You should have seen the banned Brotherhood of Butchers commercial.
Not as pretty.
|Jeff Fries |
Gonna jam these spears in my vag
VEGETARIANS HAVE BETTER SEX!
Why does PETA continue to waste money on these if they keep getting banned?
Because they can get 300,000+ views on Youtube after the press reports on them being banned?
But they don't get paid for youtube views do they? I'm just asking because I really don't know.
I doubt they can afford the ads, and if they could it's still unethical since they consider themselves to be a charity.
They purposely make the ads dirty enough that they'll be banned so they can market them as "banned superbowl commercial" rather than "an internet commercial we made available the week of the superbowl"
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
God, America is so full of prudes.
That's true, but if this was a commercial for beer, it would have been approved.
PETA tried to run a Superbowl ad a few years back with singing cows, and CBS refused to run that as well:
|Adam O'Connell |
I had a look at the peta site apparently the 'studies' consist of eating unhealthly can cause health problems and therefore you want less sex. Quite frankly there is no study, not one, that shows being a vegertarian makes you healtheir then some who has a well balenced diet.
They lost the whole "better sex" argument when they showed asparagus.
I guarantee you there is someone out there who not only has a piss fetish, but specifically has an asparagus-pee fetish.
Asparagus doesn't just make asparagus-pee, it pretty much makes asparagus-everything.
If I were a vampire, I'd avoid drinking the blood of people who'd recently eaten asparagus.
exploiting animals: bad
exploiting women: good
Now this is a movement I can get behind.
fuck peta and fuck vegetarianism. Studies also show soy can make you impotent.
yeah man that totally explains why the populations of india and other asian countries are dwindling
Actually if you look into a little bit of the cultural determinism at work in India, the taboo on beef comes from the fact that beeves have to be saved at all costs in order to provide cooking fuel, building material, draw plows, and be factories for further animals of the same useful kind. It's quite pragmatic, just like the food codes in Deuteronomy.
PETA sucks, by the way, and militant veganism is an absurd luxury of a pampered culture.
Parts of the laws of Kashrut can be shown to make sense in terms of keeping sanitary. Certainly not all of them, or even most of them. Jewish scholars stopped following that notion a long time ago, since even the ones that promote sanitary/healthy eating tend to be contradictory. The only scholars who stick to that are Christians who believe in "Biblical foresight", that is, the idea that the Bible contains knowledge that scientists would only discover much later. An idea that has been pretty thoroughly debunked.
Think about this: if your religion forbade cooking and eating pigs, would you be more or less likely to be married off to an Egyption or Babylonian? Less I would think. Also, the laws require day-to-day sacrifice and so test religious conviction.
Actually I was thinking more of an anthropological determinism, rather than any kind of post hoc justification based on theology. On those grounds I think the thesis stands up very well. Marvin Harris, though somewhat dated now within anthropology, still reads pretty well on this issue.
It's certainly not a perfect or complete explanation, though; there has got to be room for those initial deterministic laws to be misinterpreted, for the mechanisms of social control to be overlaid, and for the deeply personal symbolic, psychological, and religious aspect to take on a life of its own. And that's to say nothing of oppositional identification; i. e. "They do this, so we must do the opposite."
|HURF BLURF DUH |
I'm sure a few people on the BDSM scene would disagree with the better sex part.
|La Loco |
America's dependence on vegitables supports terrorism. Only eat American grown meat!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|