Kelis rejects PETA demands to stop wearing fur

jamescagney

Stood at the urinal
"But the minks and chinchilla that quite honestly are rodents and if [they] weren't in the form of a coat, I would demand they be put to death anyway."

She added: "[By the way] it's not just the look of fur. It's warm as hell and feels glorious - ever rubbed faux fur on your body? Nothing luxurious about that."

Kelis ended the blog by advising those who want to "preach" to her to "do it about something worthwhile [and not] waste my time trying to save the dang chipmunk".

OK, so live rodent is dirty and should be killed. But dead rodent is luxurious and should be worn on your skin. Makes perfect sense.

How the hell does she even have money to buy fur? She only had one song that anyone remembers.

That would explain why she's wearing chipmunk coats. (Chipmink?)
 

jamescagney

Stood at the urinal
Are those of you who are such strong advocates for animal rights also advocates for unborn children?

If you answer "no," then please explain to me why it is barbaric to kill an animal for food/fur but not barbaric to kill an unborn baby with a beating heart and who might even have a viable shot of surviving outside the mother's womb?

To me, being against abortion and for killing animals for fur is the inconsistent stance. A fetus in the first trimester is a small collection of cells with limited to no consciousness yet. The brain and nervous system that feel pain are not yet fully developed. It's comparable in size and nervous system development to a shrimp or a lobster, which most people have no qualms about throwing live into a boiling pot of water. I think some people believe that a human is somehow magically not a mammal or an animal, but that's not the case.

Also, it's not just black and white. I think it would be cruel for example to force a 14-year-old girl who had been raped to carry the pregnancy to term against her will. Ditto if the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. And aborting babies can be common when there are, say, octuplets, in order to give the remaining babies a better chance of surviving and thriving.

Abortions in the second trimester are a grey area. Like most grey areas, it's best not to have our bungling legislators pass an all-or-nothing directive, but give the individuals who know the specifics the freedom to act as deemed necessary for their particular situation.
 
Last edited:
Alright. You're talking about entirely different things. I personally think that abortion is a horrible thing, and I'll bet most of the people that have an abortion think it is a horrible thing. But the alternative is to force a woman to carry her baby to term. This would seem to violate her rights? You say unborn baby, which may be how you see the situation, but at what age is the fetus an unborn baby? Many people that think abortions should be illegal are also against the morning after pill. This seems to indicate that they aren't as interested in unborn babies as they are controlling morality and making sure that those who violate this morality will be punished.

No one needs a fur coat. It could be argued that some people need an abortion.

I agree with what you say about the morning after pill. Personally, I don't have a problem with it.

For me, abortion is not an issue of pushing/controlling morality or politics.
Although I am "pro life," I believe in limited government and don't believe Washington DC should be involved in this debate at all. This is where I believe a lot of conservatives miss the mark. They can't cry for limited gov't intervention and then pull it out of their hat when it serves their purpose.

You're right, I guess I was talking about two different things, sort of.
and you did bring up a few points that I hadn't really thought of.
I seem to know a lot of people (not just here) who are hard core animal rights activist and also hard core pro choice activists. It has always seemed very contradictory to me, but now, with just the few things you said, I have a better understanding of it. Thanks.
 

Happy Maudlin

Corinthian and Caricature
Here is what I mean by this question.

Are those of you who are such strong advocates for animal rights also advocates for unborn children?

If you answer "no," then please explain to me why it is barbaric to kill an animal for food/fur but not barbaric to kill an unborn baby with a beating heart and who might even have a viable shot of surviving outside the mother's womb?

To me, this has nothing to do with religion or politics.
I believe it is a very basic concept of what determines right and wrong.

This can apply to some who believe that the baby actually has fingernails during conception and growth. Honestly I don't know how to approach this question not because I don't have an answer or can't explain myself, but because this is neither about Kelis or PETA.

Human beings will always be significantly treated better than animals because we are thought to be superior to them, thus justifying our selfish conquests. This justified by both religion(Doctrine of Dominion) and science (some aspects of Evolutionist theories and Darwinism). Though I sit and question the moral and ethical treatment of animals compared to marginalized group of human beings (and I have seen some dogs have better provisions than people in the slums), I cannot compare abortion or a woman's right to choose to fur trade or the live-skinning of animals because not only is it not similar in conflict, it deals with dilemmas on a totally different spectrum. Abortion is a woman's rights is issue and a woman's right it should not be equated to morality or ethics. If you want to talk about the procedural aspects of the abortion fine. I disagree with abortion in the third trimester for example. But I agree with a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

And now I am completely off topic. :blushing:
 
This can apply to some who believe that the baby actually has fingernails during conception and growth. Honestly I don't know how to approach this question not because I don't have an answer or can't explain myself, but because this is neither about Kelis or PETA.

Human beings will always be significantly treated better than animals because we are thought to be superior to them, thus justifying our selfish conquests. This justified by both religion(Doctrine of Dominion) and science (some aspects of Evolutionist theories and Darwinism). Though I sit and question the moral and ethical treatment of animals compared to marginalized group of human beings (and I have seen some dogs have better provisions than people in the slums), I cannot compare abortion or a woman's right to choose to fur trade or the live-skinning of animals because not only is it not similar in conflict, it deals with dilemmas on a totally different spectrum. Abortion is a woman's rights is issue and a woman's right it should not be equated to morality or ethics. If you want to talk about the procedural aspects of the abortion fine. I disagree with abortion in the third trimester for example. But I agree with a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

And now I am completely off topic. :blushing:

Yeah....sorry about that little detour.

When does life begin? Who knows for sure.
My Dad once said that life begins when the kids move out of the house.
 

Happy Maudlin

Corinthian and Caricature
You're right, I guess I was talking about two different things, sort of.
and you did bring up a few points that I hadn't really thought of.
I seem to know a lot of people (not just here) who are hard core animal rights activist and also hard core pro choice activists. It has always seemed very contradictory to me, but now, with just the few things you said, I have a better understanding of it. Thanks.

This observation is correct, seeing the animal activists or those who support PETA a usually liberal or Democratic on the political spectrum. I would point it out as a hypocrisy though, only an example of feeble political association and group-think. I would like to note that it is hypocritical for PETA to support animal rights and "shove it down others throats" when they have their own indiscretions with animal cruelty. They use carcasses in campaigns and treat woman like the "meat" that they wouldn't touch, in their "Go Veg! so your dick won't go limp" campaigns. PETA is unbelievably hypocritical sometimes.
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
I had no idea who Kelis was, but now I hate her too. :mad:
not cuz of the whole pita thing, no, no
that song, her one hit wonder, omg, the worst dregs of karaoke "society" like to sing it :crazy:
 
D

Dave

Guest
I had no idea who Kelis was, but now I hate her too. :mad:
not cuz of the whole pita thing, no, no
that song, her one hit wonder, omg, the worst dregs of karaoke "society" like to sing it :crazy:

24xfgpw.jpg


Here's half a pita thing.
 
D

Dave

Guest
glad someone was paying attention :thumb:
however, I did assume I was on your huge? ignore list :p

I tend to ignore threads more than people and usually keep the ignore list to one at a time. It's kind of pointless when you read their posts anyway. :o
 

Disappointed

With Everything
For the record, Kelis apparently has no knowledge whatsoever of zoology (which I'm sure surprises no one). Minks are not rodents, but are carnivores. The families aren't even remotely related to each other (well, both groups are mammals, but that's about it).

Kelis is just another one of those people who actively choose to remain ignorant, because they don't want to feel guilty about their behavior, and they don't want to change their behavior. Activists for any number of causes have to encounter these boneheads.
 

Disappointed

With Everything
Here is what I mean by this question.

Are those of you who are such strong advocates for animal rights also advocates for unborn children?

If you answer "no," then please explain to me why it is barbaric to kill an animal for food/fur but not barbaric to kill an unborn baby with a beating heart and who might even have a viable shot of surviving outside the mother's womb?

To me, this has nothing to do with religion or politics.
I believe it is a very basic concept of what determines right and wrong.

It's not that simple. What the issue of abortion really comes down to is, "Is a woman a full human being with the right to control her own body?" An anti-abortion stance is incompatible with the belief that women are full human beings. You've given birth before, so you know that it's no walk in the park--would you want to be forced to carry a child to term, then give birth to it? How about if the pregnancy is the result of a rape? How about if the pregnancy threatens both your life and the life of the fetus?

What we forget in this day and time is that pregnancy and birth can still be dangerous to the mother. Yes, there are still women, even here in the United States, who die in childbirth. In the rest of the world, pregnancy, childbirth, and botched abortion attempts (in places where abortion is illegal, or difficult for poor women to obtain), which are all placed in the category of "maternal mortality", are a top (perhaps even the number one) cause of death for women of childbearing age.

A person who is anti-abortion is saying that a woman does not have complete rights over her own body. A fetus, at any stage of development, is still a part of the mother's body. Certainly, in the first and second trimesters, the embryo/fetus cannot even survive as an entity separate from the mother. Any person, I believe, should have complete control of his or her own body. If I get shot, I would like the rights to have the bullet removed from my body. If one of my kidneys fail, I would like to have the rights to have it removed from my body. If (deity or deities forbid) I get cancer, I would like the rights to have the tumor removed from my body.

I do not want to live in a world where I am not in complete control over my own body. I do not want to live in a world where I am not a full human being.
 

Stella Erikson

Meat is murder.
What an ignorant person, she's nothing but a sad excuse for a human being.

Some people are just incredibly ignorant, I actually feel embarrased for them:

1.
I love fur~! You go chicka! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I love a good juicy steak, and if I could afford it, I would wear a mink coat everytime I left the house in cold WI weather. And you are 100% correct. Faux fur is neither warm, or nice feeling!

2. The vegetarians I know always look angry and starving..I think they need some red meat.

3. You are too hype! i love your choice of words. go ahead girl!

4. GO IN Kelis! f*** those PETA bitches! People should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Who are they to tell others what NOT to wear?
PETA, Kelis has read you bastards your rights! Take that!

BTW, I so agree with you about fur feeling glorious! HAHA!..


I love how they thing they are in some sort of upper level because they are so over PETA~
 

j0wled

New Member
For the record, Kelis apparently has no knowledge whatsoever of zoology (which I'm sure surprises no one). Minks are not rodents, but are carnivores. The families aren't even remotely related to each other (well, both groups are mammals, but that's about it).
.

Some of what you say here is massively weird and wrong, though you're right about minks not being rodents. They're mustelidae, like stoats. Who everyone loves.

I'm 100% sure I agree with you on this whole issue as far as coats go, but if you're going to try to trump Kelis' luxurious furry goodness card with your intelligence card, don't f*** it up so bad.

Also, the "meaty and delicious" line was pretty priceless, and I'm going to use it.
 
Last edited:
Tags
hbiculuv2h8
Top Bottom