PETA does it again: Unhappy Meals!

[PurpleRain]

I imagine the protest they went with got nearly nothing done, a legislative approach could.

I would imagine they have taken the legal route a well. You should investigate how much they have achieved the last year. It's a long list.

 

[lizards]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

 

[AWC Viper]

god they're persistent. just let us eat MEAT you dont have to but we want to so go and get a life

 

[Sixties Spidey]

http://www.mccruelty.com/unhappyMeal.aspx


DAMN YOU PETA! DAMN YOU TO HELL!

Seriously tough, why? Why do this, PETA? You realize that there are more pressing issues at hand, like dealing with retard PSA makers.

Edit: ooh, a video? Let's watch, shall we?

http://www.mccruelty.com/default.aspx

Edit Edit:

http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Unhappy-Meals/urPSh2vPH024usbJv2W3-Q.cspx

Now we have a news article! Oh, wait. It Fox, do never mind.

It's PETA. They kill animals while attacking people who kill animals. They really are the paragon of ignorance and hypocrisy in today's society.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Are people REALLY responding to this thread? PETA does it again and we're all shocked like it's only the forty-billionth time? I don't think it deserves mentioning any more at this point.

PETA is like an annoying little bully who won't shut up until you just COMPLETELY ignore it. Or do what I did and send them an angry e-mail saying you'll kill an animal for each e-mail they send to you as part of their mASS mailing campaign from hell.

 

[Ninja_X]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

The human race couldn't destroy the earth or wipe out all life if we tried. We have very little impact on the enviorment.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

Oh shut up both of you. Obviously half of our tech is just killing each other, but the point still stands that we got the technology and all the other animals don't have it.

Also I do agree (as should you, Lizards) with Ninja on this one, domesticated chickens wouldn't survive in the wild.

That said all of you three are just picking at semantics and it's annoying.

 

[AWC Viper]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

ill high 5 that

 

[AWC Viper]

Also PETA how about you have a nice tall Glass of STFU and stop asking for donations. you got like 50 celebrities with there noses up your arse so ask them for the money

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

good i hope McDonalds gos out of buisness, I never liked them and there food sucks in every way.

And i kinda think the slauterers should just cut the heads off, not just slice and dice the boddies to death.

 

[lizards]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

The human race couldn't destroy the earth or wipe out all life if we tried. We have very little impact on the enviorment.

what do you think is speeding the climate change along like a hurried mom pushing her crying son through a super market

edit: and i just relized you were the guy from the dieing kid how about that?

 

[tucci]

Those crazy bastards, at it again I see

 

[lizards]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

Oh shut up both of you. Obviously half of our tech is just killing each other, but the point still stands that we got the technology and all the other animals don't have it.

Also I do agree (as should you, Lizards) with Ninja on this one, domesticated chickens wouldn't survive in the wild.

That said all of you three are just picking at semantics and it's annoying.

i agree chickens couldnt survive in the wild just like fresh water fish shouldnt be put into the dead sea

but that has nothing to do AT ALL with the original topic

 

[Ninja_X]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

The human race couldn't destroy the earth or wipe out all life if we tried. We have very little impact on the enviorment.

what do you think is speeding the climate change along like a hurried mom pushing her crying son through a super market

edit: and i just relized you were the guy from the dieing kid how about that?

I don't think global warming will trigger a global catastrophe, even if it does life will go on.

Btw, a global warming discussion would be off topic so I'm not gonna say anything more on the subject.

 

[lizards]

1 people CAN fly because we have airplanes.

2 people CAN defend themselves with guns.

Chickens are not smart enough to use or come up with technology.

3 sharks are a feared predator, but they are also stupid.

4 If you take a domesticated chicken and release it into the wilds anywhere on earth they cannot survive.

1: People can't fly. Planes can. We can sit on the planes, but we cannot fly. In your theory, chickens can also then fly if they sit on a plane. Wait, they can't use technology? Neither can you. I doubt you could build a plane.

2: See above. Without guns, we are nothing. We have no survival method aside from punching and kicking, and the majority of us wouldn't be able to benefit from that if cornered.

3: Bwahahahaha! Really? In what way would you describe something as 'stupid' anyway? They do everything to keep themselves alive. They can smell, through millions of different molecules from miles away, a drop of blood or sweat or urine from an animal. Do they need to know maths or do they need to know how to work out atomic physics if it would not help their survival? No. Then why are they stupid? Their power in the areas they accell at makes them far from how you would describe them.

4: Really? I doubt that very hard. Show me hard evidence that they would. To not be able to survive in the habitat that they came from is self destructive and no creature is able to do that.

1 technology is a testament to the intelligence of man.

2 there is no way chickens could get out guns from us.

3 sharks ARE stupid, the only eat, swim and make little sharks they have very little in the way of thought. Their simplicity is a factor in their evolutionary success. Not like the fail that is chickens.

4 Prove to me then that domesticated chickens could survive.

ya man were so fucking superior we make a new way to kill eachother in more cool ways everyday and were slowly ruining this planet

ANYBODY UP FOR A HIGH 5 ON HOW ADVANCED WE ARE?

The human race couldn't destroy the earth or wipe out all life if we tried. We have very little impact on the enviorment.

what do you think is speeding the climate change along like a hurried mom pushing her crying son through a super market

edit: and i just relized you were the guy from the dieing kid how about that?

I don't think global warming will trigger a global catastrophe, even if it does life will go on.

Btw, a global warming discussion would be off topic so I'm not gonna say anything more on the subject.

yes this is going in a strange direction isnt it?

*begins walking the right direction again*

 

[jboking]

I imagine the protest they went with got nearly nothing done, a legislative approach could.

I would imagine they have taken the legal route a well. You should investigate how much they have achieved the last year. It's a long list.

Alright so, here is something good this year

L.A. Jiffy Lubes Drop Ringling Bros. Promotion

When PETA discovered that Jiffy Lube of Greater Los Angeles was giving away discounted Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus tickets with the purchase of an oil change, we immediately contacted the president of the Southern California cooperative. PETA explained that Ringling denies animals everything that is natural and important to them and beats them in the most sensitive parts of their bodies with whips and sharp, metal-tipped bullhooks. As a result, Jiffy Lube of Greater Los Angeles decided to end its relationship with Ringling.

This is a shining example of doing something simple to get a desired result. My question is, when PETA is able to do simple things like this to protect the animals then why do they do these outrageous protests?

Looking further into their achievements this year, it would seem that none(or few, I could have missed one) of them came from a protest. In fact, all of their victories in 2009 are due to situations like the one in the above quote. Why do they continue to use these ineffective shock techniques when the know by now, that regular diplomacy works better.

This is the only reason I have difficulties respecting PETA. I can completely respect their views on animal rights, even if I don't share some of them, but all of this "Unhappy meal" business is getting ridiculous.

 

[PurpleRain]

I imagine the protest they went with got nearly nothing done, a legislative approach could.

I would imagine they have taken the legal route a well. You should investigate how much they have achieved the last year. It's a long list.

Alright so, here is something good this year

L.A. Jiffy Lubes Drop Ringling Bros. Promotion

When PETA discovered that Jiffy Lube of Greater Los Angeles was giving away discounted Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus tickets with the purchase of an oil change, we immediately contacted the president of the Southern California cooperative. PETA explained that Ringling denies animals everything that is natural and important to them and beats them in the most sensitive parts of their bodies with whips and sharp, metal-tipped bullhooks. As a result, Jiffy Lube of Greater Los Angeles decided to end its relationship with Ringling.

This is a shining example of doing something simple to get a desired result. My question is, when PETA is able to do simple things like this to protect the animals then why do they do these outrageous protests?

Looking further into their achievements this year, it would seem that none(or few, I could have missed one) of them came from a protest. In fact, all of their victories in 2009 are due to situations like the one in the above quote. Why do they continue to use these ineffective shock techniques when the know by now, that regular diplomacy works better.

This is the only reason I have difficulties respecting PETA. I can completely respect their views on animal rights, even if I don't share some of them, but all of this "Unhappy meal" business is getting ridiculous.

They continue to protest because of what they are, an activist group. They are in constant need of money and support as well as they need recognition. Believe it or not, a lot of people agree with what they do and aren't hateful as most people on this thread imply all humans look at them.

 

[jboking]

I imagine the protest they went with got nearly nothing done, a legislative approach could.

I would imagine they have taken the legal route a well. You should investigate how much they have achieved the last year. It's a long list.

Alright so, here is something good this year

L.A. Jiffy Lubes Drop Ringling Bros. Promotion

When PETA discovered that Jiffy Lube of Greater Los Angeles was giving away discounted Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus tickets with the purchase of an oil change, we immediately contacted the president of the Southern California cooperative. PETA explained that Ringling denies animals everything that is natural and important to them and beats them in the most sensitive parts of their bodies with whips and sharp, metal-tipped bullhooks. As a result, Jiffy Lube of Greater Los Angeles decided to end its relationship with Ringling.

This is a shining example of doing something simple to get a desired result. My question is, when PETA is able to do simple things like this to protect the animals then why do they do these outrageous protests?

Looking further into their achievements this year, it would seem that none(or few, I could have missed one) of them came from a protest. In fact, all of their victories in 2009 are due to situations like the one in the above quote. Why do they continue to use these ineffective shock techniques when the know by now, that regular diplomacy works better.

This is the only reason I have difficulties respecting PETA. I can completely respect their views on animal rights, even if I don't share some of them, but all of this "Unhappy meal" business is getting ridiculous.

They continue to protest because of what they are, an activist group. They are in constant need of money and support as well as they need recognition. Believe it or not, a lot of people agree with what they do and aren't hateful as most people on this thread imply all humans look at them.

I just don't agree with their strategies and know that if the spent the time on it, they could come up with a better way of getting press and financial support. I am sure there are quite a few people who agree with what they do, but I know there are more people like the ones here on the escapist. People who find themselves at odds with peta because of things like this.

I simply think the way they go about this is ineffective and counterproductive in quite a few ways. If you think their current system works perfectly, then I say that we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Razorback0z]

I dont get into opinions on PETA

But I stopped eating McDonalds purely on thier treatment of animals about 5 years ago.

They are among the worst offenders on the planet.