If she did, she might realize how ridiculous she looks to normal people and quit being so entertainingly brainless. Probably not, but it’s possible. Not to mention that she’d know that the KFC “vegetarian” fake-chicken sandwich she’s chowing down on here was cooked in the same fryer as the dead animal parts. PETA = Pam’s Eating Tallow from Animals!
(Hat tip: Mollygood)
She must have been hungry after traveling back from Australia, where last month she led an anti-KFC rally. That is, when she wasn’t appearing on the Aussie version of Big Brother, which was sponsored by… can you guess?
By the way, does that sandwich contain mushrooms? (Bottom-right corner. Once seen, cannot be unseen.)
Related posts:
- Pamela Anderson Loves Animals Almost As Much As She Loves $$$ Pammy has been in Australia for the last few weeks,...
- Pamela Anderson Slams Jessica Simpson Pam is not happy with Jessica! Drawing upon the full...
- Pam Anderson Is Good at Not Knowing What to Do About Her Life First she filed for divorce from professional parasite Rick...
- For Pam Anderson, PETA Stands for “Please Excuse The Amusement” Quick recap: Jessica Simpson wore a t-shirt that said “Real...
- Pam Anderson Shows Larry King Her Two Remarkable … Faces Pam Anderson, talking about her hepatitis C on Friday night’s...
She is such an idiot. I hope that the animal fat the veggie burger was fried in gave her the runs.
awww come on guys, she’s just being led by the “behind-the-scenes” PETA folks. She’s not smart enough to think about her own hypocrisy — oh wait, maybe her brains’ been fried by the years of peroxide she puts on her head / hair
…that very same peroxide that was probably tested on animals…oooh and then there’s the Hep-C medication she uses too…
I would like to second Chronic’s statement.
I’m not shocked at all. All that woman seems to think about is her own animal-fat-eating self.
She is a hypocrite. She eats meat, I’ve seen her eat meat.
Well, CAN she read? I mean, I don’t think I’ve ever seen her pictured with anything that looks like a book or magazine in her hand. And the fact that she doesn’t seem to notice how ridiculous she is leads me to think that she is indeed illiterate…
She’s so radical about it…
Pam Anderson’s a “vegan” because she knows that without acting like an extremist, she would have no notoriety except for just another groupie who hasn’t “done anything” since Baywatch.
Like Pam Anderson reads.
Pammy is simply an attention whore. I wonder if the vegan’s of the world think about what would happen if we eliminated animals and animal products from our diet? It would be the death of some of these species… if we did not use cows or chickens or bees for their hide,flesh,eggs and milk what would be gained by us offering them care and food? Nothing. It would also be difficult for the plants and crops that rely on animlas to fertilize them. Building sustainable agriculture would be very difficult without animals as part of it.
Pam is simply a whore. As if vegans are so innocent? What about the millions of insects killed by insecticide just so these hypocrites could eat their veggies?
STOP THE INSECTICIDE! One million ants are slaughtered every month by careless missteps, cruel young children with magnifying glasses, and newspapers wielded in ignorance and fear. Feeling bugged? To learn what you can do to help stop the insecticide, or to sponsor an orphaned pupae, call 1-800-555-PETI. People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects. Why doesn’t PETA invest considerable time and money fighting the senseless slaughter of bugs? There are 900,000 known insect species (three times more than the rest of the animal kingdom combined). That’s 80 percent of the world’s species, and surely some of them are capable of feeling pain as they rocket into our windshields.
SAVE THE BUGS — LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT TO 35 MPH
Every day millions of insects are killed on our interstate highways.
When the speed limits were raised to 75 mph, did anyone consider the impact on bugs?
Was an environmental impact statement done on the carnage that would be wrought on the insect kingdom?
It is time to stop this wanton murder of crickets, moths, butterflies, grasshoppers, flying ants, june bugs, gnats, mosquitoes, bees, and their kin.
Why should people just be concerned about harp seals and condors and bald eagles? Bugs deserve equal protection to all the nice warm and fuzzy critters.
Do you realize how many bugs you can kill on a simple drive of 60 miles? Thousands. And you heartlessly scrape them off your windshield. Think about the poor little bug families who lost a mother or father because you chose to go the speed limit.
Studies have shown that at speeds of less than 35 mph bugs will blow pass your car, and survive. At speeds greater than 35 mph they splatter.
Stop the carnage. Save the bugs. Lower the speed limits on our interstates to 35 mph.
Peter- you’d have an awesome point, if so may PETA spokes…people…hadn’t made it clear that PETA cares about animals you like to eat first, then cute fuzzy animals, then big sad-eyed animals, and screw the others for the most part. Find PETA a cute bug that people love to eat, and maybe they’ll be all over it. Bunny-pillars or something.
kim and discordia - she wrote a book.. im serious too haha
Kim and Discordia - my thoughts exactly.
Peter - kids and magnifying glasses - my first laugh of the day. Thanks.
Katie
How do you know she wrote it. She probabaly dictated it and someone else wrote it.
What really lies under the skin of today’s anti-fur hysteria is a discomfort with man’s domination of nature and beast.
There’s a new sport in town: hunt the fur-wearing celeb. It involves packs of paparazzi staking out posh pubs and clubs, where they wait for the fur-sporting beasts to emerge from the shadows. Then they shoot (with their cameras) and string up their victims for all to see in the pages of the following day’s tabloids. Madonna was recently spotted wearing dead chinchillas and Kate Moss was spied wrapped up in mink. These days, probably only the worse fate that can befall a celeb than to be caught wearing a fur coat is to be caught with child porn on their hard disk.
The latest victim of the great celebrity fur hunt is Heather Mills. It was revealed earlier this week that in 1989 (yes, nearly 20 years ago) Ms Mills wore her mum’s mink to a wedding. Given that she is now a spokesperson for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), accusations of hypocrisy have been flying around. An old friend of Heather’s told a newspaper, with barely concealed glee: “She really loved that coat … She’s styled herself as an anti-fur campaigner but was proud to be in her mother’s mink.”
I don’t see what all the fur fuss is about. If it’s okay to eat animals, hunt animals, keep animals as pets, and wear the hides of animals in the form of leather jackets and leather shoes, why is not okay to wear animals’ fur too? What really lies under the skin of today’s anti-fur hysteria is a discomfort with man’s domination of nature and beast. Fur - where we take an animal’s coat and make it our own - is just too explicit an expression of man’s control over nature for some people to handle. Behind the fury over fur lies a distrust and disdain for human civilisation, which is why it’s worth defending fur these days.
The anti-fur movement is motivated by a base and childish anthropomorphism; by a belief that animals have similar feelings to humans and thus should be protected from the pain and distress caused by the fur industry.
“Bunnies killed for fur scream as they are skinned alive!” says Peta in its various protests against J-Lo, Julien Macdonald and other celebs and designers who wear or make fur. Perhaps the bunnies also say to each other, Bambi-style, “Run, Bunny, run!”, as the wicked fur-hunter bears down on them with his evil shiny knife. The implication of the infamous anti-fur ad that showed a woman in a fur being attacked by burly men, clubbed around the head and stripped of her coat is that there is little difference between hunting an animal and hunting a human - we’re all living creatures with feelings and thoughts, aren’t we? So why is it okay to skin a “screaming” bunny rabbit but not one of our fellow human beings?
In fact it is not at all clear that animals feel pain in anything like the same way that humans do. Dr Stuart Derbyshire, an expert in pain at the University of Birmingham, says the fact that an animal might scream or recoil when trapped or threatened does not show that it has an appreciation of pain, much less a human-like thought process. “Chop the head off a chicken and it will continue to run around. If you catch the headless chicken - quickly - and stick a pin in its foot, it will still flinch, despite no longer having a head or a brain”, says Derbyshire. “These reflex responses are coordinated by a spinal-motor loop and do not involve the brain or require conscious experience.”
It is profoundly different for humans who are threatened or trapped. Our human consciousness means we experience pain and distress in a much more powerful way. A human can think to himself “I could die today” - a supremely terrifying thought - but an animal is incapable of thinking “I could die today”, as Derbyshire explains: “Animals do not understand the concept of ‘today’, unless we think foxes use calendars and keep diaries; or ‘die’, unless we think that mink have funeral rites; or ‘could’, because they have no sense of probabilistic inference; or even ‘I’, because they also have no sense of self.” Such concepts are “uniquely human”, says Derbyshire.
So while my response and the bunny rabbit’s response to being chased by a knife-wielding man might look similar - both of us would run like the wind, and possibly scream - they could not be more different. My consciousness means I would experience it as painful and chilling, whereas the bunny is motivated only by a base instinct for survival bestowed upon it by the evolutionary process. It is cheap and crass to compare animal experience with human experience, and to call for equal treatment of beast and man.
Today’s fashion for protecting “feeling” animals from uncouth and uncaring humans expresses a broader disdain for the gains of humanity. The notion that we have no right to experiment on animals, or to eat them, or to keep them in cages, or to wear their fur - notions that are increasingly indulged in mainstream debate as well as on the fur-hating fringes - represents a direct assault on the very basis of human civilization. Civilization is built upon the idea that we are morally superior to animals, and it was only through the subjugation of animals that civilization could emerge and flourish. Only by taming beasts or removing them from large parts of land could we build towns and cities; only by housing chickens and livestock in factory-like spaces can we guarantee feeding millions of humans.
Today, many express their anti-humanity through being pro-animal. Their adoption of animals as poor little fluffy screaming victims is motivated by a desire to rein in “human excess” or “human hubris”. For them, the imprisoned pig comes to symbolize man’s greed; the wired-up monkey our apparently bizarre obsession with experimentation and progress; the screeching rabbit our wickedly violent streak. These animalists cannot see that our use of animals is fundamentally humane: we “imprison” pigs and other animals in order to liberate large sections of mankind from hunger and need; we put monkeys in cages in order to develop our understanding of medicine and thus improve and save millions of human lives.
And yes, even fur is humane. To turn an animal into a fur coat is to ennoble it. As a fashion item, an animal acquires significance far beyond its own natural existence. Indeed, the only true “purpose” in the life of a mink or rabbit is that bestowed on it by the hunter, skinner and fur-maker - through their efforts, an animal is elevated from an instinct-driven bundle of reflex responses to an item worthy of being displayed in Paris, London and New York. Through human endeavor and labor an animal is given a use and meaning that nature could never have designed for it. What is a mink but a wild beast scrabbling for food along riversides, destined to die and rot in the shade of a tree? The mink worn by Kate Moss was spared this fate and made into something memorably beautiful.
No finer fate can befall an animal than to be caught by a fur-hunter.
As an animal lover and hater of all things PETA, who better than Deceiver readers to see what disgusting thing they’ve come up with now.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihuSs74CWmjYT-tliNolmbNVuUng
I’m surprised more people don’t know or haven’t brought up Peta’s own animal abuses:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
PETA Employees Face 31 Felony Animal-Cruelty Charges for Killing, Dumping Dogs http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/109
Who Will Watch the Watchers?
PETA is an anagram of pate … mmmmm, foie gras …
Pam and PETA are such idiots! Human beings have been on this planet eating meat for ever! All of a sudden terrorist group PETA comes in the spotlight and is denouncing humans who eat meat. Wake up people, we are carnivores, hence our teeth, made for tearing meat! if you want to be a vegetarian by choice go ahead but STOP bashing the majority of the world who eats meat!!!!
bucky…it was just a shock factor ad. YOU now go to the peta website and watch “meet your meat” then respond
I am no lover of PETA or celeb causes, but I would like to respond to the author who asserts that animals feel no pain. Common sense would dictate that being skinned alive is painful. I don’t believe that a controlled “study” is required to draw that conclusion. Animals have nerves, a central nervous system, and a brain with which to perceive pain. Pain is something that is required for survival, which most animals are keen on doing, whether or not they can grasp concepts like “tomorrow” or “die”. And actually saying that they do or do not perceive of these concepts requires a huge leap of faith in either direction. We are constantly discovering that animals are more like us than we have thought. For example; Did you know rats are ticklish and produce similar brainwaves as humans when tickled? Certainly an animal that is capable of feeling and perceiving pleasure is capable of recognizing pain. The average dog has the intelligence of a mentally challenged 5 year old. While yes this means the average domesticated dog is not incredibly intelligent, would you say that dog is not capable of perceiving pain, fear, or even terror? Since domesticated animals are invariably less intelligent than their wild counterparts, wolves, who are also killed for fur, would certainly be capable of understanding pain and suffering. Abused animals do not quickly forget their abuse and adjust their behavioral patterns accordingly. Would that not indicate some understanding of suffering?
Fur industries often skin animals alive to reduce production costs. It is far too costly to humanely dispatch these animals and would greatly reduce profits off a 45,000 dollar coat. The fur industry isn’t motivated by human hierarchy over the food chain or need, but pure greed and is not worth defending.