Anna Nicole Smith Nixes Protest Trip - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 04-09-2005, 12:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
GOPVeggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 620
GOPVeggie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 04-09-2005, 12:30 PM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
Half of these protesters couldn't even find Newfoundland on a map of Newfoundland and Labrador a month ago.



Just like it was in the 80s. Bunch of has-been and wanna-be actors wanting to make the news for themselves. After they're gotten their few minutes of fame, they go back to wearing fur.



If they actually cared about Newfoundland, they'd invest their overinflated salaries into the province and industries there.
FreshTart is offline  
#3 Old 04-09-2005, 12:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hopeforanimals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 333
"Working with activists who are protesting on the ice floe last week and again this week, they found that the seal hunters became physically violent and actually attacked many of the protesters on the ice."



Hmmm...humans commiting violent acts toward animals turn their violence on humans. Who knew?
hopeforanimals is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 04-09-2005, 02:00 PM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
Yes, because protesters are always nonviolent.



Oh please. Tell me you aren't that naive.
FreshTart is offline  
#5 Old 04-09-2005, 02:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

Half of these protesters couldn't even find Newfoundland on a map of Newfoundland and Labrador a month ago...



If they actually cared about Newfoundland, they'd invest their overinflated salaries into the province and industries there.



I don't think they're saying they care about Newfoundland specifically - they're saying they care about the cruel slaughter of these animals for their fur. And it's an excuse for people to say that there's no other option for survival except to kill these animals for their fur - if there wasn't a profit to be made, they'd be doing something else. The recent slaughter revealed a lot of the lies behind the slaughtering industry (like, the seals were hurting the fishing industry, when they were actually helping it by eating predators).



I also don't know where a lot of places are on the map, but if I hear about animal abuse going on there, I will care.



If celebrities use their celebrity for a good cause, that's pretty wonderful. But I agree with you that if someone begins getting paid for wearing fur again later, as did Cindy Crawford, that likely reveals something about their less than charitable motivations.



http://my.so-net.net.tw/sirwang/fur.wmv

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#6 Old 04-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hopeforanimals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

Yes, because protesters are always nonviolent.



Oh please. Tell me you aren't that naive.



I never said all protestors are non-violent. What I said was that the same individuals responsible for clubbing and slaughtering to death innocent creatures turned their rage on humans when confronted with their horrible deeds. But I suppose that because *some* protestors are violent, *these* particular protestors deserved to be assaulted.
hopeforanimals is offline  
#7 Old 04-09-2005, 05:28 PM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
Or, perhaps these camera-hogging rich people are interferring with the hunters earning a living.



What are YOU doing to assist the hunters with finding new ways to earn money?
FreshTart is offline  
#8 Old 04-09-2005, 05:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Yay, debate.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#9 Old 04-09-2005, 06:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
Yes, there are many who criticize abolitionists Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman for not spending their time trying to find other ways for plantation owners to run their plantations without the slaves [ed. to be clear, this is a facetious remark]. Because everyone knows that cruelty and barbarity towards others is only based on dire economic necessity, never greed and the fact that one can get away with it. Exploitation industries continue because they can; and when they no longer exist, people find other ways to survive.



Anyway, I don't think it's incumbent upon the people who are trying to free the slaves to not only educate the public and help the slaves escape, but to find new ways for the plantation owners to keep their plantations going. People will manage to find ways to survive other than by torturing other beings. And many people who are involved in hurting animals terribly don't even need "other ways" to survive, they just need to curb the greed.



Hey, what are you doing to help the scientists who do animal testing on cosmetics products earn an alternate living, since you say you're against that *single* aspect of vivisection, and you criticize their work on your website?

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#10 Old 04-09-2005, 07:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hopeforanimals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

Or, perhaps these camera-hogging rich people are interferring with the hunters earning a living.



So you condone violence towards the defenseless if it earns income?



Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

What are YOU doing to assist the hunters with finding new ways to earn money?



What am I doing to assist prostitutes and crack heads with finding new ways to earn money? Not a damn thing. It's everyone's responsibility to find his and her own means of earning a moral living. If they *choose* the immoral, easy way out, that's their decision, not mine, and I shouldn't be expected to lead them by the hands down the righteous, narrow path.
hopeforanimals is offline  
#11 Old 04-09-2005, 07:14 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hopeforanimals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Yes, there are many who criticize Frederick Douglass for not spending his time trying to find other ways for plantation owners to run their plantations without the slaves. Because everyone knows that cruelty and barbarity towards others is only based on dire economic necessity, never greed and the fact that one can get away with it.



Anyway, I don't think it's incumbent upon the people who are trying to free the slaves to not only educate the public and help the slaves escape, but to find new ways for the plantation owners to keep their plantations going. People will manage to find ways to survive other than by torturing other beings. And many people who are involved in hurting animals terribly don't even need "other ways" to survive, they just need to curb the greed.



Hey, what are you doing to help the scientists who do animal testing on cosmetics products earn an alternate living, since you say you're against that *single* aspect of vivisection, and you criticize their work on your website?





What you said!!!
hopeforanimals is offline  
#12 Old 04-09-2005, 11:04 PM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopeforanimals View Post

What am I doing to assist prostitutes and crack heads with finding new ways to earn money? Not a damn thing. It's everyone's responsibility to find his and her own means of earning a moral living. If they *choose* the immoral, easy way out, that's their decision, not mine, and I shouldn't be expected to lead them by the hands down the righteous, narrow path.



Thanks. Now I can lack all respect for you and discredit anything you post.
FreshTart is offline  
#13 Old 04-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hopeforanimals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

Thanks. Now I can lack all respect for you and discredit anything you post.



If that makes you feel you've won the debate and settled your conscience, be my guest. But for the record, I wouldn't expect anyone who justifies animal cruelty to respect me. Thanks for the gesture, though.
hopeforanimals is offline  
#14 Old 04-09-2005, 11:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
bumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

Or, perhaps these camera-hogging rich people are interferring with the hunters earning a living.



What are YOU doing to assist the hunters with finding new ways to earn money?

good god.The clubbing of seals is not a living.How about letting them know about tourism,folkart or re-locating.The hacking and skinning of live mammals is no living.It is a small spring income for those hunters.('hunter' is a very bad description of what they actually do~as there is no chase involved in clubbing a helpless,legless animal)



How repulsive.I wont even begin to debate with you.But that is so sad that you truely believe that.
bumble is offline  
#15 Old 04-10-2005, 12:09 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
I just find it rather humerous that everyone is piping up these celebs...and in a couple of months, they'll be vilified here by the same people.



Newfoundland went through the same thing in the 80s with PETA. Didn't do a thing. If anything, it made some of the protestors look like morons for wearing fur later...and their supporters equally moronic.



It's warm enough in New York that Anna doesn't need her fur coat. Come Christmas, she'll be back in her leather pants and her fur coat.
FreshTart is offline  
#16 Old 04-10-2005, 12:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
hopeforanimals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 333
Some celebrities have reneged on their commitments to protect the animals--it doesn't mean everyone will. As long as they're dedicated to saving innocent lives, they have my respect.
hopeforanimals is offline  
#17 Old 04-10-2005, 12:26 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
Waving a sign on a heap of ice doesn't save many innocent lives.



Actually doing something with your life does. I would happily wager that I've saved more innocent lives and made more of a positive contribution to the world then ANS's South Beach diet, penthouse spreading of legs ever has. I just don't feel the need to splash my face all over the place saying, Hey look at me! Look what I do!



And that's all I see this as. A photo op.



These people don't have my respect.



They have my distain.
FreshTart is offline  
#18 Old 04-10-2005, 12:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

Waving a sign on a heap of ice doesn't save many innocent lives.



It brings attention to the issue when a celebrity gets involved.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#19 Old 04-10-2005, 12:35 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
It also bring attention when the celeb goes on Leno and groans and moans about how much they missed their burgers and fur.
FreshTart is offline  
#20 Old 04-10-2005, 12:41 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
Well, if she does that, that will be unfortunate. But at this time she's willing to stand up for the baby seals, so what's the problem - they need attention to their plight. I'm not going to slam someone for using their celebrity for a good cause, and we can't assume she's not doing it for a compassionate reason.



Do you dislike any celebrity who publicly supports a cause?

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#21 Old 04-10-2005, 12:45 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
I dislike any celeb that consistently is inconsistent.



They don't help causes. They hinder then in the long run. People remember. And then all they see is Julie Stiles eating a burger, Bryan Adams eating his cheese pizza, Cindy Crawford wearing her fur, etc etc etc and it just makes the entire AR movement look like a bunch of inconsistent, wishy-washy, airheads who stop their ARing when they grow up.
FreshTart is offline  
#22 Old 04-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
I don't know that celebrities who do something for animals are any less consistent in general than celebrities who do something for any other cause. People have failings. Anyway, I don't think Cindy Crawford hurt the AR movement, she hurt her own image with her inconsistency.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#23 Old 04-10-2005, 08:27 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
The problem, though, is that AR isn't exactly a common movement or interest. World hunger - that's something that almost everyone comes together on. AR is still very much a hippy dippy, tree humper movement. It's a movement that makes a lot of noise (and often considered making ridulous noise) but also has a lot of turnover. People "grow up" and stop tree humping. AR isn't as important then. AR has the reputation of being nothing more then something to grow out of; because so many people have.



The insistence of having celebs involved publically in it ends up just making the cause and the celeb, and the group who hired the celeb, look foolish by the end. Look at Peta? They'll take any flavour of the month to photo op them. Doesn't matter if they are the omni unclean the following month.
FreshTart is offline  
#24 Old 04-10-2005, 08:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
SquarePeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,712
I wonder if PeTA really advised her to cancel because they realized that a burnt out, brain dead, overly silicone inflated has-been is probably not the best choice for a spokesperson?!?!



That would be my reason for asking her not to go.

I am the user formerly known as MrsKey
SquarePeg is offline  
#25 Old 04-10-2005, 08:38 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
FreshTart is offline  
#26 Old 04-10-2005, 08:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
SquarePeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,712
I don't have a problem with celebrities supporting or calling attention to their own pet causes. I mean, honestly, if most of us had that kind of easy access to the media wouldn't we try to use it to get our message out there.



There are those who are consistent with their message whom I respect quite a lot.



Paul McCartney and Alicia Silverstone being tops on that list.



But I also notice that those who are most serious about both their convictions and sharing the message tend not to be the ones going for the biggest bang with media coverage ...



On the one hand I support most things that get people thinking. Then on the other hand I often wonder what harm if any the very public flip-flops of some celebs does to the overall animal rights movement. Does it contribute to the overall impression of AR supporters as flightly dingbats?



Of course in the end it doesn't really matter - because they, like everyone else, are entitled to their own opions and they have the right to share those opinions with anyone who will listen.

I am the user formerly known as MrsKey
SquarePeg is offline  
#27 Old 04-10-2005, 08:55 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsKey View Post

Paul McCartney and Alicia Silverstone being tops on that list.



And I don't mind them at all.



Yes, people have an opinion, but organizations shouldn't be encouraging every has-been to share theirs.
FreshTart is offline  
#28 Old 04-10-2005, 10:25 AM
Veggie Regular
 
hopeforanimals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 333
Up until about a year ago, I was unaware of the horror inherent in the fur industry. Several celebrity activists called my attention to the torture animals endure to provide selfish people with fur coats, and as a result, I became a life-long fur opponent.



If while driving down I-10 you saw a picture of me on a billboard holding the carcass of a skinned fox, you might wonder what my point was. If, on the other hand, the same billboard features Alicia Silverstone, you're going to pay more attention, and you might just make the effort to educate yourself on the issue.



Britney Spears was "wishy washy" about Christianity. Anne Heche was "wishy washy" about homosexuality. Notice how their indecisiveness hasn't taken away from the legitimacy of either cause. Some of us here feel just as passionately about animal welfare as others do about affirmative action or capital punishment, and we appreciate when those in a position to do so put this cause at the forefront of the media, no matter how blonde or "has-been" she may be.
hopeforanimals is offline  
#29 Old 04-10-2005, 10:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
SquarePeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTart View Post

Yes, people have an opinion, but organizations shouldn't be encouraging every has-been to share theirs.



I often wonder how much of this is PeTA seeking these endorsements and celebrity involvement ... and how much is PeTA accepting the offers of thos who are willing to do anything to keep their names in the press.



I mean did PeTA contact ANS? Or was it her publicist and agent trying to use PeTA to keep her name in the news?



I can see how there may be times when it is better for PeTA to use the offered services of a celebrity than to have a news story all about how PeTA turned down the assistance of which ever has been contacted them most recently. Imagine this interview, "I just love animals so much. And I really wanted to do something to protect them so I contacted PeTA and they told me to stuff it." PeTA's PR department might find it easier to find some way to use the celeb volunteer than counter the stupid negative press that would come from turning them down.



Just thinkin' out loud again. I probably shouldn't do that ... I'm likely to hurt myself.

I am the user formerly known as MrsKey
SquarePeg is offline  
#30 Old 04-10-2005, 11:22 AM
Banned
 
FreshTart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,674
As I understand it, PETA contacts many celebs as soon as they say anything that involves "vegetarian" or "anti-fur". I remember that plump chickie from American Idol...named started with a V. She had a pet pig and said she didn't wear fur. She reported that PETA contacted her to pose nude for the "I don't wear fur" ad.



She's the only one I can think of immediately, though.
FreshTart is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off