Naked performance with dead pig branded "sick"

[mawilson 2,133]

beastiality is against the laws here in the US for a reason.

Oh #######! What's the reason?

I'd like to know as well.

[danae 0]

The aim of demostartions such as this is to grab attention- whcih it clearly did. Yes you are right, some people may not 'get it' but if just one person stops and thinks about the point it its making- it is successful.

I really dont see how this example relates to the original post though? I wouldnt describe a naked body of any human as 'sick', however the slaughter of an innocent creature for meaningless, arty farty BS b*llocks- well that is.

1. the article doesnt mention how the pig died .. so to assume that she killed it for her performance is a bit much.

2. PETA are hypocrits. in deed as well as action, and creede.

3. wouldnt describe the art of human body "sick" unless there is also a dead animal in the production because obviously they "murdered" it just for that cause...

1. No I doubt she did kill it herself. But she will have ultimately paid someone to do it for her- unless the pig dies of natural causes- which would be nice, but it very much doubtful

2. I do not wish to get in a PeTA debate with you. But your 'hypocrite' term for the people of the organisation is a false one. Remember, people who work with PeTA do so for one reason- to try to limit the suffering of non-human animals. They do this selflessly. You can not be employed by the organisation unless you are vegan- that is do not eat, wear, or support (both emotionally and economically) anything that exploits animals for human purposes. I see no hypocracy in that.

3. correct. The human body itself is not sick. The use of a once living creature for these proposes is.

[kittykatwoman 0]

I don't know if I prefer that performance or the guy that paints with his own feces...

[garya505 2]

The aim of demostartions such as this is to grab attention- whcih it clearly did. Yes you are right, some people may not 'get it' but if just one person stops and thinks about the point it its making- it is successful.

I really dont see how this example relates to the original post though? I wouldnt describe a naked body of any human as 'sick', however the slaughter of an innocent creature for meaningless, arty farty BS b*llocks- well that is.

1. the article doesnt mention how the pig died .. so to assume that she killed it for her performance is a bit much.

2. PETA are hypocrits. in deed as well as action, and creede.

3. wouldnt describe the art of human body "sick" unless there is also a dead animal in the production because obviously they "murdered" it just for that cause...

1. No I doubt she did kill it herself. But she will have ultimately paid someone to do it for her- unless the pig dies of natural causes- which would be nice, but it very much doubtful

2. I do not wish to get in a PeTA debate with you. But your 'hypocrite' term for the people of the organisation is a false one. Remember, people who work with PeTA do so for one reason- to try to limit the suffering of non-human animals. They do this selflessly. You can not be employed by the organisation unless you are vegan- that is do not eat, wear, or support (both emotionally and economically) anything that exploits animals for human purposes. I see no hypocracy in that.

3. correct. The human body itself is not sick. The use of a once living creature for these proposes is.

Yes but I if she killed the pig herself, did she have sex with him first? And if so, would it violate PETA rules if she did?

Edited August 18, 2006 by garya505

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The aim of demostartions such as this is to grab attention- whcih it clearly did. Yes you are right, some people may not 'get it' but if just one person stops and thinks about the point it its making- it is successful.

I really dont see how this example relates to the original post though? I wouldnt describe a naked body of any human as 'sick', however the slaughter of an innocent creature for meaningless, arty farty BS b*llocks- well that is.

1. the article doesnt mention how the pig died .. so to assume that she killed it for her performance is a bit much.

2. PETA are hypocrits. in deed as well as action, and creede.

3. wouldnt describe the art of human body "sick" unless there is also a dead animal in the production because obviously they "murdered" it just for that cause...

1. No I doubt she did kill it herself. But she will have ultimately paid someone to do it for her- unless the pig dies of natural causes- which would be nice, but it very much doubtful

2. I do not wish to get in a PeTA debate with you. But your 'hypocrite' term for the people of the organisation is a false one. Remember, people who work with PeTA do so for one reason- to try to limit the suffering of non-human animals. They do this selflessly. You can not be employed by the organisation unless you are vegan- that is do not eat, wear, or support (both emotionally and economically) anything that exploits animals for human purposes. I see no hypocracy in that.

3. correct. The human body itself is not sick. The use of a once living creature for these proposes is.

Yes but I if she killed the pig herself, did she have sex with him first? And if so, would it violate PETA rules if she did?

haha Gary, good strategic "edit". I saw the original post and man that was seriously fukced up

[danae 0]

The aim of demostartions such as this is to grab attention- whcih it clearly did. Yes you are right, some people may not 'get it' but if just one person stops and thinks about the point it its making- it is successful.

I really dont see how this example relates to the original post though? I wouldnt describe a naked body of any human as 'sick', however the slaughter of an innocent creature for meaningless, arty farty BS b*llocks- well that is.

1. the article doesnt mention how the pig died .. so to assume that she killed it for her performance is a bit much.

2. PETA are hypocrits. in deed as well as action, and creede.

3. wouldnt describe the art of human body "sick" unless there is also a dead animal in the production because obviously they "murdered" it just for that cause...

1. No I doubt she did kill it herself. But she will have ultimately paid someone to do it for her- unless the pig dies of natural causes- which would be nice, but it very much doubtful

2. I do not wish to get in a PeTA debate with you. But your 'hypocrite' term for the people of the organisation is a false one. Remember, people who work with PeTA do so for one reason- to try to limit the suffering of non-human animals. They do this selflessly. You can not be employed by the organisation unless you are vegan- that is do not eat, wear, or support (both emotionally and economically) anything that exploits animals for human purposes. I see no hypocracy in that.

3. correct. The human body itself is not sick. The use of a once living creature for these proposes is.

Yes but I if she killed the pig herself, did she have sex with him first? And if so, would it violate PETA rules if she did?

haha Gary, good strategic "edit". I saw the original post and man that was seriously fukced up

yup me too

[garya505 2]

The aim of demostartions such as this is to grab attention- whcih it clearly did. Yes you are right, some people may not 'get it' but if just one person stops and thinks about the point it its making- it is successful.

I really dont see how this example relates to the original post though? I wouldnt describe a naked body of any human as 'sick', however the slaughter of an innocent creature for meaningless, arty farty BS b*llocks- well that is.

1. the article doesnt mention how the pig died .. so to assume that she killed it for her performance is a bit much.

2. PETA are hypocrits. in deed as well as action, and creede.

3. wouldnt describe the art of human body "sick" unless there is also a dead animal in the production because obviously they "murdered" it just for that cause...

1. No I doubt she did kill it herself. But she will have ultimately paid someone to do it for her- unless the pig dies of natural causes- which would be nice, but it very much doubtful

2. I do not wish to get in a PeTA debate with you. But your 'hypocrite' term for the people of the organisation is a false one. Remember, people who work with PeTA do so for one reason- to try to limit the suffering of non-human animals. They do this selflessly. You can not be employed by the organisation unless you are vegan- that is do not eat, wear, or support (both emotionally and economically) anything that exploits animals for human purposes. I see no hypocracy in that.

3. correct. The human body itself is not sick. The use of a once living creature for these proposes is.

Yes but I if she killed the pig herself, did she have sex with him first? And if so, would it violate PETA rules if she did?

haha Gary, good strategic "edit". I saw the original post and man that was seriously fukced up

Ya, I just thought the edit was more funny.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yes but I if she killed the pig herself, did she have sex with him first? And if so, would it violate PETA rules if she did?

haha Gary, good strategic "edit". I saw the original post and man that was seriously fukced up

Ya, I just thought the edit was more funny.

Oh is that why?

[garya505 2]

Yes but I if she killed the pig herself, did she have sex with him first? And if so, would it violate PETA rules if she did?

haha Gary, good strategic "edit". I saw the original post and man that was seriously fukced up

Ya, I just thought the edit was more funny.

Oh is that why?

Maybe we should start a poll, to find out which one is more funny.

1. And if so, would it violate PETA rules if she did?

or

2. And if so, was he smiling when he died?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[Alex+R 0]

I have a 14 year old brother. Up until a few years ago, when he said something nobody thought was funny, he would keep going with the joke instead of stopping. Luckily he grew out of it.

[danae 0]

I have a 14 year old brother. Up until a few years ago, when he said something nobody thought was funny, he would keep going with the joke instead of stopping. Luckily he grew out of it.

[Mirorgate 0]

2. I do not wish to get in a PeTA debate with you. But your 'hypocrite' term for the people of the organisation is a false one. Remember, people who work with PeTA do so for one reason- to try to limit the suffering of non-human animals. They do this selflessly. You can not be employed by the organisation unless you are vegan- that is do not eat, wear, or support (both emotionally and economically) anything that exploits animals for human purposes. I see no hypocracy in that.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/709.html

also see.. Insulin

http://www.petage.com/news070509.asp

http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_cra...actively_k.html

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

do as I say and not as I do... uummm.. sure

[garya505 2]

I have a 14 year old brother. Up until a few years ago, when he said something nobody thought was funny, he would keep going with the joke instead of stopping. Luckily he grew out of it.

Very subtle, Alex.

Edited August 18, 2006 by garya505

[Fandango 1,440]

2. I do not wish to get in a PeTA debate with you. But your 'hypocrite' term for the people of the organisation is a false one. Remember, people who work with PeTA do so for one reason- to try to limit the suffering of non-human animals. They do this selflessly. You can not be employed by the organisation unless you are vegan- that is do not eat, wear, or support (both emotionally and economically) anything that exploits animals for human purposes. I see no hypocracy in that.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/709.html

also see.. Insulin

http://www.petage.com/news070509.asp

http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_cra...actively_k.html

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

do as I say and not as I do... uummm.. sure

I once got bitched at for wearing fur from a vegetarian friend:

Her: blah blah blah you're such a sh!t!

Me: why?

Her: wearing animal skin is wrong! it's mean! omGwtfbbqsoap!

Me: hey! nice shoes, they new?

Her: *flattered & starting to shift her leg to look at her lovely shoes with adoration* yep, just got them yesterday

Me: they leather?

Her: of course! man made shoes make my feet sweat

Me: *silently looking at her waiting for the penny to drop*

Her: erm, yeah but a cow is eaten...so it's used for more than one thing...

Me: but YOU don't believe in eating them?

Her: well of course not! I could never kill an animal for food!

Me: ...but you wear their skin as a byproduct of someone else killing them??? So you are directly supporting a process that you abhorr...right?

Her: well, they're at least not killed JUST for their skin

Me: So when is it ok to kill an animal?

Her: never! Meat is murder!

Me: But you'll sit back and reap the benefits of murdering an animal?

Her: erm...

Me: So going by your logic, you'd be fine with me wearing mink if I ate the animal? Or even if someone, somewhere ate it?

Her: eating mink is wrong!

Me: what about a chinchilla?

Her: I gotta go

this actually did happen