Printable View
If not check it out at the link below...
http://www.inquisitr.com/16809/super...mercials-2009/
Personally i dont see whats wrong with it, i just think NBC are trying to stay away from controversy after the Janet Jackson fuss a few years back $0.02
I have seen much more 'erotic' looking ads on regular TV than this ad.
Regards,
Lee
I agree with Lee -- it is not that erotic.
Morality in Media is all in a tither telling its members that this "filth" almost made it into their living rooms -- and while some might actually be eating!!!
Dammit, I want MORE sex on TV.
PETA = hypocrites! I'm sick of hypocritical organizations and their fanatical base. Christ even the GLBT groups that are supposed to help us have become trifling!
how are peta members hypocrites? i've never met one who wears fur or buys from companies that animal test or treat their animals poorly and their list of companies that animal test is very helpful for me when deciding which products to buy.
that's pretty much what they're about - and yes, some peta members go a lot further, but even if they're throwing ketchup on a woman in a fur coat, which makes them unpleasant and guilty of assault and property damage, i can't see how that makes them hypocrites. what did i miss?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx68
Just for the record...I love animals, over the years my family and I have run numerous rescues in various states. I have always had pets and currently we have 3 dogs, 3 cats and numerous fish & turtles.
That being said...When I lived in Ann Arbor and Detroit MI I had numerous friends who were members of PETA. I for the most part enjoyed their company, but they could at times be quite abrasive as far as their beliefs went. Why I say they are hypocritical (I should have said the co-founder Ingrid Newkirk and her most loyal of subjects) is because it was a well known fact back in the 90's that PETA used massive industrial freezers to euthanize animals. It was known way before Penn & Teller's Bullshit aired. I also have a problem with groups who condone destruction of property and the loss of jobs. It was known then as well as now that Ms. Newkirk financially supports animal rights groups like ARL. They destroy property and the structures where they claim testing is being done on animals. This costs people jobs and directly affects their lives. You can't expect people to be won over when you cause so much problems.
Telling me that I'm a piece of shit because I have pets (something PETA is opposed to) where leather clothing, eat meat and other food stuffs that come from animals is not conducive to gaining support. The whole idea that Ms. Newkirk lives like a hermit is utter non-sense. Two people I was friends with both had been to her home and it wasn't some little one bedroom hovel.
And what about using the support of celebritards who own pets? or go to the horse/dog races? That's not hypocritical?
One thing I learned a long time ago...people who refuse to look at all sides of a story or issue cannot be reasoned with. Any kind of activist, religious fanatic or other-wise. These people don't care if you have kids to feed, a mortgage and bills. If you do anything to animals they don't approve of, you're a target...sounds like a hunter to me!
i haven't bought leather or eaten meat since 1994. my pets were not bought at pet shops, and in fact one of our cats and my son's cat were feral infants i saved at birth after their mothers abandoned them. i don't support puppy or kitten farms. i don't buy products that animal test, and i have plenty of friends in peta who do all of what i just said.
btw, i believe that peta does not object to having pets that are rescued animals - i definitely could be wrong. as i recall, it's the capturing animals from their native environments to be pets that they had strong objections to. and considering that some animals were nearly made extinct because of being popular pets, is that a bad thing? there are plenty of animals who are homeless and here who could use homes.
personally i can't see any reason to live in a hovel just because you of certain beliefs. if you can live with those beliefs and make money, i say more power to you.
btw, many (i think most, but again, i could be wrong) celebs who do peta ads aren't members of peta. they basically like animals and are letting their names get the word out, but that's all. it's nice of them, but in many cases their lifestyles aren't really representative of peta members and they aren't peta members.
I think what PETA did was rather brilliant. They shot a commercial that they knew wouldn't be accepted, then turned it over to bloggers, youtube and the media, and got more publicity from it than they would have if it aired during the superbowl and they saved money. :bananacock: :bananacock: :bananacock: :bananacock: :bananacock:
Several big names associated with PETA own animals that are from breeding programs of quality bloodline animals. Lynda Blare is a major advocate for PETA and believes ownership of animals is healthy within reason, owns a farm and maintains all her animals on a vegetarian diet. She has a few books out about it if you want some back story.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
A little info:Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
This is from here:
Last year, PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2006 (containing its official “kill” numbers) didn’t show up on the website of Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) until nine months after it was supposed to. So this year, we pressed the issue. And in response to our written public-records request, VDACS delivered the goods. PETA’s 2007 “Animal Record” still isn’t available online through the Virginia government, but we’re making it available today at PetaKillsAnimals.com.
Here’s what the report shows. Not including the animals PETA spayed and neutered, the group had possession of 1,997 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals” in 2007. And PETA — which professes a belief that animals should never be slaughtered for food, used for medical research, or killed for clothing, nonetheless put 90.9 percent of them to death at its Norfolk, VA headquarters. And despite its official status as a “humane society” and a pet “releasing agency” in Virginia, PETA found adoptive homes for only 17 animals all year. Just 17.
and this from here:
The ultimate goal of both HSUS and PETA is the total extinction of all domestic animals, including dogs. They consider all relationships between people and dogs to be a form of exploitation – even beloved household companions that are members of loving families. While HSUS rhetoric sounds more moderate than PETA on the surface, the goal of the two organizations is the same. They want to reduce the number of dogs and the number of people who own dogs as quickly as possible, while working for changes in societal norms that make dog ownership unappealing to people. Their goal is a future without dogs. Mrs. Helmsley would be appalled by their agenda.
Both organizations have strongly opposed “no-kill” animal shelters, and favor programs that result in the impoundment and euthanasia of as many dogs as possible. For example, HSUS consistently supports animal cruelty laws that are targeted against private “no-kill” shelters. HSUS and PETA also consistently favor legislation that does everything possible to discourage dog ownership, imposes heavy fines and liabilities for dog ownership, and mandates the involuntary sterilization of all dogs.
All I'm saying is folks should be careful when it comes to wholly supporting any organization. There are some good points about PETA, but if it sounds too good to be true then maybe...
very clever marketing!Quote:
Originally Posted by deanb
Gotta love viral marketing!! :high:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....
Cheny will try and shoot it ;)
Regards,
Lee