seriously

(***Let's establish one thing right away-- I love animals, but I also love to EAT animals.***)

There are laws/regulations about the distribution of materials deemed offensive, pornographic, obscene, etc....but what about the distribution of graphic images?

I was walking on campus and was handed a PETA flyer on animal cruelty, which had numerous photos of animals being slaughtered/tortured, covered in blood, etc.  I would consider these images to be graphic, and am well aware that PETA's M.O. is usually the "shock and awe" kind of approach that Ann Coulter would be proud of...but what if I had a kid with me?

What if said child happened to stumble upon PETA's website, only to click on one of its videos (with unusually happy music, btw) of chickens and other animals being slaughtered?

MY POINT IS THIS-- television shows and websites that display graphic images/content are required to give SOME kind of disclaimer before the viewing of such material.  SO WHY IS PETA FREE OF THIS RESPONSIBILITY?

Look--I have no problem with animal rights, I vaccinated and neutered my pets, and I feed 'em n shit (hell-my favorite website is dedicated to LOLCats and dogs).  But I absolutely despise the freedom that PETA and other animal rights activists enjoy when it comes to invading my privacy and space(more specifically--the food I knowingly choose to eat).


In closing, I say this:

PETA-- go fist yourselves with a cow hoof.

****UPDATE 4/10/2009****

PETA has managed to muster up the balls to ask the group The Pet Shop Boys to change their name, to raise issues related to harsh conditions for pets before being sold.

Seriously--if you want to do something,  START BUYING THEM. Instead of lobbying, by a big ass farm (or see Toby Jones of Jones Big Ass Storage and Truck Rental---"You got a elephant, I got space!") and save as many pets as you can that way.  Please leave our politicians and our bands alone. 

Thank you, Bitches.


HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE!!!!