:47:25 +0000

I’m also interested in how many of these anti-fur types are pro choice. So it’s okay to kill an unborn human baby for nothing more than the convenience of the mother, but it is wrong to kill some rodents to make a coat that will keep someone warm for years. If a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body, then she has a right to wear fur.

By: smarty

smarty — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:45:12 +0000

I think fur coats are awesome and I hope Jennifer gets one and enjoys it. PETA exists to elicit emotional reactions from people so they’ll send in money. This organization is getting too big for its britches, offering to buy off Aretha Franklin’s mortgage if she’ll stop wearing fur, etc. As other posters have indicated, there are plenty of reasons for wearing real fur. PETA has been exposed in the past faking its videos and was even found guilty of the practice in a European court. If you want to do something nice for animals, get a dog and treat him well. Harrassing people who wear or sell fur does nothing to help animal populations, not in the least.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:39:48 +0000

I was going to make a comment about this story, but fbr’s comments are far more entertaining! I haven’t laughed so much in ages!

Comparing what wild animals do to each other in nature, and what supposedly civilised human beings do to animals for their own gain is lunacy.

A lion attacks and kills a zebra, for example, because the lion has no other alternative if he is to survive. A human being who permanently ends the life of a mink so they can gain financially from his skin DOES have a choice, because their own survival does not depend exclusively on doing so. Being a fur farmer is a choice, not a right, and many other forms of employment are available.

To summarise, wild animals hurting and killing other animals is unavoidable, and they do so for their own survival. Human beings hurting and killing animals for fashion IS avoidable, and is done for financial gain and vanity.

By: VeggieTart

VeggieTart — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:24:27 +0000

fbr, there is a big difference between what other animals do–because they don’t have the ability to reason, nor do they have the highly developed conscience humans do–and what humans do.

I don’t advocate violence against purveyors of animal cruelty. But shaming celebrities out of wearing fur is another matter entirely. There are plenty of people who will want a fur because a celebrity does; discouraging them from doing it will reduce demand for cruel “fabrics.”

Why are you so anti-animal, anyway, fbr?