In other PETA related news: https://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/peta-slams-mario-over-fur-suit-211025773.html
People who are
Evil
Terrorist
Assholes
Plants is [COLOR=‘Green’]murder.
The “tanooki suit” in Mario is a life sized costume that grants the player the ability to fly for a short time and turn into a statue. Wearing suit made out of tanuki skin, however, grants none of these powers (doy).
Further, grabbing a leaf will not cause you to grow a second set of ears and a tail and allow you to fly. Nor does Mario or Luigi mutilate a raccoon to gain these powers.
PETA: :facepalm:
The unfortunate realization about all this is that they could do so much good, and yet they waste their time by soiling their reputation with crap like this.
I love animals, and I believe they should be afforded a certain amount of protection, especially when a species’ survival is threatened beyond reason. But crying about Cooking Mama for not being vegetarian is not going to help anybody, let alone the animals they are supposedly trying to protect.
And then some random Japanese crazy man kills and skins a tanuki and jumps off a building in an attempt to fly.
And people will go “PETA was right all along!”.
The average tanuki is the size of a small dog or a large house cat; about the size of a raccoon. That will have to be one mighty small person or one mighty large tanuki.
say what bitch
Mario won’t encourage anybody to dress up in a raccoon suit who wasn’t going to dress up in a raccoon suit and fuck other people in raccoon suits anyway. I’m not breaking any ground by saying this, but PETA have seriously got their priorities misplaced.
You know, they’re suing SeaWorld, yet if they win, who receives the money? Certainly not the whales.
So, in the end, what does all this achieve? It means that PETA will have a bigger pocket book to pull off more of the same ridiculous stunts they are known for.
Half-Relevant
sick of that shit.
that has a basis for consent and by-golly some girls ask for it when things get too routine.
sick of antagonistic ignorance.
Shitty parodies have more merit than shitty critiques.
It’s okay, it’s a math thing.
The latter’s merit is negative.
You’re jumping to dispositions about the nature of the creators rather than taking the material at its innate worth. It’s reckless to assign one’s expectation of prop to the economic force behind it.
Take them at their actual worth… rather than expressing your disappointment with one, and taking that to mean the other has more worth… for it has none, still.
The original ad is a weak metaphor with a catchy presentation.
The parody is a fraudulent claim of hypocrisy.
Nothing irks me more than that latter and I will persist with this argument until I’m exhausted of words and breath alike. Why the ad was targeted is because the individual has some other beef with the organization, and they fooled themself into thinking their notion was true, that their portrayal was snarky. I refuse to let a fellow human wretch their opinions by self-deceit.
How did you make it this far if a shitty motivational poster caption sets you on an endless argument crusade against the creator and anyone who found the original ironic?
plus, this is Peta we’re talking about, and they have shown on many occasions that they only care about animals, the aim of their organization is to give the utmost attention to animal rights, completely disregarding all human needs that relate to animal exploitation
Oh-hohoho, you did not just mention irony…
I got this far because people realize quite quickly that it’s so wrong or pointless that they haven’t reason to carry against me.
That’s exactly the bias that’s tainting anyone who doesn’t see the idiocy in the parody. I don’t give a shit about PETA, but you’re using them as some figurehead of a fringe-movement because they’re the most prominent group that has any form of environmental activism in it. For everything a PETA spokesperson says that sounds stupid to you, there are a dozen fine decisions made which don’t get an article for /b/ to passes around and mock.
I have a feeling that if the SPCA ever showed up at a protest for something, you’d be flinging shit at them too.
Mad implies anger, no… passionate intolerance does not necessitate a frustration.
This is a conscious malice, something I understand in its entirety and shan’t deviate from. I argue with those that defend it.
Yet you really didn’t need to explain its existence to me-- I observed it, and I expressed my seething hatred for its form of faulty reasoning. Its “joke”, as you said, is obvious.
It’s slightly less obvious how unfunny it really is, so I seek to point it out by any means necessary.
Why is it illegal to feed killer Whales?
Regarding the word Blubber, did you know that the swedish word for Killer Whales are “späckhuggare”? If you split it up to “späck” and “huggare”, it means blubber cutlass or lard cutter.
Personally I do have an issue with large sea mammals being enclosed in a small tank and trained to perform for our amusement.
Orcas have a substantially shorter life span in captivity than outside and basically are not natural jumpers. Sure, they can jump, but it’s not a normal thing for them. If an Orca lands badly from a jump it will usually crush it’s internal organs under its own weight and force. Sea World Orlando goes through roughly 1 Killer Whale per year.
In 2010 they had 3 die in just 4 months and over the past 25 years they have lost 24 whales.
I used to have a photo of a Sea World whale which had bellyflopped and crushed it’s own lungs. It was spraying blood out of it’s breathing hole.
Now, I’m no fan of PETA. They’re a bunch of lying scumbags who have absolutely no self respect or honor. But I very much disagree with Sea World going through a Whale a year just to amuse some people.