Slashdot Mirror


PETA Condemns Pokemon For Promoting Animal Abuse

SchrodingerZ writes "PETA, the same group that last November protested Mario for 'wearing fur,' has condemned the Pokémon media franchise and video game series. In light of the recent release of Pokemon Black and White Versions 2, the activist group is protesting that the Pokemon game series 'paints a rosy picture of what amounts to thinly veiled animal abuse.' As many of us know Pokemon is about young children who capture wild animals for the sole purpose of having them battle in non-fatal sparing matches. 'Much like animals in the real world, Pokémon are treated as unfeeling objects and used for such things as human entertainment and as subjects in experiments. The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods,' says a statement from the group. Ironically within Pokemon B/W 2 there an organization known as Team Plasma , which deals with taking Pokemon and retuning them to the wild. PETA is so up in arms that they have even created an anti-pokemon parody game in which you play as an escaped Pokemon battling your trainer. I recommend trying it, just for the laughs."

418 comments

  1. Funny by ichthus · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the funniest headlines I've read all year. Don't need TFA.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Funny by sarysa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's really funny is they waited 15 years to pull this stunt. Pokemon peaked maybe 12 years ago. I think they time their protests specifically to get maximum media coverage hours overall. (can't offload all their examples at once, after all)

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    2. Re:Funny by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I think this is an excuse to make a silly game and get lots of free publicity from tons of geeks doing what many of them have probably want to have done for years.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Funny by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's really high time that they went after Mr. Ed, before the reruns stop airing at least.

    4. Re:Funny by travbrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      They were complaining about Mario wearing a raccoon suit a few months ago. At least they have moved on to whining about things that happened in the 90s now.

    5. Re:Funny by sarysa · · Score: 0

      Go back even further to Prairie Home Companion? A show from that era must be really, REALLY oldschool...where the harshness of frontier living was mainstream and the concept of animal rights seemed like a childish city slicker fantasy.

      BTW, with al the harshness I've dished out in this thread, I actually like PETA and the concept of animal rights. Unfortunately I've seen enough of the world to realize a chunk of their causes are hopeless. (But I'll still back the ones that can be reasonably pulled off)

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    6. Re:Funny by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      It's really high time that they went after Mr. Ed, before the reruns stop airing at least.

      And Flipper commited suicide.

    7. Re:Funny by McFadden · · Score: 2

      Maybe the hacking and mass slaughter of innocent players in World of Warcraft major cities was actually a PETA terrorist plot in revenge for battle pets' inclusion in the recent Pandaria expansion.

    8. Re:Funny by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 4, Funny

      I like PETA too, in fact I am a member of the People Eating Tasty Animals club.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    9. Re:Funny by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Yes this from an organization that kills real pets instead of finding them homes as per their mission statement. Seriously PETA? Kidding right?

    10. Re:Funny by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      One of the funniest headlines I've read all year. Don't need TFA.

      When does anyone ever do that anyway? It's actually an official slashdot rule that all posts within the first 25 can't have read the article first and the first 5 aren't allowed to read past the title.
      For the record, if my cat shot lightning out of its cheeks, I'd have it fight stuff, lol.

    11. Re:Funny by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I dunno about the ethics of torturing Pokemon, but I'd eat a Peta spokesperson if I had to.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Funny by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude after the whole "sea kitten" episode (for those that don't know PETA tried to get fish labeled "sea kittens" so that people wouldn't eat them) frankly we shouldn't be surprised that they are out of the loop, the batshit crazy, or snooker loopy for our friends on the other side of the pond, often have trouble telling what year it is.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:Funny by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't write off their chances if they are doing this in USA. I mean some would have considered protecting the rights of "imaginary children"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996) pretty stupid as well, but this IS America after all.

    14. Re:Funny by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I suggest you check out the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode dealing with them. PETA actively supports terrorsts like the Animal Liberation Front and convicted arsonists like Rod Coronado.. P&T showed a clip of him talking to some high school kids where he was teaching them to make crude incindiary bombs. NOT the kind of thing you'd expect to see taught in high schools.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:Funny by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I dunno about the ethics of torturing Pokemon, but I'd eat a Peta spokesperson if I had to.

      Not me.

      However, turning said PETA spokesmutants into Lawyer Chow is rather appealing...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    16. Re:Funny by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I understand PETA as a big flock of well-meaning animal lovers lead by a core of extremists. Even the majority of their own members are unaware of just how extreme the leadership is.

    17. Re:Funny by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      To be somewhat fair, when the number of pets exceeds the number of available spaces at homes then there really isn't much choice.

    18. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you think it'd be "fair" to euthanise the homeless?

      If they really cared about animals that much, they would [i]make[/i] homes when there weren't enough.

    19. Re:Funny by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No one tell them about CLOP.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    20. Re:Funny by azalin · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you discriminate against animals because of tastiness? While pigs and cows may participate in your clubs festivities, the slimy mollusk and dung beetle are shunned and segregated. And this wants to be an age of enlightenment...

    21. Re:Funny by inasity_rules · · Score: 2

      I don't like fish. But I'd eat a sea kitten.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    22. Re:Funny by chthon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Clams, oysters, scallops and mussels are also mollusks, and very tasty!

    23. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Raccoon suit debuted in the 90s in SMB3, so it would seem that the 90s is the decade they seem to be stuck in.

    24. Re:Funny by eam · · Score: 1

      Sea kittens are delicious. However, you have to prepare them properly.

    25. Re:Funny by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Hey PETA, I made this joke Decades ago. If video games influence kids so much, why aren't there more reports of kids trying make their pets "Pokemon Battle" each other?

    26. Re:Funny by gordo3000 · · Score: 3, Informative
    27. Re:Funny by Hatta · · Score: 2

      There's no excuse for being unaware of PETA's desires. Their most extreme positions come up in every discussion of PETA I've ever seen. You might as well be an innocent parishioner of the Westboro Baptist Church.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    28. Re:Funny by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      Really first of all it's Chinese anime and a children s cartoon they must be related to the same people that sued the WWF. Not to mention there fictional animals. Next they will be condemning Bambi and the Lion King.

    29. Re:Funny by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      Pokemon craze been over not sure why this came up now.

    30. Re:Funny by tibit · · Score: 1

      They taste like chicken, too!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    31. Re:Funny by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

      PETA is great at getting free publicity, sadly they tend to do so in ways that totally undermine their credibility as a serious organization and completely derail their message. It's really not a good trade-off, imo. No publicity is bad publicity might hold true if you're selling entertainment, but PETA isn't a reality show, their a not-for-profit and I'm pretty sure bad publicity is a bad thing for them.

    32. Re:Funny by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      What's really funny is they waited 15 years to pull this stunt.

      Maybe it's an anniversary gift for Slashdot.

    33. Re:Funny by Convector · · Score: 1

      I wonder what land fish taste like...

    34. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time PETA is mentioned, someone fires off the Penn and Teller study. While I think PETA is misguided, P&T did a sloppy job analyzing th data. What they missed was the glaring fact that PETA rescues animals who have been so horribly abused they cannot be treated. The only human choice is euthanasia.

      Their argument is the same as saying, "Hospice kills old people!"' If you are unfamiliar with hospice, it is a service where the terminally ill go to die in peace.

      Like I said, PETA is horribly misguided, but are in the clear here. Penn and Teller lost big points with me for overlooking such obvious circumstances.

    35. Re:Funny by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's still a popular JRPG but it's well past the height of popularity in the late '90s/early 2000s when it was like the biggest fad EVAR.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1988 my friend:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._3

      I'm pretty sure the parent to your post meant that Pokemon is from the 90s as opposed to raccoon Mario being from the 80s. Making PETA a couple decades behind the times.

    37. Re:Funny by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Pokemon is FICTION!

      It is made up. These are not animals, these are Pocket Monsters. Monsters not animals. Monsters have magical abilities. So they can fit in a ball and like it. Why because the creators imaginations says they do. They like to battle with each other and don't get hurt, why because the creators imaginations says they do. In fiction you create your own universe its one morals and rules.

      Doing such things in real life is bad, but in fiction it is ok. We should spend less time bitching about the what the fiction is maybe teaching our children but teach children the difference between Non-Fiction, Fiction, and Metaphor

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    38. Re:Funny by residieu · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound as funny as their parody of Cooking Mama. Here they kind of have a point, pokemon is basically wandering around engaging in pick-up dog-fights.

    39. Re:Funny by residieu · · Score: 1

      None of those players were innocents. Right from the start every one of those players is killing innocent rats or snakes or wild dogs that didn't do anything to anyone. Then selling their body parts off as trophies.

    40. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That still does not help the dung beetles...

    41. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PETA is just a group of terrorists and thugs, willing to bomb and intimidate people that go against their beliefs. Treating animals humanely is one thing. Leveling them above human life is just wrong.

    42. Re:Funny by camionbleu · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does look like an attempt to get publicity. I tried the game and it's actually quite well done. I don't really see why TFA is so disparaging about it. I found it rather amusing -- or perhaps I am just easily amused.

    43. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The slimy mollusk can be a treat as well... though I'm not sure I care about the dug beetle. Anyhow PETA is all about taking
      animal products out of our diet, to hell with these people.

  2. Obligatory Firefly quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, my days of not taking PETA seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

    1. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Here, start at the beginning. Then go bleach your brain to get rid of the images.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      Sea Kittens?

      Whu?

      Baby catfish?

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    3. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks a lot. I just made the best avatar from that link!

    4. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by chipschap · · Score: 1

      People with 'causes' such as PETA need more to do.

    5. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it for the publicity and it works. The more ridiculous, the more the cause in general is promoted. Awareness, even under absurd pretenses, helps the cause. More power to them.

    6. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by khallow · · Score: 1

      Let us not forget that the cause is "get money for PETA".

    7. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

      That whole campaign is only one letter away from brilliance...

      Sex kittens talk to each other through squeaks, squeals, and other low-frequency sounds

      Like their surface-dwelling cousins, the land kittens, sex kittens enjoy being petted.

      Some sex kittens tend well-kept gardens.

      they often gently rub against each other as a sign of affection.

      While this is not particularly easy to do underwater coherently, female sex kittens don't generally seem to mind.

    8. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by azalin · · Score: 1

      Nicely done

    9. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      I find it gratifying that in the whole world with internet access, only 7,400 people are nuts enough to have signed the petition on that one.

    10. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by HJED · · Score: 1

      Whilst I do question there motives, there dosen't actually appear to be any way for them to generate revenue on that page. I wouldn't be suprised if they where losing revenue from this considering the amount of hits that page is probably getting.
      Nevermind that Nitendo might sue them, that game definatly breaches their copyright (the game dynamics as well as the pokemon). Not sure if it is all covered under parody though.

      --
      null
    11. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by CodeheadUK · · Score: 2

      > People with 'causes' such as PETA need more to do.

      Couldn't agree more. Take Heather Mills, a few years back she decided to tell us that we should all be Vegan and drink Rats milk to prevent global warming. This was on behalf of VIVA! a Vegetarian & Vegan pressure group.

      http://www.metro.co.uk/news/76247-drink-rats-milk-says-heather

      Despite the obvious logistical problem of getting enough milk from rats, cats, dogs or whatever she was ranting about, my main problem with this is that she delivered this epiphany from a pointlessly huge 4x4 Chelsea Tractor with the engine running the whole time. This was November in London, so she probably had the heaters going flat out the whole time too.

      Also, the VIVA! website states that fur, leather and wool are evil and should be boycotted. You can clearly see from the picture that she has leather seats in her pointless gas guzzler.

      Clearly a case of "Do as I say, not as I do". I'd say she shot herself in the foot, but it would be in bad taste.

    12. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      Hey, they got 12 plus ones on Google.

    13. Re:Obligatory Firefly quote by khallow · · Score: 1

      Whilst I do question there motives, there dosen't actually appear to be any way for them to generate revenue on that page.

      They don't need to. In their business, any publicity results in increased contributions.

  3. I think PETA exists solely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    . . . To make Slashdot nerds scream with fury and generate more page hits. Posting anonymously because enraged nerds are sure to mod me down.

    1. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "Westboro Baptist Church" style of marketing? You're actually probably a lot more right than you know. Groups like this stay relevant by generating ever more insane news clips. Oh sure, they probably believe (most of them, anyways) their basic message, but they do and say the really stupid stuff like this because it gets them noticed. And they thrive on attention. They're like children throwing temper tantrums (probably with the same level of maturity). The absolute worst thing you can do to them, and the best thing you can do for society, is to studiously ignore them. It might get worse for a while, but it will be vastly better once they learn that saying things like this won't get them noticed.

      Of course, I live in a country where the Kardashians are popular, so that'll never happen.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by guises · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, this does seem to be PETA's primary function these days. Anytime a story comes up about PETA people work themselves into a lather. Even when it's about something as obvious as the fact that cramming animals into tiny balls and then making them fight in gladiatorial style combat may be ethically questionable.

      But being a target for hate is a valid role, albeit a rather painful one. People expend their vitriol on PETA and other animals rights groups wind up looking better by comparison. "Hey," they say, "we're not PETA. You can talk to us and consider our suggestions rather than just dismissing them out of hand." Ultimately, partly thanks to PETA acting as lightning rod, the goal is furthered.

    3. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      But.... think of the squirtles!

      (That's the only friggin' pokemon I know besides Pikachu...)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    4. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The "Westboro Baptist Church" style of marketing? You're actually probably a lot more right than you know. Groups like this stay relevant by generating ever more insane news clips. Oh sure, they probably believe (most of them, anyways) their basic message, but they do and say the really stupid stuff like this because it gets them noticed. And they thrive on attention. They're like children throwing temper tantrums (probably with the same level of maturity). The absolute worst thing you can do to them, and the best thing you can do for society, is to studiously ignore them.

      When WBC came to protest at UW-Madison, we gathered sponsors.
      The sponsors donated $X for every minute that WBC protested.
      The proceeds were used to fund LGBT student organizations on campus.

      WBC is welcome to come back and raise more money for LGBT causes any time.

    5. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Worked for MADD. They got real gains in drunk driving, right? Nope. Because of their work to lower the drinking limits, it turns out that MADD *caused* an increase in drunk driving fatalities. The levels are so low that most things now are worse for you than driving legally drunk. Have a phone? Kids? You are less safe than a drunk, and more likely to have your death labeled as a "drunk driving" incident than before.

    6. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      You know, PETA has both crazy marketing and sane marketing. I'd say there's more sane stuff than crazy stuff. It's just that only the crazy stuff will get picked up by the news. That being the case, it's the news that drives PETA to use such marketing.

    7. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But being a target for hate is a valid role, albeit a rather painful one. People expend their vitriol on PETA and other animals rights groups wind up looking better by comparison. "Hey," they say, "we're not PETA. You can talk to us and consider our suggestions rather than just dismissing them out of hand." Ultimately, partly thanks to PETA acting as lightning rod, the goal is furthered.

      In my experience it's just the opposite. You approach someone as being interested in animals rights/welfare, and immediately get, "Oh, like those nutbars who think fish are sea kittens." Then you've got to try and convince them that you're not like PETA, and defining yourself by what you're not never works. Consciously or sub-consciously, they think, "You wouldn't need to deny it if there wasn't some truth to it."

      PETA don't act as a lightning rod to draw away hatred, they act as a copper dome all of us, drawing in hatred.

    8. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really? I half-heartedly think PETA is a covert animal abuse group, nudging otherwise moderate (or even sympathetic) people against animal rights. I know that I thought animal rights activists would be great people who should be supported wholeheartedly until I heart about PETA. Now I just try to ignore them.

    9. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      That's not true. I herd you liek mudkipz.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    10. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is just false. At best it's ridiculously naive, and at worse, it encourages animal cruelty.

      If you self-identify as having any specific concern for animal welfare, you first have to jump the PETA hurdle. They're a severe detriment to their own supposed cause, and everyone else with similar interests. Many of those other folks really are rational, decent people.

      As such, a dollar donated to PETA is a dollar donated in support of animal neglect and abuse. There's no way around it.

    11. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is just awesome, please spread the word as much as possible so that this is done everywhere they go.

    12. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Even when it's about something as obvious as the fact that cramming animals into tiny balls and then making them fight in gladiatorial style combat may be ethically questionable.

      So is dropping pianos on people but in cartoons we tolerate it.

    13. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Two questions:

      Were they aware of the fundraising?
      If so, how long did the protest last?

    14. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by guises · · Score: 1

      If you self-identify as having any specific concern for animal welfare, you first have to jump the PETA hurdle.

      I wasn't suggesting that PETA deserved this abuse, though I suppose it could be interpreted that way... ::sigh:: That's why I was modded up, wasn't it?

      All right, there's always tons of links to supposed crimes and hypocrisies committed by PETA in threads like this, so it's easy to think that they're a bunch of loons based on the evidence presented. A neutral observer might see the evidence and see the hate and grow puzzled, however - hypocritical organizations are a dime a dozen, what makes this one special? My suggestion: the hate does not come from the evidence or anything that PETA actually does.

      Animal cruelty is a sensitive subject. There are few people who are truly devoid of empathy so at some point in their lives virtually everyone has at least considered where their meat is coming from. Of those, a portion find an absolute justification for it - something which gives them a religious level of certainty in the righteousness of their actions. This portion has no reason to hate PETA, to them PETA really is just a bunch of kooks complaining about how wet the water is. The rest of the people (the majority) lack this absolute conviction, however. They may have found a reason in their minds to waive away the ethical questions, but that isn't the same as resolving them. And this shouldn't be surprising, that's how ethics generally works, it is always ambiguous. Shades of grey, etc.

      But guilt and anger are closely linked, so lingering doubts mean that when people are confronted with what it implies when they say mmm-bacon, they tend to lash out. As the most visible target, PETA feels the brunt of this. I'm not suggesting that PETA is generating the hate, I think they act as the breakwater.

      As far as the evidence against PETA? Some of it is probably real and some of it is probably fake or misinterpreted or blown out of proportion. Hate generates evidence for more hate. Whether PETA is upstanding or a bunch of loons doesn't really matter at this point, people would look at them the same either way.

    15. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Quila · · Score: 1

      Some animal rights groups exist because PETA members couldn't handle the craziness and hypocrisy, and went off to found their own.

      I don't think PETA furthers the goal as a lightning rod. Because of PETA, all other organizations have a harder time convincing potential donors and members that they're reasonable, not connected to or sharing philosophy with the batshit insane PETA.

    16. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get taken seriously saying stuff like that (driving while talking on the phone gets called drunk driving in stats) without some links to back it up.

    17. Re:I think PETA exists solely . . . by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that talking on a phone will get called drunk driving. I said that the lower limit increases the number of things called "drunk driving" and so you are more likely to get killed by a drunk than ever before. And the levels are demonstrably safer than talking on a hands-free cell phone, which is explicitly legal in lots of places now.

  4. Standard disclaimer by Tempestas · · Score: 1

    No Cartoon Animals where harmed during the drawing of this show.

    1. Re:Standard disclaimer by JustOK · · Score: 1

      They used ink from irritated octpuses

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Standard disclaimer by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      Kind of like in Rise of the Triad: "No animals were harmed in the making of ROTT, except for a dog that got his butt spanked for peeing on the carpet." You get to play "Loki, the Carpet Wetting Maestro" in the game.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  5. Fucking Retarded by Seumas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look, we all eschew mistreatment of animals, but aside from the deceit and near criminality of PETA as an organization . . . they're just downright fucking retarded:

    The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods,'

    No. No, they are NOTHING ALIKE. For one thing, elephants are real and pokemon don't actually fucking exist.

    1. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I don't like to be a jerk on the internet, but you saying this is retarded reveals that you're an idiot.

      PETA doesn't think Pokemon encourages animal cruelty or that Pokemons should be entitled to better living conditions blah blah blah the point of these campaigns is to latch on to something with high visibility & popularity (Mario, Pokemon, etc) to make a media splash, get idiots like you to engage with it (positively or negatively) and in the end watch their video about real animals.

      TL;DR: It's not about Pokemons, also don't say the word retarded, ya damn retard

    2. Re:Fucking Retarded by m0s3m8n · · Score: 0

      Bravo!

      --
      Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    3. Re:Fucking Retarded by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Yes, their shameless media manipulation *is* retarded as is the media who just eats it up every time.

    4. Re:Fucking Retarded by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Well, I just wasted their bandwidth by playing their stupid game, and completely ignoring (as in, not even loading when it prompted) their video.
      I think I'll write a script to continually download the game over and over again, piping it to /dev/null, as I have one of the few actually unlimited internet accounts still in existence. (Yes, it's grandfathered. No, you can't get it anymore.)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    5. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct 21st century slur is 'tarded. e.g. AC's are 'tarded that way.

    6. Re:Fucking Retarded by Seumas · · Score: 5, Informative

      The flash game serves as an artistic analogy (see: dictionary), and it's actually a very poignant and well-placed one. Everyone understands the Pokemon universe and yet few have questioned the role of the animals in it. Are battles like cockfights? Or are they like baseball games? What rights does a Pokemon have? We don't think about these questions because we're not thinking about Pokemon (animals), we're thinking primarily about humans in our very self-absorbed way.

      You don't condemn or boycott a fucking analogy. Also, you have sympathy for animals, because they actually exist in the real world and computer characters do not and if you don't have sympathy for animals in the real world, you aren't going to have sympathy for computer characters and will never relate one to the other. Also, in such a case, you'd also probably be a sociopath.

      OFFTOPIC. But...

      You are incorrect, but continue with your political correctness, if you like.

      "Retarded" is polite and kinder word the medical community adopted to replace cruel words like "stupid" and "lame" and "dumb" and "imbecile". Those words were hurtful and cruel *and* they were used medically. Since the word "retarded" came to replace the other words, those words have since been brought into every day usage without unintended insult to those who were now clinically "retarded" and no longer clinically "stupid", "lame", "dumb, "imbeciles".

      By organizations for the cause, I am told that the correct term is no longer "retarded", but "intellectually disabled". Therefore, "retarded" no longer applies to those who used to be medically "retarded" (and before that, medically lame or stupid or dumb, etc). Therefore, "retarded" now holds the same place that those other words do. No longer applicable to anyone as a medical term and now relegated to a general word slighting another person with regard to alleged intellect.

      TL;DR: "Retarded", no matter what some shitty commercial during an episode of Glee tells you, is now linguistically equal to "stupid" and "lame" and "dumb" and "imbecile". If you find one hurtful, then for consistency, you should find them all hurtful.

    7. Re:Fucking Retarded by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      PETA's campaign becomes a little weirder when you realise that the pokemon as presented in the cartoon series aren't even animals - they are sentient and even able to directly communicate with humans.

      Sure the analogy is still there, I mean they look like cute fluffy bunnies after all but most of the time the relationship is shown as voluntary and symbiotic. Pokemon isn't promoting animal abuse, it's promoting slavery through stockholm syndrome.

    8. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct 21st century slur is 'tarded. e.g. AC's are 'tarded that way.

      Alternatively you can use a form of the word derp. e.g. Those guys are derps. That was a very derpish comment on her part. The derp is deep in this article, etc...

      Even the single word 'Derp' is enough to convey that someone is being ridiculous, short sighted, and ignorant as is the case with PETA. Perhaps PETA should choose to go after real opponents rather than tilt at windmills.

    9. Re:Fucking Retarded by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      of basically magical spirit-creatures, little demons and angels or fairies or whatever.

    10. Re:Fucking Retarded by mattventura · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Retarded" and any similar words just go through an endless cycle. Some new politically correct word will come along (like "intellectually disabled" as you said) and in a few years' time it will start being used as an insult. When they realize this, they'll come up with a new word and the exact same thing will happen.

    11. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use of the word "retarded" as a derogative term is demeaning (it's the 21st century!), as it's a medical term. Many people continue to fight this point (particularly 13 year olds), but nonetheless..

      Using the term "retarded" as hyperbole reminds us how similar we are to those who are clinically retarded. It breaks down the taboo.

      This is similar to how a classmate of mine decided to use "laugh at the crippled girl" as her slogan to promote her stand-up comedy. (Actually, I suppose it's sit-down comedy as she has muscular dystrophy.) She uses the term in jest to erode the taboo, but apparently the Cincinnati police do not agree that it's free speech to call herself "crippled" in public. (Her promoter was nearly arrested and they have a court-date set.)

      IMHO, taboos dehumanize far more than making light of a condition. Given, using "retarded" as an insult isn't the best way to accomplish that, but it's far better than forbidding anyone from saying the word in a non-clinical context.

    12. Re:Fucking Retarded by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      two words: sea kittens. QED, PETA are 'tards.

    13. Re:Fucking Retarded by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And some Pokemon like clafarie are overtly described as being space aliens.

    14. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 0

      Except that's obviously a pick-one list. It can't be "retarded" to successfully manipulate "retarded" media. Either the media manipulation is successful—and the effort is savvy—or it fails—and the media is savvy.

    15. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 0

      the pokemon as presented in the cartoon series aren't even animals - they are sentient and even able to directly communicate with humans.

      So are animals.

    16. Re:Fucking Retarded by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but when was the last time you had a conversation with your cat? Animals can clearly communicate by reaction but it is definitely in question whether they intend to communicate or are simply reacting to stimulii.

    17. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The last time I had a conversation with my cat is this evening. If you mean direct, two-way, verbal communication, it was this morning. Her food bowl was empty, which she told me, by mewing and physically showing me what she was mewing about. She free-feeds, and sometimes it isn't empty, and she doesn't typically mew and go to her food bowl when it's not empty; when she does, something else is wrong and she knows that is a way to prompt attention.

      Generally, the response I get to these sorts of scenarios is that I'm projecting and I can't adequately judge a non-human animal's attention without human language (which, by the way, begs the question). But this sort of reasoning easily devolves all the way to cogito ergo sum: nothing can be truly known but what's in your mind. What a hopelessly chaotic worldview. My cat and I communicate, sometimes with mistakes just as with human-human communication. But it shows an enormous lack of experience or empathy to believe that non-human animal sentience doesn't exist.

    18. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chimpanzees have learned aspects of our language and can construct sentences.

      You should read up before entering the fray. Simply because animals like dogs and pigs don't communicate with verbal language doesn't mean they can't communicate.

    19. Re:Fucking Retarded by funwithBSD · · Score: 0

      Yeah, everyone knows these Pokemon games are teaching kids to summon demons..

      I mean come on, elephants in little round balls? They can't enter interdimensional gateways to hell like a demon can, the get stretched like grey spaghetti!.

      -this messaege brought to you by the Church of Do-Gooders with to Much Time on Their Hands.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    20. Re:Fucking Retarded by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Use of the word "retarded" as a derogative term is demeaning (it's the 21st century!), as it's a medical term.

      It's an early-to-mid 20th century medical term. It replaced "idiot", also a medical term.

      Today, "mentally challenged" covers that same general area, with specifics going to individual maladies (cerebral palsy, down syndrome, etc.). Social workers are generally not to use the term "retarded" (at least in Oklahoma and surrounding states), since it's not considered derogatory.

      In the 21st century, it's a mildly offensive word that means "stupid." Politicians and social workers should avoid using it, and everyone else should avoid using it in polite company, but it's not a medical term anymore.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    21. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pokemon don't actually fucking exist.

      Score:5, Informative

      Only on /.

    22. Re:Fucking Retarded by ldobehardcore · · Score: 1

      And others like Mewtwo, are portrayed as hideous genetic engineering and animal husbandry mistakes, the likes of which the world shall never recover from. Heh. Mewtwo.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    23. Re:Fucking Retarded by drkim · · Score: 1

      Look, we all eschew mistreatment of animals...they are NOTHING ALIKE. For one thing, elephants are real and pokemon don't actually fucking exist.

      Thank you for saying this. This is like coming out against COD because it kills people, or coming out against GTA because you are stealing real cars.

      It doesn't even have a positive PR value because people know Pokemon is a fantasy, and dismiss your argument out of hand. There is an additional diluting value of this kind of goofy campaign, in that any future campaign, even one with a meaningful message, will be dismissed as having come from the same group that had the meaningless message last time.

      Think about it - how seriously do take the nut with the "World Is Coming To An End" sign after you've seen him with the same sign, screaming on the same street corner, for ten years? He may be right someday, but he's lost all credibility.

    24. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't infringing trademarks crime? Seems like that game of theirs certainly is doing that.

    25. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use of the word "retarded" as a derogative term is demeaning (it's the 21st century!), as it's a medical term

      No, Wrong, Incorrect.

      It's demeaning because we equate being mentally less capable to being a bad thing. It doesn't matter what word you use, the insult is that the person is claiming you have a lesser intellect so whatever word is used will just end up being derogatory.

      Everyone understands the Pokemon universe

      No, PETA obviously does not. The Pokeball is an inter-dimensional gateway, the imaginary "animals" are not being "stuffed into" anything.

    26. Re:Fucking Retarded by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Only in the Japanese version. In the US release Mewtwo is just a generic monster, as the dubbing company judged his full story too scarey for the little kiddies and cut a lot out.

    27. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her food bowl was empty, which she told me, by mewing and physically showing me what she was mewing about.

      Uh, he's not talking about body language and sub-verbal communication. We're talking actual spoken language. If your cat has been speaking English (or more accurately, Japanese) then I suggest you lay off the Bath Salts.

      And unless your cat can shoot lighting bolts, it's not an accurate analogy to start with.

      Generally, the response I get to these sorts of scenarios is that I'm projecting and I can't adequately judge a non-human animal's attention without human language,

      Well I won't claim you can't judge their emotion or communicate, because you can to a limited extent. The mistake you're making is Projecting your understanding of an actual Feline onto an imaginary being because it looks similar to a real life cat. It's not a cat, it's made up and whatever the creator says they like, they like, and you're wrong if you try to claim otherwise because it's not your invention.

    28. Re:Fucking Retarded by ldobehardcore · · Score: 1

      I saw Pokemon 2000 in theaters when I was a kid, and I think I remember that it was the original anime with a pretty good dub. The storyline did involve Mewtwo being a genetically engineered super-pokemon with godlike powers.

      But of course, in the end, the love of a trainer for his thundermouse saves the day.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    29. Re:Fucking Retarded by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      You might have seen the later edition, in which the cut opening was replaced. Did the version you saw involve the death of a child near the beginning? If no, then you saw it cut.

      Here's the original:
      http://www.torrentroom.com/torrent/3237847-Pokemon-The-First-Movie-MetP-Dual-Audio-and-Subs-mkv.html

    30. Re:Fucking Retarded by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      magnet:?xt=urn:btih:15060290f9b77366914d083e59d304eb47963aa0&dn=Pokemon%20-%20The%20First%20Movie.-.MetP.-.Dual%20Audio%20and%20Subs.mkv&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.yify-torrents.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.yify-torrents.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publichd.eu%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publichd.eu%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt.rghost.net%3A80%2Fannounce
      The pokemon movies are commonly cited as examples of heavy editing in the US release - not just cutting scenes, but rewriting lines and replacing music. Being targeted at a very young audience, the dubbing company usually considers it best to remove anything that could scare or confuse the kiddies. That means not just excising scarey scenes (#1's intro), but also any reference to non-American culture. In #2, for example, traditional Japanese folk music at a ceremony is replaced by caribbean pop music. #2 also has the interesting distinction of removing a passing reference to life emerging from naturally occuring complex organic molecules, presumably in order to avoid contradicting the bible. The dub for #2 was by Fox.

    31. Re:Fucking Retarded by ldobehardcore · · Score: 1

      It's been ten years, so I don't remember every detail, but I don't think I remember ANYONE dying in the movie. Up till the end, when the normal pokemon are dukeing it out with the genetically enhanced ones, then the normals "die" temporarily.

      It was definitely an English dub, and was the one shown in theaters, so it probably was cut. I think the reason why I was allowed to go was that it was rated PG, which also means the movie can't imply a human death in any way someone under 13 would understand, normally. At least according to the MPAA's ratings guidelines (Vomitbloodshitstain upon the MPAA)

      Thanks but no thanks for the torrent. I've got a VHS of it banging around in some drawer already.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    32. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the effort we spend keeping up with current slurs and insults, it's just derptarded.

    33. Re:Fucking Retarded by azalin · · Score: 1

      Maybe they would even like that attention.

    34. Re:Fucking Retarded by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      When people get to this point, I always refer them to H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy (free off Gutenberg) for an interesting take on what makes a sentient being and where the line actually is. Cats are almost certainly not sentient nor conscious in the same way people are. I reckon the book should be required reading for anyone who argues about this. Not because of the conclusions it draws, but because of the questions it asks.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    35. Re:Fucking Retarded by HJED · · Score: 1

      In the English (British) release that I saw Mewtwo was definatly a GM monster and there was a fair bit of death in the movie.

      --
      null
    36. Re:Fucking Retarded by HJED · · Score: 1

      In pokemon very few of them actually spoke english (or Japanese), the ones that did where promoted as mystical/very rare.

      --
      null
    37. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as I have one of the few actually unlimited internet accounts still in existence. (Yes, it's grandfathered. No, you can't get it anymore.)

      Maybe where you live, but where I live limited internet accounts are unheard of.
      Only LTE providers and some satellite DSL providers offer limited internet accounts.

    38. Re:Fucking Retarded by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods,' No. No, they are NOTHING ALIKE. For one thing, elephants are real and pokemon don't actually fucking exist.

      Firstly, I've not watched Pokemon for well over a decade, so I've no idea how Pokeball technology has advanced in that time, but I've always likened them to genie lamps. If you watch Disney's Aladdin, the inside of the lamp is very well set, with lounge furniture and ornamental adornments throughout. The genie is shrunken down, without any observable discomfort or harm, to fit well in this diminutive abode.

      I also liken Pokeballs and Pokemon to genie's lamps and genies respectively because, as you have rightly pointed out, NEITHER OF THEM FUCKING EXIST.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    39. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was interested, years ago, to find a very old textbook that used "cretin", "moron", and "idiot" as specific definitions of development, e.g., a picture captioned "The Cretin Child". Probably from the early 1920's.

    40. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Retarded", no matter what some shitty commercial during an episode of Glee tells you, is now linguistically equal to "stupid" and "lame" and "dumb" and "imbecile". If you find one hurtful, then for consistency, you should find them all hurtful"

      Why? Why should I conform to how other people think about language.

      Especially for something as retarded as "consistency".

    41. Re:Fucking Retarded by Hatta · · Score: 1

      How about I find none of them hurtful? Because that shit is retarded.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    42. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually have limited download home account? I keep reading about it on slashdot every year but everyone I know, even someone who just subscribed, and even my mom don't have this mythical download limit. Where do you live?

    43. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to be savvy to manipulate a bunch of media networks which aren't savvy to begin with. Your logic is flawed in that you assume one side *or* the other *must* be 'savvy'. Both can be a bunch of half-wits, and the campaign will be 'successful' in so far as it will get media attention.

    44. Re:Fucking Retarded by tofarr · · Score: 1

      I doubt "intellectually disabled" will ever replace "retarded" as a slur - it has too many syllables - most slurs have 3 or less syllables because anything more is just too much effort to use in an angry rant.

    45. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      The savvy part is the fact of manipulating the media, not the way it's done.

    46. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Uh, he's not talking about body language and sub-verbal communication. We're talking actual spoken language.

      Mewing is verbal.

      And unless your cat can shoot lighting bolts, it's not an accurate analogy to start with.

      I didn't have any comment on the analogy, just on the point about sentience.

      Well I won't claim you can't judge their emotion or communicate, because you can to a limited extent. The mistake you're making is Projecting your understanding of an actual Feline onto an imaginary being because it looks similar to a real life cat. It's not a cat, it's made up and whatever the creator says they like, they like, and you're wrong if you try to claim otherwise because it's not your invention.

      I'm not doing anything of the sort. Like I said, I had no comment on the analogy.

    47. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Well, you didn't give me a lot of substance, so I really can only respond to this:

      Cats are almost certainly not sentient nor conscious in the same way people are.

      No, of course not. And human children aren't even sentient nor conscious in the same way that human adults are. I didn't say it's the same.

    48. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I refer you to the book I mentioned.

    49. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Why would I buy a book without any substantive comment on what I might expect to find in it? Is it really so involved that you can't provide a short synopsis that would help me understand your point? I think I'm being pretty generous by inviting you twice now to state what you want me to take away from your comment.

    50. Re:Fucking Retarded by ipxodi · · Score: 1

      Not really. They'll just turn around and publicize how many hits and downloads they've gotten. If they hit their bandwidth cap, I'm sure Pamela Anderson, Sarah Jessica Parker, Drew Barrymore and other easily swayed Hollywood types will pony (hah pun!) up the cash necessary.

      --
      load "windows7" ,8,1
    51. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I am not at my computer and the book the explores the confusion you seem to have quite well. Heck, it even deals with your "point" that babies aren't sentient in the same way as humans. It deals with the scenario where humans meet another sentient species that are not immediately recognizable as such and therefore explores the difference between sentient and non-sentient beings. I am not interested in discussing this further. I have pointed you to a source, you will probably even agree with some of its conclusions. And you might enjoy it. It is a good story.

    52. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and don't buy it. IT Is FREE. Go to project Gutenberg. How did you miss that?

    53. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      You haven't given me any reason to pursue the book. You've said it has some stuff in it but not even a hint as to what any of that stuff might be.

    54. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, he pretty much describes exactly what that stuff might be.

      Heck, it even deals with your "point" that babies aren't sentient in the same way as humans. It deals with the scenario where humans meet another sentient species that are not immediately recognizable as such and therefore explores the difference between sentient and non-sentient beings.

    55. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay, they'll just shorten it to "intellectual". Or just "intel". Like, what are you, some intel asshole?

    56. Re:Fucking Retarded by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      In Canada. North American Internet providers are some of the greediest bastards in the world. In some ways, they make the RIAA/MPAA look generous.
      Canada isn't as bad as the US, from what I've read on here, but Bell Canada, which is one of the largest providers in the eastern half of Canada, is trying to buy up some other companies to decrease competition at the moment, which will undoubtedly make things worse.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    57. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      You keep saying it addresses certain subject matter, but you haven't specified any of its content.

    58. Re:Fucking Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, either you are a troll, Or you fail at reading comprehension. In either case, there is no point in you reading the book.

    59. Re:Fucking Retarded by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Let me paraphrase, as an analogy, what you've given me.

      "The Bible explains everything you need to know about sexual morality."

      What does it explain? Can you give me a reason to consider the Bible a sexual morality reference? There's oodles of books out there competing for my attention. What is the content I'm supposed to be motivated to go look at? Do you have an outline or even a few quotes?

      Incidentally, I've continued to reply because I'm genuinely interested in the subject. Why are you so determined not to sell me on this, and so condescendingly at that? I've given you many opportunities.

    60. Re:Fucking Retarded by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      You have missed it. I am not pushing an agenda here. I am recommending a book that explores the subject using a fictional setting. The book does not explain everything. I never made that claim. It explores the subject and asks useful questions, which from your responses, you do not appear to have asked. I don't particularly Care if you read the book or not. It doesn't affect me personally. what do you want from me? Must I post the text here verbatim from Gutenberg? I do not understand your position here. You almost seem to be asking if the book agrees with you or not before you read it. If that is the question. the answer is both yes and no. This is not a textbook. It is not comparable to a religious work. It is a work of fiction and nobody ever took it otherwise. The value here is the fact that the author asks "What if we met another sentient species? How would we identify them? And most importantly, where is the line drawn?" You don't have to agree with the book. It is fiction. l could summarise the plot on my galaxy note(which is why this text is a bit badly formatted.) Or, You could go read the book. Honestly, which makes more sense?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  6. 1999 called and wants its headline back by readandburn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    PETA is probably also listening to Smash Mouth and fearing Y2K.

    1. Re:1999 called and wants its headline back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, look, man, show some respect! It takes a long time to generate the electricity needed to catch up to the modern day! Especially when they refuse to use fossil fuels on the grounds that it promotes cruelty to dinosaurs!

  7. Trolls by zicAU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't feed the trolls.

    1. Re:Trolls by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if you don't feed the trolls they'll die. PETA condemns troll killing.

    2. Re:Trolls by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      Actually trolls re-generate, see DMG...

    3. Re:Trolls by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      What you need is some troll stench and bright UV lights on a 4x4, see 'troll hunter' on netflix (warning: fuzzy foreigners speaking gibberish, requires reading).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Trolls by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      DMG? Isn't that a disk image format?

    5. Re:Trolls by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      Excellent movie. Ranks right up there with "Thank you for smoking" and "This Movie Is not yet rated"

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    6. Re:Trolls by azalin · · Score: 1

      A short time later the trolls got evicted from the DMG and transferred to the MM.

    7. Re:Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PETA don't want you to feed the trolls. If that means they die, they don't care.

      PETA don't want you to treat animals with respect, they want you to have no contact with them at all.

    8. Re:Trolls by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Added bonus, every time you hear the Swedish chef everybody has to drink. Yes I know they're speaking Norwegian.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Oh yea? Well I condemn PETA. by Narcocide · · Score: 0

    I condemn Pokeman too. They're both on my list of infuriatingly stupid things I never want to hear or think about again.

  9. "Wearing fur"? Seriously? by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is Mario ever "wearing fur"? Are they referring to Racoon Mario? When he touches the Leaf, he becomes a fucking racoon. He's not "wearing a racoon suit, cosplay style," he physically transforms into a fucking racoon

    I mean damn PETA come on, this is why people start thinking you're just a bunch of nutjobs....

    1. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd want to be anywhere near a four foot ...er... amorous racoon...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Orcris · · Score: 0

      I was wondering that too...

    3. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      He's not "wearing a racoon suit, cosplay style,"

      What if he was wearing a raccoon suit, cosplay style? I mean raccoon is good eatin' and why would you waste the fur?

    4. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      How is Mario ever "wearing fur"? Are they referring to Racoon Mario? When he touches the Leaf, he becomes a fucking racoon. He's not "wearing a racoon suit, cosplay style," he physically transforms into a fucking racoon

      I haven't played Super Mario Bros. 3 in two decades, but I'm fairly sure that the game's manual termed that ability "the Racoon suit", just as the underwater thing was "the Frog suit". The game's Wikipedia article seems to agree.

    5. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is sufficient.

    6. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Are they referring to Racoon Mario?

      Yes.

      When he touches the Leaf, he becomes a fucking racoon.

      Yes.

    7. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are referring to the Tanooki suit.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    8. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the pelt that was the valuable part of the raccoon, never ate one to know how they taste.

      Ok, the wikipedia entry regarding eating raccoon is interesting. Coolidge ate his pet raccoon for Thanksgiving one year, definitely different times.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Coolidge ate his pet raccoon for Thanksgiving one year, definitely different times.

      Ok, misread that a little, still interesting.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    10. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by JDeane · · Score: 1

      Staring Ron Jeremy? He wouldn't need very much makeup or a fur suit even... He even kind or resembles Mario too.

    11. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is correct, they're both suits. However nothing suggests Mario is wearing a real frog skin or raccoon skin either. It's more like those kids bear pyjamas.

    12. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      I mean damn PETA come on, this is why people start thinking you're just a bunch of nutjobs....

      I can never decide if this is some sophisticated ploy to seem ridiculous while driving attention to an issue through use of hyperbole.....

      ...or whether they really are just nutjobs.

      Either way, you know you've really accomplished something as an organization when you are completely immune to parody, because really, there's no room left.

    13. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're probably referring to the tanooki-suit. Same ability as the leaf/raccoon + the ability to turn into a statue and make enemies ignore you. That suit looks more like a cosplay fur-suit than the leaf/raccoon.

    14. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I haven't played Super Mario Bros. 3 in two decades, but I'm fairly sure that the game's manual termed that ability "the Racoon suit", just as the underwater thing was "the Frog suit". The game's Wikipedia article seems to agree.

      The difference is that the Frog Suit isn't made from imaginary frogs.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    15. Re:"Wearing fur"? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He does not become a racoon, it's a suit. Racoon suit or tanuki suit depending on who you ask. You obviously are too young / didn't play enough Mario 3 growing up.

  10. I support PETA... by Zapotek · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...as of 3mins ago and will keep supporting them in hopes of seeing more headlines like these, pure comedy. Thank you PETA.

    1. Re:I support PETA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except PETA employs convicted bombers to train the newbies...
      That can't be good.

  11. I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by BatGnat · · Score: 2

    If PETA had their way, we would not eat meat, nor use leather. No farmer would keep cows around just for the hell of it. Lots of dead cows.....

    1. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by erlegreer · · Score: 1

      Actually, not "dead", just lots of cows not intentionally bred.

    2. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      And also dead, because most of them would end up ripped to shreds by predators, who would flourish if cows and other herd animals were allowed to roam free.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but that's exactly what is happening, we've been cooking those bovine for hundreds of thousands of years. we are their predators. it's natural, it's right.

    4. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you mean the cuddly cud-chewing prarie puppies?

    5. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by erlegreer · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Animal lovers don't seem to get that humans are just another natural predator. Some animals develop claws, speed, etc for survival. Humans developed complex brains that can outsmart lower animals with cunning, weapons, etc.

    6. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Longjmp · · Score: 1

      We've got to stop the killing now.
      Probably 99% of animals are eaten alive. We need to kill all whales to prevent them from eating billions of plankton!
      (and guppies from eating worms: kill all guppies!)

      Next shocking truth: 100% of animals are dying alive!

      Holy shit.

      --
      There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
    7. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, not "dead", just lots of cows not intentionally bred.

      Wrong.

      Do a little research into PETA's philosophy of running animal shelters.

      It's literally "KILL 'EM ALL!"

      Yes, it really is.

    8. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I don't think the "natural predator" line works on factory farmed beef.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    9. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by erlegreer · · Score: 2

      A simple fly eats his meal on the spot without much forethought beyond following a smell. He might agree with you, but in regards to the advanced, technical, cheating spider who meticulously spins his death web, premeditating his trapping, killing, preservation, and storage of food for later. Would we be more of a natural predator if we just waited for cows to get caught in our sticky ropes?

      (I really know nothing about flies, so someone feel free to rip my guesswork to shreds.)

    10. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's a question for you, rather than an answer:

      Are we a species (one with a culture and morals) that would torture a defenseless creature in a tiny, isolated cage, barely large enough to fit its body, for years on end, milking its body, subjecting it to surgeries and growth chemicals, and denying it socialization and sunlight, only to conclude its life with a live mutilation of its throat, letting it bleed out slowly?

      This isn't meant to be a loaded question, but to fully spell out the actions we take as "predators" in the process of bringing a steak to our plates.

    11. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cows are a bad example. India wouldn't allow a sacred animal to go extinct.
      And, from what I understand, PETA isn't against killing, but against suffering - they even kill animals in their shelters.

      Captcha: monsters.

    12. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...Are we a species (one with a culture and morals) that would torture a defenseless creature in a tiny, isolated cage, barely large enough to fit its body, for years on end, milking its body, subjecting it to surgeries and growth chemicals, and denying it socialization and sunlight, only to conclude its life with a live mutilation of its throat, letting it bleed out slowly?

      Oh, you mean like the tarantula hawk?
      "The female tarantula hawk captures, stings, and paralyzes the spider, then either drags her prey back into her own burrow or transports it to a specially prepared nest, where a single egg is laid on the spider’s abdomen, and the entrance is covered. When the wasp larva hatches, it creates a small hole in the spider's abdomen, then enters the spider's abdomen and feeds voraciously, avoiding vital organs for as long as possible to keep the spider alive."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantula_hawk

    13. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      I didn't know tarantula hawks had a culture that produced systems of morality and ethics (maybe you should reread the AC's post). The example from nature is neither here nor there, or perhaps you think that because the preying mantis exists women should devour their partners (after obtaining the seed, of course)?

      There is no inherent meaning in nature. If you believe that the methods of industrial meat production are acceptable, argue that instead of bringing up something unrelated.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    14. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's a question for you, rather than an answer:

      Are we a species (one with a culture and morals) that would torture a defenseless creature in a tiny, isolated cage, barely large enough to fit its body, for years on end, milking its body, subjecting it to surgeries and growth chemicals, and denying it socialization and sunlight, only to conclude its life with a live mutilation of its throat, letting it bleed out slowly?

      This isn't meant to be a loaded question, but to fully spell out the actions we take as "predators" in the process of bringing a steak to our plates.

      I suggest you, and every other PETA member, actually spend some time studying animals. Ever seen a mountain lion kill something? It's not pretty. Ever watched the Nat Geo channel? I saw a pack of wolves take down a Bison and eat it ALIVE starting with its ASS.

      Nature is far, far more cruel than anything humans do. Morals only exist in a human context, animals do whatever the fuck they want and they don't feel guilty about it.

    15. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by stor · · Score: 1

      If PETA had their way, we would not eat meat, nor use leather. No farmer would keep cows around just for the hell of it. Lots of dead cows.....

      Hang on, that might be the solution for the greenhouse effect! ;)

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    16. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Roam free? if people stopped eating animals than most probably the meat-animals would all but dissapear since no one would breed them any more, and the areals that we today grow food for these animals on would tomorrow be used to grow human food.

    17. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Would we be more of a natural predator if we just waited for cows to get caught in our sticky ropes?

      The term you're looking for is not "predation" but "zoophilia".

      Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the veal - but not in public, please!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    18. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Legion303 · · Score: 2

      Are we a species (one with a culture and morals) that would torture a defenseless creature in a tiny, isolated cage, barely large enough to fit its body, for years on end, milking its body, subjecting it to surgeries and growth chemicals, and denying it socialization and sunlight, only to conclude its life with a live mutilation of its throat, letting it bleed out slowly?

      Now you're making me hungry AND turgid.

    19. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unrelated" meaning, to you, exactly the same, but not done by humans?

    20. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes we are. You have over dramaticised it, but yes.

      If his Noodliness had intended us not to eat meat, he would not have made them so tasty.

      As for your 'culture' and 'morals', they were built on people eating meat...

    21. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by drkim · · Score: 1

      I didn't know tarantula hawks had a culture that produced systems of morality and ethics

      ...who are you to say they have not? Morality and ethics depend on where you stand. Just ask Hitler. Ask the people killing other people over a YouTube movie. Ask the guy car bombing an abortion doctor. Perhaps tarantula hawks have a system of morality and ethics far beyond humans. They only kill what they eat or can use.

      perhaps you think that because the preying mantis exists women should devour their partners (after obtaining the seed, of course)?

      Uh, you may want to check up on your biology. The males can't ejaculate until their heads come off. So, without the females decapitating them, the species would quickly die out. The parallel in humans is extended courtship, engagement rings, alimony, etc. with the same purpose; ensuring the genetic fidelity of the male.

      ...instead of bringing up something unrelated.

      Unrelated? I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about "PETA Condemning Pokemon." Some AC drives it offtopic into the land of beef production, trying to imply that we are an evil species, I speak up.

      I stand up for my species!

    22. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      No, what happened was that rubycodez said it is a natural right for humans to predate on the higher mammals, and erlegreer added that this predation is "natural" because its means are the product of evolution. My response was that this argument-from-nature might fall short for factory farmed meat.

      Once again, there is no inherent meaning in nature. No example from nature implies anything about good, or evil, or whether or not there is a natural right to predate on lower animals. The AC in question specifically did not imply that methods of industrial beef production make us an "evil species." As food for thought, the AC stated some facts about how factory farms make meat.

      Since you found those facts to imply that humans are evil, perhaps that finding should inform your dietary choices.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    23. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...rubycodez said it is a natural right for humans to predate on the higher mammals, and erlegreer added that this predation is "natural" because its means are the product of evolution.

      Well, I don't think we're 'higher' or 'lower' than any other animals. Our evolved forebrain lets us do advantageous things like factory farming, in the same way a tiger has big teeth for grabbing and killing.

      Once again, there is no inherent meaning in nature. No example from nature implies anything about good, or evil, or whether or not there is a natural right to predate on lower animals.

      Agree completely.

      Since you found those facts to imply that humans are evil...

      I did not infer that humans are evil, nor do I think humans are evil; I thought the implication was there in the AC comment.
      My Comment:

      Some AC drives it offtopic into the land of beef production, trying to imply that we are an evil species, I speak up.

      I stand up for my species!

    24. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your post gave me cancer.

    25. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes it does, our ancestors hunted bovine, we've just used our brains to make a more efficient process

    26. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      tobacco use is the foremost risk factor for cancer. you'll note that's a vegetable

    27. Re:I dont know why PETA want cows extinct? by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Ok, if "natural" just means "anything", fine.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  12. Reboot Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb48YDxhPkg&t=1m53s

    old joke

  13. April Fools was a long time ago... Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm amazed I'm seeing something like this and it's not April 1st.

    1. Re:April Fools was a long time ago... Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed I'm seeing something like this and it's not April 1st.

      You shouldn't be, the letters "PETA" stand for "We're a bunch of fucking batshit crazy bath salt smoking hippies."
      Yes, I realize that doesn't work out. Like I said, they're fucking insane.

    2. Re:April Fools was a long time ago... Wow. by azalin · · Score: 1

      With Peta, April the 1st last all year long

  14. How ironic by Sydin · · Score: 5, Informative

    If anybody at PETA had actually bothered to play Pokemon Black and White for more than five minutes, they'd have met a group of villains named Team Plasma. This group was a parody of real world "revolutionary" groups like the Black Panthers or PETA, who attempt to present themselves as fighting for a worthy cause, when in reality they're just after personal gain and a feelings of self-satisfaction. Team Plasma tries to convince you the player that your treatment of pokemon is cruel, and that Pokemon hate people as a result. Yet the real message of the story is learning that catching a pokemon isn't just about stuffing it into a ball and forcing it to fight: It's about building a bond of trust and mutual friendship between the pokemon and trainer, which if properly fostered allows them to accomplish anything together. If anything, PETA should be commending Pokemon for it's progressive attitude. But I guess that doesn't make for as eye-catching a headline.

    1. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting that PETA believes animals are better off dead than in the care of humans.

    2. Re:How ironic by Fned · · Score: 2

      If anybody at PETA had actually bothered to play Pokemon Black and White for more than five minutes, they'd have met a group of villains named Team Plasma.

      If you'd looked at the game link for, like, literally one second, you'd have seen the Pikachu-holding-a-sign-saying-"I support Team Plasma" graphic.

    3. Re:How ironic by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Yet the real message of the story is learning that catching a pokemon isn't just about stuffing it into a ball and forcing it to fight: It's about building a bond of trust and mutual friendship between the pokemon and trainer, which if properly fostered allows them to accomplish anything together

      Which is just another form of animal abuse to PETA.
      They believe no one should have a pet, and that domesticating animals is just another form of abuse.
      Hell, some PETA members even think that damaging insect habitats during construction is akin to genocide.

      PETA is nothing but a gaggle of whack-jobs.
      But, they put naked chicks on parade, so I give them a pass.

    4. Re:How ironic by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Not defending PETA or anything, but... The idea that the human/pokemon team can "accomplish anything together", still involves one individual capturing another against it's will and using it for it's own ends, which in the case of pokemon is to use them to fight eachother. The real life equivalent of pokemon is cock fighting. This is quite different from the relationship between a boxer and his coach, where the boxer has decided to be on a team with his coach (hopefully) without coercion, either party is free to terminate the relationship, and the boxer isn't forced to live in a small red ball. Of course there are differences. The obvious difference is that animals like chickens are lower life forms than people, and therefore principles like non-coercion do not apply to them because they don't have the same rights as people. PETA would disagree, and that's why they are a fringe group. Even though other animals are lower life forms, many modern societies have decided that using animals to fight is an unacceptable form of abuse. The other difference is that pokemon is not reality, and is therefore not subject to the same criticisms. For example, it doesn't seem like pokemon really die or are even subjected to excruciating pain as a result of being forced to fight (because it's a kids TV show). I don't see any reason that kids need to be exposed only to realistic depictions, so I don't have a problem with pokemon. Look at something like star wars where the droids are basically slaves even on the good side of the conflict. They are clearly people in the sense that they have feelings, desires, can feel pain, etc. Their lives are not valued. They are used as means to an end (i.e. tools), even by primary protagonists. Why is star wars not criticized for promoting slavery? Because it's just a movie, and we are capable of suspending disbelief for 2 hours. We don't need to justify the slavery in star wars by showing why droids are ok to objectify if they existed in real life. We don't need to justify disney movies that have kings and queens and princesses by showing why real life autocracies are sometimes ok. We don't need to justify vigilante justice movies by showing why it is ok to sometimes take the law into your own hands in real life. It's ok for something in a movie to be ok, but be wrong in real life. We don't need to justify things that happen in the movies or tv shows we watch. If we did, PETA would be right.

    5. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just played the game. The message is that one can't convince people of anything by any other means than violence. Otherwise they win.

    6. Re:How ironic by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      Not defending PETA or anything, but... SNIIIIIP....if we did, PETA would be right.

      You sure did write a whole lot between those sentences to convince yourself that you aren't supporting PETA and their dumbassary, because you sure aren't convincing us.

    7. Re:How ironic by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The real-life equivalent of Pokemon is only cockfighting if you haven't ever seen the animated series, where the lead character is clearly creating a bond with every one of his Pokemon the entire time, and the people he's fighting against are using them as tools. Ash (and his replacements) are clearly a coach, while Team Rocket (and their subsequent replacements) are clearly the cock fighters. It doesn't come through quite as clearly in the game that Ash is that coach, but there's plenty of dialogue to support it.

    8. Re:How ironic by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Not defending PETA or anything, but...
      The idea that the human/pokemon team can "accomplish anything together", still involves one individual capturing another against it's will and using it for it's own ends, which in the case of pokemon is to use them to fight eachother. The real life equivalent of pokemon is cock fighting.

      How is Pokemon in any way similar to something like this?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    9. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your virginity is showing.

    10. Re:How ironic by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      " It's about building a bond of trust and mutual friendship between the pokemon and trainer, which if properly fostered allows them to accomplish anything together."

      I'm not buying it. Superficially, sure, that's the premise of the story that the Pokemon creators want the world to see. Great. But their portrayal, in fact, is a depiction of animals in pit fighting scenarios, and children and adults alike as spectators having the time of their lives subjecting the animals to this. I leave one of the small T.V. in the house on as background noise, usually on Cartoon Network and every morning I catch a portion of the day's Pokemon episode. And every day it's the same thing. Regardless of my feelings about PETA, my feeling about Pokemon is that I would not allow my child to watch that show to give them fun ideas about how to build a "bond of trust" with the cats. There's enough crap out there in the world to give kids bad ideas, and the less parents pay attention to this kind of stuff, the earlier the gears of society begin the process of subverting our youth.

    11. Re:How ironic by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      If anybody at PETA had actually bothered to play Pokemon Black and White for more than five minutes, they'd have met a group of villains named Team Plasma. This group was a parody of real world "revolutionary" groups like the Black Panthers or PETA, who attempt to present themselves as fighting for a worthy cause, when in reality they're just after personal gain and a feelings of self-satisfaction.

      What makes you think someone at PETA didn't play it and then decide to attack the franchise in retaliation?

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    12. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon now. The original Black Panthers were dealing with actual physical abuse of people in their communities by an explicitly racist police and legal system. Do we have to put them in the same bucket as PETA?

    13. Re:How ironic by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Not defending PETA or anything, but... SNIIIIIP....if we did, PETA would be right.

      You sure did... SNIIIIIIP.....convince....SNIIIIP....... us.

      You're welcome.

    14. Re:How ironic by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I am not claiming that every aspect of pokemon is identical to real life cock fighting. I am saying that pokemon is the children's cartoon analog of cock fighting. In both, humans capture (pokemon,roosters) and become their masters and command them to fight against other (pokemon,roosters). While Ash may be the coach, he is in addition the master of his pokemon. He is a benevolent master in contrast to the antagonists, but their master nonetheless. I do agree with PETA that pokemon if it where happening in real life would be animal subjugation and possibly also torture. The difference between me and PETA is that I think pokemon is ok because of 2 reasons: 1. It's not real. 2. Animals are not entitled to the same rights as humans even if it where real. It is precisely the fact that the protagonist is not depicted as cruel or causing suffering to his pokemon that makes it ok. In real life however, it is pretty hard to have animals fight against eachother without being cruel and causing suffering. My point is that would shouldn't be defending pokemon on the grounds that it would not be bad if it where real. We should be defending it (and everything else like it) on the grounds that it is not real.

    15. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? If your kids can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, well, I don't know what to say. I played and watched Pokemon and not once did I ever think of doing the similar things with real animals.

      Honestly, you'd better not let them watch tv, read books, read comics, play video games, or do much of anything. It could give them... ideas...

      But really, don't be so paranoid about it. The chances of it somehow corrupting children are absolutely minuscule.

  15. eat 'em by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Wow. In a completely unrelated note, I just read yesterday in, I think, a wiki on pokemon, that the original backstory points out that in the pokemon world there are no conventional farm animals. Zero. So what do the human inhabitants eat? Apparently, they eat Pokemon. Hopefully, the more appetizing-looking ones. Let's see what PETA does with that.

    But more on-topic, I think I shall create an anti-anti-pokemon game, where you beat up children, take their pokemon, release same into the wild, and see how long it takes for them to starve to death.

    And then the anti-anti-anti-pokemon game would have some organization exterminate all domestic pokemon "for their own good".

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:eat 'em by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      They do eat some dairy products from the more bovine Pokemon, and think I've seen some of the fish Pokemon for sale in markets (don't quote me). But Pokemon food is exclusively made from herbs, nuts, berries, grains, etc. and even the Pokemon with big slavering canines happily gobble up the vegan Pokemon food.

    2. Re:eat 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did, though Magikarp apparently tastes bad, James tried at one point. Farfetch'd (the bird that carries the leek from the original 151) on the show was also described as having been nearly made extinct due to tasting good (remember the Dodo anyone). Jesse and James also contemplated eating the egg Ash found during the palaeontology episode involving the Aerodactyl, that later hatched into Togepi.
      The point seems frequently to be made about living in harmony and building profitable relationships between humans and Pokémon.

  16. People Eating Tasty Animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YUM!

  17. Models supporting PETA? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will they be nude?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Models supporting PETA? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pikanude! I choose you!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Models supporting PETA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      naked pokemon peta cosplay orgy!

      hey i could actually support that. wtg peta!

    3. Re:Models supporting PETA? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nude? Makes sense since they are protesting against a game that's name was shortened from "pocket monster" that is all about cock fighting. Then there's something about stuffing things into balls. I think I'm going away to throw up now.

    4. Re:Models supporting PETA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has existed since about .000000000000003 of a second after the first episode of pokemon aired.

    5. Re:Models supporting PETA? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Forget the Pokemon. Brooklyn Decker, I choose you!

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:Models supporting PETA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around here, you're more likely to end up with Pikadude. And nobody wants to see that.

  18. Attention whoring by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of when groups like Greenpeace complains about something popular just to get attention. It's just some activist noise making about something topical to bring attention to themselves. What I find funny is that by pulling these stupid stunts, all they are doing is making themselves (and their cause) look bad. Maybe the next time someone hears about an actual legitimate issue in animal welfare they'll think of this and pay it no mind ('Hey, isn't that the same stuff those wackos who complained about Pokemon were going on about?') . The way they trade credibility for publicity (not that they had much credibility to start with) makes me think PETA cares more about their own 15 seconds of fame than actually bringing any benefit to animals.

    And by the way, Pokemon are clearly partners, not slaves. The games make generally that pretty clear and go on ad nauseam about poke-friendship or something like that, in fact, something about humans being mean to their Pokemon was even a central part of the plot of the last games, not that any of this is relevant if causing a fuss is your only actual goal.

  19. Talk about stupid... by meerling · · Score: 1

    PETA.
    Ok, now to point out, what everyone that has watched even 1 episode of Pokemon or actually played any of the Pokemon games for more than 10 minutes, it's about caring for your pokemon and building a relationship with them.
    As to stuffing them into balls, considering something the size of an elephant or more can fit into one of those little balls and still not weigh more than a few ounces, they aren't being "stuffed" in. It's apparently some kind of pocket dimension.
    On top of that, IT'S A CARTOON AND VIDEO GAME AND IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO REALITY!

    Once again PETA proves that they don't get it and aren't just stupid, they are stooopid with three Os.

  20. Caring about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PETA propaganda only propagates the idiocy more. Let them condemn anything they want. We just have to not care, at all.

  21. Hypocrits. Fuck PETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals

    In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.

    NB that in Virginia, stats only need to be kept for animals taken in with the intent of putting them up for adoption.

    Think that's a fluke?

    Get this:

    PETA's "Thank You" for Killing Shelter Pets

    When the No Kill shelter in Shelby County, Kentucky, recently announced that they had run out of space -- and were hence going to have to start killing healthy dogs and cats -- officials received a nice basket of gourmet cookies, with a note signed by PETA: "Thank you for doing the right thing for animals."

    Surely I'm joking here. This must be a weak stab at satire. Many people have written about Ingrid Newkirk's vicious pet-killing program -- her organization has personally liquidated over 27,000 animals -- but PETA has always responded with hurt and outrage (and lawyers). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals don't celebrate killing, goes the lie -- they see it as a regrettable necessity.

    Surely Newkirk wouldn't be so foolish as to express her ghoulish agenda in this way, as a naked statement accompanied by a gift. No group of self-styled vegans would publicly wed their name to the Pro-Kill Equation: butchery = the right thing.

    Well, Nathan Winograd (who developed the somewhat different No Kill Equation) reported on this in detail, and I suggest you examine his photographic evidence. A lovely basket of "Allison's Gourmet Cookies" -- shipped fresh from California -- with a handwritten note signed: "The PETA Staff." If you'd like further evidence, and to read the reverse side of this charming note, Shelby County No Kill Mission has produced an affecting video about the episode.

    To understand just how grotesque this is, you have to know a little bit about Shelby. This is not simply one of America's fifty-one No Kill communities. It has a special significance: Last year's save rate sent Shelby County to the top -- it is now one of the most successful examples of No Kill in the nation.

    The last animal killed for lack of space in Shelby County was on May 27, 2008. Since then, they've enjoyed a save rate that is almost precisely the inverse of PETA's kill rate. Whereas PETA slaughters 97% of the pets delivered to their hellish "Shelter of Last Resort," in 2011 Shelby saved 98.52% of the cats and 94.46% of the dogs in their care.

    Shelby County runs an open admission shelter: They do not turn animals away. They have an impeccable history -- despite PETA's dire predictions, their No Kill community has never been associated with hoarding or animal abuse of any kind. (In fact, none of the legitimate No Kill organizations has been guilty of these crimes, but that's another story.) The Shelby program has a tiny budget: $147,000. Compare that to PETA's annual plunder: over $32.3 million from unsuspecting donors.

  22. Pokemon Black and White by Georules · · Score: 3, Informative

    These people clearly did not play Pokemon Black and White. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/3/7/

  23. Critical problem by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    PETA needs to turn its attention toward the care and feeding of abandoned Tamagotchi. These were purchased for children who, after having grown up, have abandoned their pets to the bottoms of toy chests or the back of sock drawers. PETA needs to fund a reserve for forgotten Tamagotchi.

    Right after they get their Save the Skeets campaign off the ground.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. What about Carrotmon by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Peta sure is one sided, what about the cells in Vegetables, they have the same rights as humans, what about single celled yeast or atoms!!!!! Those monsters ( Peta ) don't care about them.

    1. Re:What about Carrotmon by drkim · · Score: 1

      Peta sure is one sided, what about the cells in Vegetables, they have the same rights as humans, what about single celled yeast or atoms!!!!! Those monsters ( Peta ) don't care about them.

      I've wondered about this for years. They are actually quite speciesist. They love all the cute, furry animals, but you never hear much from them about saving the Pygmy Hog Sucking Louse (which are just as endangered as those big-eyed baby seals.)

      Who says plants want to die being eaten? Those spines and poisons and hard shells tell me they don't.

      I think A. Whitney Brown said it best:
      "I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants."

  25. It gets worse, BTW. by jcr · · Score: 2

    As batshit crazy as this is, it's not the worst example of PETA making themselves look like the brain-dead nut cult that they are. The crazy bitch who runs that group wrote a letter to Arafat once complaining about the PLO using a donkey laden with explosives to try to kill people in Israel. No complaint about killing the PEOPLE, mind you.

    If you're an animal lover, support the ASPCA.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      I only disagree on one point: condemning Pokemon isn't that crazy. If Pokemon were real, fighting them for sport would be illegal, at least in developed countries. It is really unlikely that any little kids decided to become cock fighters based on the fun times they had playing gameboy.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    2. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at all the horrible shit we humans and only we humans did, I can understand why somebody doesn't cry for humans though.

      Humans are the vilest most evil virus to ever have existed in the solar system.

    3. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If pokemon were real there would be much more pressing issues...Like how the hell do you deal with the vast number of fire breathing dragons. I don't think a lance would do it.

    4. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      If pokemon were real there would be much more pressing issues...Like how the hell do you deal with the vast number of fire breathing dragons.

      According to Pokemon lore, the more gym badges you have, the more respect they will have for you and follow you orders.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, false implies everything.

    6. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by jcr · · Score: 1

      condemning Pokemon isn't that crazy.

      Yes, it is.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Project much?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      It's just a video game or whatever, but most people don't think it's crazy to condemn video games or other elements of pop culture which depict actions which would be illegal if they were real.

      I don't care what happens in your virtual world, and don't think anyone else should either, but that doesn't make it insane to oppose oneself to Pokemon or GTA or whatever.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    9. Re:It gets worse, BTW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet another childishly stupid post from ashfox.

  26. Re:Hypocrits. Fuck PETA by jcr · · Score: 1

    Mod Parent UP!

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  27. Same group that promotes beastiality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember folks protesting animal cruelty is only viable if you perform such cruelties.
    http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/09/19/164202/peta-to-launch-pornography-website

  28. its so cOLD here by Chompjil · · Score: 1

    How many year's since Red and Blue again?

    --
    People once told me 68K ram was all we needed,
  29. PETA is passe by avm · · Score: 2

    This is an organisation whose time came and went, but doesn't realise it and is futilely thrashing at anything that'll generate a headline containing their name. People are more aware of the issues they once touted, but are filtering out their sensationalist over the top antics that often obscure their message.

    Has beens, right up there with the *AA.

  30. Abusing humans by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2

    So Peta hates animal abuse but apparently love abuse on humans. That games shows a drunk human getting his ass kicked and abused by an animal, that is more retarded then the original complaint. I guess we should be worried about the harm to fictional animals not real ones.

    1. Re:Abusing humans by JStyle · · Score: 1

      Exactly. PETA hates a video game for "abusing" virtual/fictional animals, and turns right around and creates a video game abusing virtual humans. Human rights organizations should sue them for depiction and glorification of human abuse, they'd be more likely to win than PETA in this case.

  31. Peta is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking kidding me ? Now peta has to rape my childhood and discriminate against anime? Fuck you peta, fuck you.

  32. Facewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a simple facepalm isn't enough.

  33. No, not funny, boring. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, people, why is this story even here? PETA shits out a turd like this once a week. And Slashdot has given them exactly what they wanted.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:No, not funny, boring. by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Slashdot has given them exactly what they wanted.

      A collective, "wtf is wrong with you people"? That doesn't seem like a well considered strategy.

    2. Re:No, not funny, boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Slashdot has given them exactly what they wanted.

      A collective, "wtf is wrong with you people"? That doesn't seem like a well considered strategy.

      Page hits and a bunch of people playing their game and generating money to further their batshit crazy ideas.

    3. Re:No, not funny, boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because geeks enjoy a good laugh too?

      And this is no doubt a pretty funny turd.

    4. Re:No, not funny, boring. by j33px0r · · Score: 1

      The story is here because they made a sweet video game! It plays a bit better than the previous Mario game too.

      They might even create a major console release sometime in the future if they keep advancing. Of course, it would be for a game cube or something antiquated.

    5. Re:No, not funny, boring. by 1u3hr · · Score: 0

      A collective, "wtf is wrong with you people"? That doesn't seem like a well considered strategy.

      Peta isn't complaining about Pokemon at all. It's just using the release of a new Pokemon game as a hook to draw attention to real animal abuse. Slashdot is simply repeating the Forbes article that deliberately takes it out of context to make them seem like a bunch of loonies and disregards the actual issue.

    6. Re:No, not funny, boring. by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      I see. So the plan is to make 99% of people exposed to their campaign think they're absolutely nuts, so 1% might end up engaged with other parts of their website, where some fraction of that 1% will be won over to their cause and become an asset, who will then have to overcome widespread perception that the organization is batshit insane and don't deserve rational consideration?

      Yeah, still a horrible plan.

    7. Re:No, not funny, boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wanted derisive laughter?

    8. Re:No, not funny, boring. by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see. So the plan is to make 99% of people exposed to their campaign think they're absolutely nuts

      If you only go by what Forbes says, yes. If you actually read what they say, no.

      No one writes articles saying, say, that McDonalds encourages children to steal with the Hamburglar mascot. Yet they want to say a cartoon campaign by Peta is absolutely serious and literal. Anyway, Peta can handle it either way.

      http://www.peta.org/about/faq/Why-does-PETA-use-controversial-tactics.aspx PETAâ(TM)s mission is to get the animal rights message out to as many people as possible. Unlike our oppositionâ"which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporationsâ"PETA must rely largely on free "advertising" through media coverage. We will do extraordinary things to get the word out about animal cruelty because we have learned from experience that the media, sadly, do not consider the terrible facts about animal suffering alone interesting enough to cover. It is sometimes necessary to shake people up in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action. Thus, we try to make our actions colorful and controversial, thereby grabbing headlines around the world and spreading the message of kindness to animals to thousandsâ"sometimes millionsâ"of people. This approach has proved amazingly successful: In the two decades since PETA was founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the country, with more than 3 million members and supporters worldwide. We have also had major groundbreaking successes, such as bringing about the first-ever cruelty conviction against an animal experimenter in the case of the now-famous Silver Spring Monkeys; orchestrating the first-ever raid on an agricultural facility (a factory farm in upstate New York that raised ducks for foie gras under horribly cruel conditions); and convincing more than 200 cosmetics companies to permanently abandon animal tests.

      I personally don't agree with their ultimate aims (don't use any animals for anything), but they're right in pointing out a lot of unnecessary cruelty in agriculture.

    9. Re:No, not funny, boring. by tibit · · Score: 1

      What PETA is ignoring, though, that not only people have this whole guilt-by-association thing built into their psyches, but also that PETA activists themselves may be, you know, unduly influenced by their own meant-to-be-effective PR campaigns. IOW: they are deluding themselves if they think that "free" PR is really free. No, it's not. It makes them, at least in my eyes, look like a bunch of loonies I won't even pay a broken dime to. No matter how noble their fucking cause is. They are solely responsible for their image being tarnished that way. I have no intention of putting work towards determining what of their PR is lunacy-for-clicks vs. what is their worldview or core ideas. Self-inflicted braindamage is for them to sort out.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:No, not funny, boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you're 100% vegan (where even your vitamin & mineral supplements don't have any animal products or byproducts in them), PETA would disagree *strenuously* with your claim that you "don't use any animals for anything".

    11. Re:No, not funny, boring. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Because they're lolztastic! PETA is great for entertainment as they unintentionally undermine their demented "cause" with great hilarity.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:No, not funny, boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want publicity and that's what they get.

    13. Re:No, not funny, boring. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Every time PETA comes out with something insane like that, I go to the website, and I get quite enough confirmation that, yes, they really are absolutely nuts in and of themselves, regardless of Forbes or anyone else. That "sea kitten" stuff was plastered all over their main page back in the day, and nowhere was there even the slightest hint that they were tongue-in-cheek about it.

    14. Re:No, not funny, boring. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      ot. It makes them, at least in my eyes, look like a bunch of loonies I won't even pay a broken dime to

      But they have got their message across to some who will be more receptive. They have to do dramatic and silly things to get any publicity. It's Gandhi's "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" principle. So they're up to step 2 or 3 now.

    15. Re:No, not funny, boring. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean that they are on their way to being labeled a terrorist group when eventually someone stupid will pull something stupid out of their trick hat? Well, then, one more reason for me not to be labeled a supporter of a domestic terrorist organization ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  34. PETA Kills by djl4570 · · Score: 5, Informative
    PETA 'killed more than 95 per cent of adoptable dogs and cats in its care last year' shocking new report says

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states. ...
    Records from 2011 alone state that of the 1,992 cats and dogs received, 34 were transferred, and 24 were adopted. The remaining 1,911 were put down, the report states.

    Read the rest at the link. If you want to know more get Penn and Teller's Bullshit! on DVD and watch the PETA episode.

    1. Re:PETA Kills by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      This should be old news to well...everyone. They also have no shortage of links to domestic terrorist groups, also shown on Bullshit! but there's also a pile of links on it available.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:PETA Kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Berman's Consumer Freedom? Slashdot pushes the lobbyist line - what a surprise.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Berman

      Re-hashing misleading statistics to derail the discussion time and time again. The internet is full of lemmings.

    3. Re:PETA Kills by D.+Book · · Score: 2

      You're quoting an article based on a report from one strident advocacy group (Center for Consumer Freedom), published in one of the Britain's least trustworthy media outlets (The Daily Mail), criticising another stident advocacy group (PETA).

      It's sad that such a cesspit of sources rates as "informative".

    4. Re:PETA Kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Penn and Teller went through the budget for PETA and found the purchase of a walk in freezer for storing animal corpses. There isn't any conjecture. They are killing animals in an industrial fashion.

    5. Re:PETA Kills by isorox · · Score: 1

      PETA 'killed more than 95 per cent of adoptable dogs and cats in its care last year' shocking new report says

      People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states. ...

      Records from 2011 alone state that of the 1,992 cats and dogs received, 34 were transferred, and 24 were adopted. The remaining 1,911 were put down, the report states.

      Read the rest at the link. If you want to know more get Penn and Teller's Bullshit! on DVD and watch the PETA episode.

      Daily Mail, therefore inadmissible as evidence in reasonable debate.

    6. Re:PETA Kills by djl4570 · · Score: 1

      Daily Mail, therefore inadmissible as evidence in reasonable debate.

      That's a genetic fallacy.
      Perhaps The Atlantic is more acceptable. A comparable story is linked here http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3171579&cid=41592303

    7. Re:PETA Kills by IcyHando'Death · · Score: 1

      Or check it out for free.

    8. Re:PETA Kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PETA has been found to collect animals for 'adoption', load them into their 'transport van', drive down the street a ways, *KILL* the animals, and dump the corpses in a near-by dumpster.

      Seriously. Read up on PETA's behavior, and you'll see the depths of depraved hypocrisy involved.

  35. ROLF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what

  36. Animal abusers are sick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    How someone treats another living thing when that living thing is powerless to
    defend itself is a very good test of the mental wellness of that person.

    Anyone who thinks it is "ok" or "cool" to abuse animals needs to be removed
    from society.

    And all you little jerkoffs who think all this is something to joke about
    need your nuts kicked so hard they come out the top of your little dickeating
    skulls.

    .

    1. Re:Animal abusers are sick. by drkim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How someone treats another living thing when that living thing is powerless to
      defend itself is a very good test of the mental wellness of that person.

      Anyone who thinks it is "ok" or "cool" to abuse animals needs to be removed
      from society.

      And all you little jerkoffs who think all this is something to joke about
      need your nuts kicked so hard they come out the top of your little dickeating
      skulls.

      .

      ...or you could say:
      The ability to tell the difference between a fantasy game and reality "is a very good test of the mental wellness of that person."

      ...and...

      People who think other humans should have their "nuts kicked so hard they come out the top of your little dickeating
      skulls...need to be removed from society."

      FTFY

    2. Re:Animal abusers are sick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thinks it is "ok" or "cool" to abuse animals needs to be removed
      from society.

      The problem with PETA is how they define "abuse". Most people are most certainly not in favor of abusing animals, but when PETA claims that an imaginary magical being is being "abused" it simply makes anything they say look ridiculous. It's imaginary, if the creator says it's not abuse then it is not abuse, by definition, no matter what parallels PETA or anyone else wants to try and draw to reality.

      And all you little jerkoffs who think all this is something to joke about
      need your nuts kicked so hard they come out the top of your little dickeating
      skulls.

      In other words, it's perfectly OK to abuse a human. This is why you get laughed at. Fucking hypocrites.

  37. "Sparring" has two "r"s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a life.

  38. Hypocrisy from Forbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ironic that the article author doesn't link to the PETA statement to reduce its visibility, yet increases its visibility by writing an article about it. Nice hypocrisy Forbes.

  39. YOU ARE DEAD TO ME by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Please turn in your polyhedral dice and delete your /. account, you have just lost all your nerd points.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:YOU ARE DEAD TO ME by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, the D stands for Mother's Basement?

    2. Re:YOU ARE DEAD TO ME by isorox · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, the D stands for Mother's Basement?

      Like a sex dungeon?

  40. Anthropomorphized by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    Except both the games and anime treat the trainer's pokemon as though they were equal to humans in many other ways. I no longer care for the games and anime, but when I did use to play them and watch them, the only message I got from it is that you should treat pets as lifelong friends. Take away to supranatural powers and narrative immortality part of the story and you necessarily remove the battling aspect and all you are left with is animal care - and most children can understand the difference.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  41. They will really hate tOSU's marching band by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    The band's halftime show a couple days ago is filled with anti PETA propaganda

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3iaxt7a16g

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  42. Horrible Conditions by genfail · · Score: 1

    Consider the horrible training conditions the Pokemon must go through in their entirely fictional training camps. http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/06/20

  43. It's like they get up every day by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Thinking some new way to be retarded. Kill and eat all of them.

  44. All you need to know about PETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ingrid Newkirk is a bitch and a hypocrite.

    An organization reflects the characteristic of its founder/president/CEO.

    To extrapolate, it is the same with Microsoft and Steve Ballmer: insane, losing the plot, irrational exuberance etc.

  45. Blaziken and Houndoom by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are battles like cockfights?

    Whether battles are like cockfights or like dogfights depends on whether you've brought a Blaziken or a Houndoom.

  46. DMG == Game Boy by tepples · · Score: 1

    Nope, it's Dot Matrix Game, the 3-letter code for the original (black and white) Game Boy. Look at your Generation 1 (Pokemon Red Version or Pokemon Blue Version) cartridge to see a DMG code along the side of the label.

  47. Uh by kiriath · · Score: 1

    I thought it stood for people eating tasty animals.

    Why do they care?

  48. Ob. Dilbert by swm · · Score: 1

    Dogbert: No one should ever wear fur!
    Dilbert: Don't you think that's kind of hypocritical? You wear fur every day.
    Dogbert: Oh, yeah, I guess you're right.
    Dogbert (walking away): Wait a minute...

  49. How serendipitous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey! I just watched the Penn and Teller episode on PETA!

  50. Just reacting to stimuli? Kitty says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cats do not just "react". In the morning, they are very proactive at meowing, pawing, and short walks towards the kitchen that say: "Stop sleeping or getting dressed, and put some canned food into my dish."

    That's without even getting into species like elephants and gorillas that have demonstrated high-level consciousness. Koko even knows sign language and has had her own pets!

  51. Ron Jeremy as Mario by tepples · · Score: 1

    "Kind of resembles" is an understatement, given these photos. But does Ron Jeremy make a better Mario than Bob Hoskins or the late Captain Lou Albano?

    1. Re:Ron Jeremy as Mario by JDeane · · Score: 1

      The horrible part of all that... Ron Jeremy would get my vote as looking more like Mario than Lou Albano or Bob Hoskins (Hoskins how did he get the part? at least Albano kind of looked the part.)

      I have only ever watched one movie with Ron Jeremy in it but maybe thats for the best based one what I have heard... Orgazmo a hilarious movie if you have never watched it. But he seemed like he could act?

    2. Re:Ron Jeremy as Mario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have only ever watched one movie with Ron Jeremy in it but maybe thats for the best based one what I have heard... Orgazmo a hilarious movie if you have never watched it. But he seemed like he could act?

      He is also in Boondock Saints. Apart from that it has mostly been "family" films.

  52. stuffed into pokeballs? by stackOVFL · · Score: 1

    Hmm stuffed pokéballs.. Hmmmm, I wonder what that could lead to. hmmmm.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsqUshEERvE

  53. yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know what peta dont condemns fire bombers in fact about 70,000 $ of not condemning the guy and family

  54. peta stand for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "peta" stands for "a bunch of sorry mother fuckers".

  55. Wish Nintendo would make a game like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish Nintendo has the balls to make an actual game like this that is a deconstruction of the Pokemon concept. Instead, they just keep cranking out the same shitty kids' game again and again. Nintendo doesn't give a shit about addressing its adult audience.

    1. Re:Wish Nintendo would make a game like this by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I wish Nintendo has the balls to make an actual game like this that is a deconstruction of the Pokemon concept.

      But, they didn't even develop Pokemon to begin with, Game Freak did that.

      Instead, they just keep cranking out the same shitty kids' game again and again.

      Except they aren't, because they aren't the ones developing it.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Wish Nintendo would make a game like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Childish little boy playing games. Grow up little boy.

  56. Pokemon Was all about equality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ash said that he and pikachu were friends not master and pokemon. They tried to show the evils of just taking pokemon and using them for their own benefit. Showing how through gaining friends(pokemon) and working through trials and hardships you can strive through what everyone else thinks, and do whats right! Obviously PETA has never watched or played pokemon or they would know that its all about equality and fighting captivity not the other way around. Ash and his pokemon friends fight to strive past everything, even PETA and their misguided views on morality of Pokemon should realize that. Just like real life, not everyone accepts animals(Pokemon) as equals or friends. PETA should embrace Pokemon, as they send the generals message that every single life is equal. It just so happens that Pokemon show their emotions through friendly battle(in a fake and made up world).

  57. Why single out Pokemon? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of other cartoon shows that involve similar themes so why single out Pokemon? Because its the most popular? Because its owned by someone big (Nintendo)?

  58. So... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    I take it that PETA wasn't sure if they had made themselves totally irrelevant yet so they come up with this?

  59. Should have picked a better enemy than Ash. by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    I used to be really into Pokemon back in the 90s, and one of the things I remember was that Ash loved the hell out of Pikachu so much that hearing his dialogue in this game was really funny. Peta got his portrayal so comically wrong, having Ash himself suggest he never once showed any sign of caring for Pikachu and never gave Pikachu the choice not to go into his pokeball as a sort of "What do you expect from me?" conversation as Pikachu tries helplessly to get the apparent circus ringleader Ash to see the error of his Pokemon abusing ways.

    I think even cursory familiarity with the subject should be a requisite if you're going to attack it in such a dedicated manner.

  60. Good points. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pokemon does promote cruelty to animals and in the franchise the creatures are treated as toys, not living beings worthy of respect.
    Worse still, it's incredibly stupid and that's worse for children's minds than any vulgarity or violence.

  61. Re:first peta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why limit yourself to one? It can be a little awkward to position yourself, but you can eat a nice hot pussy while it's getting plowed by a nice hard cock. I get 2 or 3 legitimate (not too fat, not too old) responses every time I offer my services on Craigs List. And every time, the wife/gf sucks me off or lets me fuck her afterwards

  62. "Whack a Mole"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wondering when they will start protesting THAT game?

  63. PETA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PETA. Is that People for the Eating of Tasty Animals? Yumm tasty animals.

  64. Re:Hypocrits. Fuck PETA by game+kid · · Score: 1

    Second link to this article was broken. Well stated in any case.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  65. This organization would have no reason to exist .. by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 0

    But then, there are the 'I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur' ads ...

  66. Euphemism treadmill by KingAlanI · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill#Euphemism_treadmill
    That's exactly what the euphemism treadmill is.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  67. Trolling PETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did this a hell of a lot during highschool, there is a PETA office in our town, so lot of us from the school would get dead dogs, cats, whatever roadkill when we were bored on a weekend and we'd wait till sunday night around 2-3am then pile them all in front of the front door, while hanging some from parking signs, door handles, etc.

    was hilarious, it got picked up in local newspaper and a report 1 had quit cause of the "emotional distress it caused her"

    job well done imo...

    they are so easily trolled.

  68. Kills more animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check PETA's killsheet for 2011:

  69. So, now, they're ... by epp_b · · Score: 1

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Creatively Animated Cartoon Animals.

    Or just: PETCACA.

  70. Romney-Obama Debate by Jessified · · Score: 1

    The real question on everyone's mind is where they stand on Pokemon liberation.

    http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/10/4/1/enhanced-buzz-29282-1349327955-0.jpg

    1. Re:Romney-Obama Debate by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      The real question on everyone's mind is where they stand on Pokemon liberation.

      Screw Pokemon Liberation. How about Pokemon Libation instead? Hang out and get falling down drunk with Ho-Oh, Articuno, and other favorite Pokemon. :)

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  71. NOT Stuffed into Pokeballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why everyone gets this so wrong. Pokemon aren't physically stuffed into Pokeballs. They're stored digitally, then retrieved and re-assembled when the Pokeball opens.

  72. nude protest by realkiwi · · Score: 1

    Will this mean a nude cosplay protest by beautiful PETA supporters?

    --
    realkiwi
  73. PETA, get a life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... just keep on showing us your boobs.

  74. Well, now I want a MH parody game too by ikaruga · · Score: 1

    Regardless if you agree or disagree with their message, those "fan" games are fun. Monter Hunter has both "animal" cruelty and "animal" product consumption. They have NO excuse not to make a parody for that franchise. Hopefully they will make "good" use of WebGL 3D acceleration technologies in order to reproduce an experience similar to the original games.

  75. No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People forget what PETA really stands for. They want ALL animals to be free, includings pets such as cats, since "owning" a cat is abuse in their eyes.

    If you wanted to show the American voter is willing to go that far, you would show laws aimed at REALLY protecting kids most dangerous enemy, the average driver. You don't. The greatest child killer in the USA goes free and unchecked.

    People are willing to do a lot of meaningless things to feel good but they won't do anything real. That is why PETA will fail.

    And as a cat owner, good riddance to them.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by chthon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cats do not need protection from PETA, because the cat owns you.

    2. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      PETA is not an organization that loves animals.

      They have repeatedly demonstrated that, via various acts that have been harmful and frequently fatal to the very animals they were "rescuing". They operate under the assumption that (despite daily evidence to the contrary) that animals fear and despise humans universally and unconditionally. This isn't even true for wild animals, much less domesticated ones. One of the biggest problems the filmers of the "March of the Penguins" documentary had was that the penguins kept wanting to socialize with the people who were trying to film them. In Alaska, wolves have been recorded bring their pup to the side of the highway for no apparent reason other than for people to admire them. Even skunks have shown a preference for living around humans on occasion.

      PETA is an organization that hates humans. The animals are just a justification. If they really loved animals, they'd do their homework and learn what the animals themselves really want.

    3. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nobody owns a cat, they just become willing servants. PETA clearly know nothing, it is the human animal they should be trying to save from exploitation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right on!

      MovieBob said it quite clearly in this "BIG Picture" episode http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4988-Skin-Game ...this was after the Mario Tanooki suit crap that PETA pulled almost a year ago. Holds true still

    5. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by tibit · · Score: 2

      I think I have to agree, it seems true at least in the case of our house cat. She seems perfectly content, and she takes care of us just as we do take care of her. She's pretty good at killing insects that occasionally get inside. She seems to know quite well when one of us is sick, and if something hurts she'll curl up over the spot and stay there, sometimes for many hours. She loves being scratched, and can lay under my arm and purr for an hour while I browse /. and scratch her. It's easy to tell when she's upset over something, such moments being quite rare. She doesn't like going to the vet, that's for sure :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    6. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 0

      My cats remind me of this every day

    7. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      It's called 'prayer'.

      Pray you aren't modded offtopic. Why do you antitheists insist on injecting religion into every thread? Religion has nothing to do with PETA or Pokemon and has no reason to be in this discussion.

    8. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People forget what PETA really stands for. They want ALL animals to be free, includings pets such as cats, since "owning" a cat is abuse in their eyes.
      [...]
      And as a cat owner, good riddance to them.

      As a cat owner, my cat is free. She can leave any time she wants. She doesn't, because she has a better deal with us.

      The only thing I truly find abhorrent is having them declawed. If you have to hack a cat that much to keep it, get something else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you make some very good points.

      However, I'm not sure I want to know what a "RabidReindeer" really wants.

    10. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      The only thing I truly find abhorrent is having them declawed. If you have to hack a cat that much to keep it, get something else.

      So nothing wrong with surgically ripping out their reproductive organs? I'm sure you got your cat's approval first, right? You do realize that the only reason your cat is so happy to live in your house is because they have been selectively bred, by humans, on purpose, over hundreds of years, to be docile and compliant, yes? There's a reason you don't have any wild cats willingly coming to cuddle on the couch with you. We've basically "created" domestic cats, we make all their decisions for them, we decide when they live or die, if they escape we catch them and bring them back, if they don't pee in the right place they are punished or re-programmed, etc... If left to their own devices most would starve to death or get eaten because we've also destroyed their survival instincts. This sounds a lot like slavery to me... I know, you'll say, "But my cat has a great life!" which may be true, but the fact remains that we've forcibly stripped away whatever natural wildness was ever originally in the animal.

      Imagine if aliens came here, and started creating lobotomized versions of humans to be pets. I'm sure you'd be the first in line to sign up..?

    11. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So nothing wrong with surgically ripping out their reproductive organs? I'm sure you got your cat's approval first, right?

      Actually, I got the cat with the reproductive organs pre-removed, so that wasn't my call to make.

      You do realize that the only reason your cat is so happy to live in your house is because they have been selectively bred, by humans, on purpose, over hundreds of years, to be docile and compliant, yes?

      First, cats aren't that docile and compliant necessarily; this one sure isn't. Second, she's not allowed in the house; I'm allergic to cats. She's about as wild as a cat can be while still eating some crunchies (but she lives mostly on vermin) and being pet occasionally. Got her throat ripped up by something once, we put aloe on it and she made it but now she says "meh" in stead of "mao".

      Imagine if aliens came here, and started creating lobotomized versions of humans to be pets. I'm sure you'd be the first in line to sign up..?

      That is a truly stupid comparison, which I have already come to expect from you. We got the cats we have now over generations of selective care for some cats and murder or neglect of others, we didn't make them we bred them, and largely unintentionally at that. My cat is still fairly fundamentally wild. It is sad about the fixing (what a lovely euphemism) but it's not clear that she would still be alive if she went running around looking for a tom.

      In general I do think it's pretty sad to neuter animals. It's not as sad as having overpopulated, diseased animals hanging around, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Also offtopic but:

      Why do you antitheists insist on injecting religion into every thread?

      Why do theists insist on injecting their religion everywhere else?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    13. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The problem with activist organizations is often they don't know that they should stop and they have achieved their goals.

      This is what happens. They start out with a simple achievable goal. They will often get to 80% of that goal, and they have a bigger pot of money. With that money they add more goals and keep on adding more and more stuff to their platform until they have a huge organization that in order to satisfy and make happy would be impossible.

      PETA ok you are against fur coats. Getting fur coats out of fashion and/or legally banned is obtainable. Getting all of us to stop eating meat dump our beloved pets to the wild to be prey for wild animals. And dumping cattle who will die within one week without milking. That is getting more and more impossible. However there is still fights so they get more funding.

      For most activist organization they start out with their hearts in the right place, but then they get funding, and if they admit it or not, greed takes over and they are working more to keep the organization going and less about actually solving the problems they wanted to solve.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    14. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      Well there was nothing unintentional about our breeding of pets, and it doesn't matter how we did it, we still did it. But whatever, if you're not happy with the lobotimization scenario, just imagine instead if there was some superior race of creatures that came here, and started selectively breeding humans to behave better instead of something surgical. Or better yet, forget about how it happened, just imagine that they treat humans the way we treat animals. You ready to volunteer? Look, I'm not saying it's bad that you treat your cat good -- it might as well have some sort of decent life now that it's here. What I'm saying is that we should stop breeding these animals and treating them like commodities. Imagine if humans were bought/sold, bred/killed, neglected/abused, eaten/wasted, etc... in exactly the same way we do to other animals. I don't think anyone would be OK with it... In fact, we used to do that didn't we? And the world has pretty much unanimously decided that it's "bad". Why is this different for animals?

    15. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Judging by the people these days, I'm pretty sure aliens have landed and started lobotomizing people.. not just for pets though.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    16. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Imagine if humans were bought/sold, bred/killed, neglected/abused, eaten/wasted, etc
      In many places in the world any number of all of these actions are still happening and usually for profit.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    17. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by steelfood · · Score: 1

      What actually happened is that they learned about Schrodinger's cat. Since they consider being in a state of both dead and alive at the same time is unethical, they decided to save it from such a fate by killing it before it can be put in the box.

      By killing the animals they rescue, they have saved them. Makes perfect sense.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    18. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you antitheists insist on injecting religion into every thread?

      Well, I don't know about where you live, but around here people are always telling me to "pray for xyz." Sorry, but I'm not going to do something I think is pointless just because it makes you feel better. To me, praying is like saying God doesn't know what he's doing.

      Religion has nothing to do with PETA or Pokemon and has no reason to be in this discussion.

      Seems to me that asserting animals have rights humans don't, based on nothing but emotion, is a religious position.

    19. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by houghi · · Score: 1

      since "owning" a cat is abuse in their eyes.

      I agree with them on that part. For me animals should live free or bread for consumption.
      Having them as pets is unnatural.

      And when breading them, please let them roam around as much as possible. Do not put them in cages. Not because it is cruel, but because it ruins the taste and structure of the meat.

      And FYI: You don't own a cat. Nobody does. Either you hold it prison or it tolerates you.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

      Cats do not need protection from PETA, because the cat owns you.

      Cats don't have owners. Cats have staff.

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    21. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      What if you live in Soviet Russia?

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    22. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Let me break it down real simple for you: I value the life and well-being of my cat more than some (many, in fact) humans out there, quite literally so. That good enough for you?

    23. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Dogs have owners. Cats have minions.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    24. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well there was nothing unintentional about our breeding of pets,

      It almost certainly began by simply feeding the friendly/intrepid animals brave enough to hang around their camp, and those too wimpy to hang out with the wild animals, after noticing they ate annoying animals — or hell, just not killing them.

      and it doesn't matter how we did it, we still did it.

      So why did you bring up the issue of intent?

      What I'm saying is that we should stop breeding these animals and treating them like commodities

      Well, I agree with you. The cat isn't just a cat, she's our feline rodent control officer. She's not a commodity, she's an officer.

      Imagine if humans were bought/sold, bred/killed, neglected/abused, eaten/wasted, etc... in exactly the same way we do to other animals. I don't think anyone would be OK with it... In fact, we used to do that didn't we? And the world has pretty much unanimously decided that it's "bad". Why is this different for animals?

      Because the animals would do the same to us if they were clever enough. IMO the only thing wrong really is treating animals bad, because we should be clever enough to empathize with other species. But if you look at what animals do naturally to one another in the process of eating, it's not just graphic, but barbaric. Many animals torture their food, for example.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by cffrost · · Score: 1

      [She got] her throat ripped up by something once, we put aloe on it and she made it but now she says "meh" in stead of "mao".

      I think that "Chairman Meh" would be a cool/funny name for a cat.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    26. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Not all theists are Jehova's Witnesses. Most Christians won't bring up religion unless someone else has brought it up first. Look at slashdot comments. Despite the fact that 2/3rds of the world population is Christian and over half of all scientists are as well, how many theists do you see bringing up religion in an unrelated topic? But almost every thread, there's an offtopic antitheist troll.

    27. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In Alaska, wolves have been recorded bring their pup to the side of the highway for no apparent reason other than for people to admire them. Even skunks have shown a preference for living around humans on occasion."

      The most likely reason for both of these is quite simple: food. We have a lot of it and animals don't.

    28. Re:No they do NOT stand a chance in the USA by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of an old TV show I remember from the late 80s. I think it may have been called Probe. Anyway, some guy had invented a smart computer which started killing people. It later turned out that the computers logic thought it was doing good - It was killing good people to send them to heaven, saving them.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
  76. Patriot Guard by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    As a European it is hard to see how big the Patriot Guard movement really is, but it seems MUCH bigger then anything the religious fundies can get together.

    It is kinda nice. It resembles the British attitude to the brown shirts. Not so much a love of equal rights and multi-cultural as "fuck off you twats and hands of our people".

    I take a middle class biker who hates hate over a bleeding heart liberal anytime, because I know which one will be more useful when the shit goes down.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Patriot Guard by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Minor pedantry- the British Union of Fascists were "blackshirts", not "brown shirts".

  77. This is.. by ZeroMS · · Score: 1

    ridiculously hilarious. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big animal lover and have done/do my share of volunteering but this sounds more like the head of PETA was the kid whose parents never bought him a game boy and now he's just mad

  78. PETA still thinks as a child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funy how PETA can not distinguish fact from fiction and make believe.

  79. There is no ALF by McDrewbie · · Score: 2

    There is no "Animal Liberation Front" per se. At least not as an organized entity one can support or not support. Merely is a label that various people liberating animals can apply to, i guess, more easily communicate the motivation for their actions. And PETA exists just to get attention, good and bad, and as a nice magnet to attract criticism of the animal rights movement. It is easy to say, "Oh, I think PETA is crazy too, but I'm (or such and such) is more sensible, and this is why, and here are the facts." So it serves a purpose. Also you can get free stickers!!!! Also, on another note, destruction of property without loss of life is different than violence if you follow some of the reasoning of certain ideologies, methinks

    1. Re:There is no ALF by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      There is no "Animal Liberation Front" per se.

      Oh, really?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:There is no ALF by gninnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When a group is attempting to do things that are illegal, it cannot have what would be a normal group structure, but one that is loosely structured with isolated pockets. As far as the violent/nonviolent thing it is just semantics. Legally Arson is considered nonviolent but legal definitions and what common use of those words sometimes do not like up. ALF and ELF use arson when other, safer means are at their disposal. Technically it is not a threat, but torching a green house is a bit more reckless than just spraying the area down with a persistent herbicide. Arson doesn't discriminate and is nonspecific. One of the U of MN research labs in this area was also destroyed along with years worth of data for some kind of disease. It was not a lab that used animals anymore than the physics lab, but was hit by someone claiming the ALF banner.

      By the letter of the law no one was harmed and it was non violent, but it certainly it does not have the spirit of nonviolence in how it destroys and the harm it does.

    3. Re:There is no ALF by tibit · · Score: 1

      FUD much?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:There is no ALF by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Arson is considered a violent crime in my state - so much so, in fact, that reasonable use of force against someone attempting to commit it is considered legal and justifiable. I would expect other states to have similar arrangements - it is certainly a crime with a very high likelihood of causing direct harm to people.

  80. This is the reason why.... by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

    ... I don't want to have something to do with organizations like PETA (living in Germany with equivalent organizations, which are in no way different). Though there might be at least some merit in what they are doing, I just can't bring it over me to support totally braindead fanatics.

  81. Every bloody time there's a PETA article by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 2
    Every bloody time there's a PETA article someone posts this, the implication being that becuase PETA kills some animals they take in, they're either inconsistent or they're evil.

    It's such a crock. PETA have responded to these accusations any number of times, the gist of their response being that the animals are so severely injured or traumatised that it's better they be put down. I don't see a problem with this response. I know PETA's a favourite whipping boy for Slashdot folk (along with Greenpeace and vegetarians - another time perhaps) but whatever you think of their views or their tactics, criticising them becuase they put down severely injured animals really misses the point of what they're about.

    1. Re:Every bloody time there's a PETA article by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      PETA kills some animals they take in

      That's an interesting interpretation of the word "some" you have there. If your friend makes a cheesecake and cuts it into 10 slices, and you eat all but half a slice, do you tell him "by the way, I ate some of your cheesecake"?

    2. Re:Every bloody time there's a PETA article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a great deal for you on a bridge.

    3. Re:Every bloody time there's a PETA article by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

      Not really. Make "some" 95% if you want - makes no difference. If 95% of the animals that end up in PETA's hands are so fucked up that the only humane thing to do is put them down then that's that. You could argue as to whether 95% of them really are that fucked up but I'm happy to take PETA's word for it - their hearts are in the right place.

    4. Re:Every bloody time there's a PETA article by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "but I'm happy to take PETA's word for it - their hearts are in the right place."
      Who caress where there 'heart' is? They lie, cheat, organize terrorist groups, and are extremely hypocritical.

      IN fact, there heart is in getting money and attention while spreading misinformation and ignorance.

      Based on the animal they have 'recovered' there is NO WAY 95% of then are so fucked up they must die.

      Josef Mengele's heart was in the right place as well. I don't think that excuses his actions.
      .

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  82. Slashdot comments at their best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Purely one sided, an endless series of ad hominems ("they do bad therefore this argument is wrong") and complete inability to understand how fiction works ("they are not real! not real!")

    Yeah, I'm an anonymous coward. Deal with it.

  83. real life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When my kids were at the age of pokemon, I asked them if it would be ok to send Niky (our dog) out to do battle as they do in the show. It was pretty obvious to them that pokemon wasn't real. They knew we don't hurt our pets. Peta is wasting their time.

  84. PETA's concept of animal rights (was Re:Funny) by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Is whatever will benefit them at the moment --- idealistic drivel which would outlaw ``exploitation'' such as raising chickens for eggs or cows for milk (let alone for meat) and also banning working animals such as riding horses or service dogs, but allows them to save money by not funding no-kill shelters and have their lawyers arguing in court that``[a dog named Happy] was PETA's property, and she [defendant Hinkle] had the absolute legal authority to put the dog down.''

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  85. PETA murders harmless weeds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And after reading that article, they burn a LOT of it...

  86. PETA kills more animals than anyone by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    PETA's kill-rate is higher than the busiest public kill shelters in the country. PETA shelters killed 95% of all animals they took into their care in 2011, because caring for them would cost money they could otherwise spend running ads trying to make you feel guilty about having pets and eating cows.

    http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

    1. Re:PETA kills more animals than anyone by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      Ah. A website created by a lobby group for the fast food, tobacco and alcohol industries.

      I think I'd rather side with PETA than with them.

    2. Re:PETA kills more animals than anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because opposing nanny statism is a horrible, awful, terrible thing.

      http://www.consumerfreedom.com/about/

      It is logical fallacy to say the message is false because of who is delivering it.

    3. Re:PETA kills more animals than anyone by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      It is logical fallacy to say the message is false because of who is delivering it.

      Well you're wrong, but this isn't a discussion that has anything to do with logic anyway. This is about opinion, some people have one, some people have another. Both sides will lie to further their cause, so the only question becomes, which side do you trust more? Which side feels more "right"? Even though PETA has some crackpot members, at least their goal is for a positive change in the way we treat animals. The CCF's goal is basically to just get more of your money into their clients' bank accounts.

    4. Re:PETA kills more animals than anyone by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      I admit that it's possible that what they claim is true. However, given the record of the fast food, tobacco and alcohol industries of dishonesty when it suits their bottom line, I see no reason to consider that website a reliable source. Why would I? They have a history of dishonesty, why should I believe this is any different?

  87. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 2

    I've never played Pokemon, but PETA just gave me an awesome idea. Capture REAL animals, cram them into metal balls, and force them to fight. Thanks, PETA!

  88. No more Pokemon for me then! by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    ...just give me a load of birds and a catapult, then.

    Or maybe some moles and a big hammer.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  89. Go Musharna! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Yawn. Psychic. Dreameater.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  90. They don't even try by Quila · · Score: 1

    A couple PETA employees in North Carolina were put on trial for killing cute newborn kittens in the back of their van and throwing them in a dumpster. This after telling the vet they got them from they were going to find a good home for them.

    Unfortunately, although the facts of the case as above are known, they were acquitted on killing the kittens. I think one got it for improperly disposing of the bodies though.

  91. The outrage by Teppy · · Score: 1

    If PETA thinks that Pokemon is bad, I would like to direct them to this so-called game that makes a sport out of tipping cows! I would like to encourage PETA to protest my game in the most vocal way possible, because, damn, it's tough getting free press for a gambling game. Get it on Slashdot, on Gamespy, on CNN and on Time Magazine's site. Please? PETA? I'll give you a soy cookie!

  92. First Big Bird, now Pokemon? by gubon13 · · Score: 1

    What will children of extreme left and right families watch???

  93. Erwin Schrödinger is next! by CachorroMaluco · · Score: 1

    Psicologicaly torturing cats and students since 1935.

  94. SO I HERD U LIEK TANOOKI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the WRONG LINK^H^H^H^HZELDA... it's in the other castle... :D

    http://io9.com/5892181/the-raccoon-scrotum-monster-and-other-awful-creatures-from-1800s-japanese-artwork

    1. Re:SO I HERD U LIEK TANOOKI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tanuki testicles can bludgeon catfish. Full of win

  95. Waiting by Volntyr · · Score: 1

    Personally, I am just waiting for Nintendo to file a good sized Copyright suit against them, in JAPAN

  96. PETA kills puppies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PETA kills puppies. http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ With such cognitive dissonance, how can anyone take anything they do seriously? They're crazy. It's clear they simply want attention. And by posting this story on slashdot, you've given these crazy people exactly what they want. Would anyone care if you stopped giving them free publicity? Would the world be a better place?

  97. I was in a long-term relationship with a PETA by aussersterne · · Score: 1

    coordinator, and the nuttiness is basically what ended the relationship (got worse and worse until I couldn't handle it anymore).

    The position inside PETA is that owning pets is wrong. They don't adopt this position in public for "companion animals" (they see the word "pets" as a form of prejudice and discrimination) because they know it's a loser with the public, but inside you'll hear them wish that all pets could be euthanized because being a pet is an inhuman existence yet there's no place for domesticated animals in the wild.

    This activity is entirely consistent with PETA's actual value system, which is more philosophical (but also far more radical) than they're given credit for. They see most forms of domestic animal existence as equivalent to Nazi concentration camps, but with more naive, innocent prisoners that are incapable of having the mental and emotional self-protection tools that humans have.

    I absolutely don't agree (I think it's worse if you're conscious and intelligent, and that pets are actually, for the most part, quite content in most households), but PETA kills pets not because they're hypocrites but because they think that death is preferable to "suffering" and that all domesticated animals are by nature "suffering" all of the time (in fact, they would prefer that all domesticated breeds be allowed to disappear by attrition and euthanasia).

    Like I said, nuts.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  98. PETA Kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PETA Kills animals instead of getting them new homes!

  99. Re:Just reacting to stimuli? Kitty says otherwise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're reacting to the fact that they're hungry and you haven't fed them yet.

  100. Reminds me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  101. Please Execute These Assholes by msobkow · · Score: 2

    PETA seems to protest everything except actual animal abuse. Their record for their owned animal shelters in the US isn't any better than other groups. In fact, they apparently terminate more animals than the "average" shelter does, rather than see the animals "abused" by new owners.

    What I can't understand is why they get any press. Or is the press just because they seem to have more nubile young women in their protests than most organizations, making for good eye candy backgrounds while their representatives speak during interviews?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  102. Still waiting by Coffeesloth · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for PETA to declare the bible as inciting animal abuse. Where do you think the term "Sacrificial Lamb" comes from...

  103. PETA by geekoid · · Score: 1

    is full of brain dead idiots and hypocrites. Stop giving them headlines.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  104. Where is the Borderlands Press Release by Dastardly · · Score: 1

    SAVE THE THRESHERS!!!

  105. Soon PETA in Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no! That Lion is killing that antelopes that's Animal abuse!

  106. PETA Almost Relevant for 2 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just in! No one cares. Not one single creature in the Pokemon universe is any kind of real animal. They are all made up creatures. Welcome to reality. I don't hear Ash screaming "Squirrel, I choose you!" How about denouncing things that make sense for a group of animal lovers in the REAL WORLD. Like maybe animal testing. Hey remember when PETA was somewhat relevant and protested animal testing? Yea, me neither, it was a stretch.

  107. That is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats a great way to deal with the kind of intolerance that WBC stands for. I don't care about LGBT issues at all, but intolerant religious fruitcakes drive me crazy, and just reading your post made my day. Thank you.

  108. ROTFLMAOATNISPCAWAIWOOFMEOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROTFLMAOATNISPCAWAIWOOFMEOW

  109. Why is anything PETA does even news? by xda · · Score: 1

    Why is anything PETA does even news? The media portrays PETA like its some kind of official organization that matters. "PETA condemns" LAF

  110. i've been saying this for years... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Pokemon is impressing younger kids to believe animals exist just to be "used". Those children will grow up with that in the back of their mind...

  111. Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, I've paid for that kind of fun.

    -Wedge