header image
Blogs I Read
Categories
Archives
Your Ad Here
[ # ] Samantha Ronson vs PETA
November 16th, 2008 under Lindsay Lohan, PETA

(photo from X17 Online)

Flour Power

I posted a blog last week that angered some people who didn't know how to read properly, I then wasted my own time defending myself and now I regret that.

There is a fine line that distinguishes the difference between exercising our freedom of expression and offending others, for example the debate regarding freedom of speech vs. hate speech…. i feel that this principle should apply to protestors also. It's a pity that some groups feel the need to assault people as opposed to fighting with words.

Whenever I feel the need to vent about something that feels unfair to me I reach for my computer, I don't run out of the house with abusive intentions. I don't expect everyone to react the same way, but I do expect people to respect each other. Maybe that's my first mistake? It seems lately I am learning that there are too many people who put another species before their fellow man and that's sad. I don't wear fur, but I don't think I have the right to ATTACK those who do. No one has that right.

PETA should focus their efforts on educating people on what they believe are injustices instead of seeking press via harassing those in the limelight. I received an apology too many days late from the PETA folks (the blog removal was too little too late) and today I'm pissed at the bag of flour thrown on Lindsay last night. Not because I got powdered down, but because the girl who threw it acted like an animal herself. I take that back, it's an insult to animals to group her in with them, my dog is FAR more civilized than that person. I would have more respect for them if they didn't use other people to get their point across. Lindsay, Mary Kate, Ashley Olsen, Anna Wintour and the rest of the targeted celebrities aren't the problem, I'm pretty sure they're not the only ones wearing fur, in fact, they should be appreciated by PETA for giving them a target. If it weren't for them, who would get them press?????

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of angry emails in response, but I don't really care. I got enough last week for no reason so I'm more than happy to ignore the nastiness after seeing what I saw last night. I'm not about to throw on a fur coat in retaliation, but had I had one within reach, I'm not sure I would have walked away from it.

p.s. when was the last time you saw an animal attack one of its own in defense of a human? hmmmmm….. that's one to grow on!

p.s.s. i think there are plenty of families that could have used that flour for a meal. nice job, lady.

I side with Samantha Ronson on this one. What did that woman accomplish by throwing flour on Lindsay Lohan? 


Read the Comments

[ # 226184 ] Comment from um [November 16, 2008, 3:41 pm]

I agree. On one hand, yes the consumers are responsible for their hand in buying products in which some animals are literally skinned alive. However, celebrities are used as a scapegoat instead of going after the true culprits of this horrific and unethical industry. It is much easier to go after the Lindsay Lohan’s and Mary Kate’s of the world than to focus your attention on going directly to the people who are making millions off of this industry. Am I condoning celebrities wearing fur? No. I’m an animal rights activist who doesn’t condone anyone wearing fur. I do not, however, condone many of the tactics that I see PETA using and I take exception with some of the lengths PETA goes to in order to “raise awareness”. There are more productive ways to make your point and throwing flour on a celebrity is a cop-out, b!tch move that does nothing more than create more headlines for that celebrity. There is a difference between using free speech and creative protests to demand that people pay attention to the rights of animals…. but this does not mean physically violating the rights of other human beings.

[ # 226840 ] Comment from dew [November 18, 2008, 1:21 am]

I think animals should be treated decent; put down gently when it’s their time; and not be tortured to make beauty supplies.

Having said that, PETA SUCKS!

I respect other animal-rights groups though. It’s just PETA that are returds.

I’m going to eat a big piece of meat in PETA and their nutjob followers’ behalf.

I’d think most people would understand if someone beat the crap out of someone throwing unknown white power on them

[ # 233372 ] Comment from proud african [December 4, 2008, 9:48 am]

no, your firecrothed girlfriend is the uncivilised one as are you for defending the slag.fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people (clearly a case in point). you cannot rationalise animal cruelty. it’s barbaric and unecessary and worn by dickhead neanderthals devoid of a heart and conscience. grow some balls, butch.

[ # 315498 ] Comment from bob [April 28, 2009, 7:52 pm]

peta sucks. I go dear hunting every year using a legal gun and doing everything legal but im considered an animal killer by the peta group. WTF up with that. God even says in the bible that it is ok to kill animals for their fur and meat. Plus there is nothing wrong eating an unfertilized egg and eating backon for breakfast.

Write a comment






Via BuzzFeed

Contact
E-Mail: Seriously? OMG! WTF?
IM me!
Advertising
Please visit my advertisers!


Feeds
Enter your Email



Flickr
post_image-blake-lively-wedgie-01

View All Photos

Recent Posts
Recent Commentors
website stats