Gap in the hot seat over horrifying animal rights video


An investigation conducted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has revealed flat-out cruelty in the practice of harvesting angora fur. Now PETA is targeting Gap, a San Francisco-based clothing retailer, with a call for it to ban the sale of angora products altogether.

On Dec. 16, PETA aired an online video chronicling the disturbing process by which the popular sweater material, angora, is harvested from rabbits kept in cages in Chinese angora farms. The disturbing video was accompanied by a petition calling on Gap to ban angora sales. With two days, the retailer had responded by suspending its orders for angora, but the animal rights organization was still calling for an outright ban.

Angora is a soft, relatively durable sweater material that's less expensive than cashmere, and it is possible to harvest it without causing injury to animal, but the vast majority of suppliers do not use humane methods. Roughly 90 percent of the world's angora comes from suppliers in China, according to PETA, where facilities exposed by an undercover PETA investigation use a violent method of harvesting the rabbit fur with no regard for the pain and suffering it causes.

PETA's initial post on Monday contained a disturbing video chronicling the investigation and the methods used by third party farms to harvest angora. Two days later, Gap posted this Tweet:

"We appreciate that this issue has been raised, and we share the concerns expressed by our customers about the treatment of angora rabbits. Ensuring the fair and humane treatment of animals has been part of our brand's history, and we're committed to seeking to ensure that our policies and procedures are adhered to as products are created.
Over the last number of days, we've looked carefully at the issue, and Gap is immediately suspending orders for products made with angora. We require that vendors contracted to make our product adhere to our ethical sourcing requirements that include the humane treatment of animals. We understand the importance of this issue and will work with others to advocate for lasting improvements."

Gap isn't the only company to purchase angora from ethically questionable producers. Many companies used the material, but retailers like H&M — who announced a company-wide angora ban on Fri/20 — and Phillips-Van Huesen (owner of clothing companies Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, among others), pulled their angora products immediately after PETA showed them the video.

When PETA initially showed Gap the same video, however, it was slow to respond, prompting PETA to make Gap the focus of its media campaign. Now that Gap has agreed to suspend its angora purchases, PETA continues to pressure the company to impose an outright ban on the sale of these products.

The video, which is difficult to watch, shows the standard practice by which the angora farmers exposed by PETA acquire the fur. The rabbits are tied down, screaming, while the farmworkers painfully and forcibly remove the tiny animals' fur. After the ostensibly unsanitary and violent process, the rabbits are literally tossed back into tiny, filthy cages looking more like meat than living creatures.

But even after the recent publicity, a depressing question remains: What is to happen to the rabbits still at those angora farms?

As things stand, Chinese law does very little to prevent cruelty at these factories. The farms supply 90 percent of the world's angora, according to PETA, so even after the loss of major customers such as Gap, H&M, and Phillips-Van Huesen, they will likely continue operating.

"There are no laws protecting the animals on those farms, there are no penalties for abusing those animals," said PETA spokesperson Ashley Byrne. "So really there isn't some legal precedent in China for those farms to be shut down."

The only way to combat angora fur farms, according to Byrne, is to not buy the products.

"The most effective way to stop the kind of cruelty that people can see in this angora video is to simply stop buying it," she said, "and to stop supporting this industry. Whether a label says one percent angora or 100 percent angora," said Byrne, "The price paid by the animal is too high."


i know knitters who have their own angora rabbits, and they just collect the brushed out strands to turn into yarn.

more kindness in this world, please.

Posted by SF'er on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 1:47 pm

How we treat the weakest among us is a measure of who we are.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 2:14 pm


Some sick, fucked up people.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 5:14 pm

I didn't know Gap was still around. I thought they went out of business.

Well under the category of "Animal Rights," that would also include Fish. In the "Italian Job" restaurant article shown at the top of the page, that writer doesn't seem at all concerned about this topic as they write about the "seven seafood courses." That involves the killing of fish for the outrageously expensive "seven seafood courses" (up to $90 PER PERSON....clearly only for the wealthy).

To begin with, these days I don't know what thinking person would eat any "seafood" considering the state of the oceans, unless they really don't care about their own health and/or live in Denial.

Kelp along the Pacific Coast has been found to be contaminated with nuclear radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster which is still happening, and fish eat kelp. Then there's this:

China Bans Shellfish Imports From US West Coast

The way things go, I suspect many people to live in Denial and continue to eat fish and anything else they've always eaten because getting most people to change their behavior is nearly impossible. Instead they would rather make excuses and/or justifications for their behavior or the old classic "Attack the Messenger" (me for writing this).


Dr Helen Caldicott on Fukushima radiation, nuclear fusion, renewable energy

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 5:11 pm

I have been exploring for a bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts on this
kind of space . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this
site. Reading this info So i'm glad to exhibit that I have a very just right uncanny feeling
I found out exactly what I needed. I so much undoubtedly
will make certain to don?t disregard this site and provides it a look regularly.

Posted by Orval on Aug. 03, 2014 @ 6:46 pm

"Ensuring the fair and humane treatment of animals has been part of our brand's history..."

That's the same newspeak propaganda used by Niman Ranch, and Niman Ranch KILLS their animals to sell as "meat." How is that being "fair and humane treatment?" I know people who used to be vegetarians and vegans who have fallen for this shit. They now eat "meat" because (they say), "it's been raised in a fair and humane way..."

Then they have very blank look on their face and start squirming when they are asked: Can you explain exactly how it's "fair and humane treatment" to KILL the animal for you to eat? You seem to have missed the main point. So an animal has to give up its life so that you can have a meal? There are no other foods on the planet for you to eat?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 5:37 pm

Ok, so the rabbit stuff is some sick shit. I don't support torturing animals just for their fur, or to test makeup or whatever. But food is a different story. Sorry, people have to eat. Here's a moral dilemma that no vegan has been able to satisfactorily explain: why is it not OK to kill animals, but OK to kill plants for food?

I'm not joking here. Plants are living things. Some experiments even show that plants have consciousness and respond to pain. But *even* if they didn't, who are we to make the arbitrary determination of which living things it's ok to kill and which are not. Why should ability to feel pain be the line that we draw? After all, some humans have a condition that makes them unable to feel pain. Some draw the line at consciousness, or intelligence, or cute-n-cuddliness. But all of these are just as arbitrary as the next distinction.

My distinction is this: don't kill and torture for frivolous things, but if it's for food or medical research, I'm basically ok with it. And btw, if and only if you're going to eat the rabbit anyway, then yes, go ahead and use the fur rather than throw it away.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 6:03 pm

"why is it not OK to kill animals, but OK to kill plants for food?"

The plants are NOT killed. The plants continue to grow. Just the FRUIT of the plant is being killed and that's the way they propagate. They are supposed to be eaten. Many plants are annuals (meaning they die each year). One uses far less water with plants than with raising animals for "meat." The amount of calories one eats is much more efficient with plants.

World's Healthiest Foods:

But I strongly suggest that you continue to eat "meat" especially seafood from the Pacific (particularly more salmon, Japanese oysters, kelp and shellfish especially). When you're done with that, continue to eat more bacon, pork cheek and pork butt (that's really good stuff). I hear that high cholesterol levels are really good for one too. Hope this helps.

I'm sure if you were to DuckDuckGo: "why be a vegetarian or a vegan" the information would all be there.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 6:33 pm

Many plants such as carrots, wheat, corn, etc, are killed whole. Doesn't matter if they're being raised for food and would die anyway. You're still killing them before their time. Just like with animals that are raised for food.

The health issues are separate. Nutritionists will disagree with each other, but generally things eaten in moderation are fine. People are natural omnivores. We're made to eat a varied diet.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 8:05 pm

"but if it's for ... medical research"

Human beings should be used for medical research and not other animals, since the medical research is intended for and to benefit humans. Therefore let humans undergo the research on and for themselves. Why use other animals for that?

Your thinking insinuates and implies that humans are superior to other animals, when that's not the case. I can't think of any other animal on the planet that has caused as much misery, death and destruction on the planet as has the human animal, especially when religion has been involved.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 6:52 pm

Medical research should be done on people. But in some cases, ethical concerns preclude certain experiments on humans. And yes, I'm drawing an arbitrary line there. In fact, drawing a line at not eating humans is arbitrary in some ways. It's a moral conundrum that I don't have a good answer to. But it's no more arbitrary than the lines that vegans draw, so I just don't buy the claim of moral superiority that vegans like to make.

The vegans have a facile answer, of course. But to me, their answer seems as logically full of holes as any other. The difference is that I acknowledge this is a morally murky area. I'm not claiming moral superiority, but I certainly cede no moral high ground to the radical vegans either.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

" but I certainly cede no moral high ground to the radical vegans either."

Spoken as a true-believer radical meat eater.

From personal experience, it's the meat eaters who claim moral superiority and superiority in general and who are radical in their position that they right and there's something wrong with you if you don't eat meat. I've heard that position countless times and have been subjected to it on occasion, yet I never say anything to anyone about what they eat, yet radical meat eaters feel the (moral) superiority to challenge me on what I eat and some have been bullies about it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 10:17 pm

Where did I say you don't have the right to be vegan? I could care less what you eat, as long as you don't tell me what I should eat. If you look at the whole quote, you can see that I clearly didn't assert any superiority. Just the opposite.

My position is just different. But that's the thing. In the radical vegan agenda, there's no room for difference. Nobody I know wants to *force* anyone to eat meat. Don't like it? Don't eat it! But on the other side of the debate, the slogan is "meat is murder." Meaning that not only do they choose to refrain from eating meat, but they want to stop *you* from eating meat too.

Really, it mirrors the whole liberal/conservative debate. For a liberal, it's no problem if someone wants to live their life as a conservative. "Against abortion? Don't have one!", says the liberal. But for the conservative, there's no room for someone to live their life as a liberal. "Abortion is murder!" says the conservative.

That's my whole issue with the vegans. And to be fair, not all vegans. Bill Clinton doesn't bother me with his veganism. I have no problem with Bill Clinton or anyone else living their life that way. It's the people getting in my face telling me that meat is murder, that I don't care for.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 11:07 pm

I was merely using some of your language back at you to see how you like it (the words "moral superiority" and "radical" as two examples) that you applied to "vegans." It works both ways.

And I'm not a vegan. Where did you get that from, or did you merely assume that? I'm a vegetarian. There's a difference, but I sense that you don't know there's a difference because I only see the word "vegan" used in your posts (5 times in the comment I'm responding to).

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2013 @ 11:40 pm

Vegans are more radical. Many vegans would consider you a torturer because you're still exploiting animals, if not murdering them.

Incidentally, I'm not even that much of a meat eater. I prefer fish. It's just not a political thing for me, like it is with a lot of radical vegans.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 12:16 am

UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet
Lesser consumption of animal products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change, UN report says

Posted by GuestInTheCastro on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 4:48 pm

The purpose of the UN is PR for holes like China, Saudi Arabia and other such abusers.

The domestic UN internationalists are always a laugh.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 7:21 pm

U.N. to Review NSA Privacy Violations Among Other U.S. Rights Abuses

U.S. Violating Human Rights of Children, Says U.N. Committee

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 9:52 pm

Seems like a good cross section of the world's countries. Maybe half have better human rights records than the US. US is on there too, along with many countries friendly to the US. China and Saudi Arabia are not on there, so if there are shills for those countries like you say, then someone else would have to do the shilling. Maybe the US can shill for Saudi Arabia, since they're such allies. As far as I can tell, there's no dominant ideology represented. Maybe I'm missing some "bias" that you could enlighten me about.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 10:48 pm

So you agree that it's a bit foolish to have human rights abusers on these commissions which makes them useless, but as a good internationalist you like them anyways?

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 7:41 am

I think it's good to involve all nations in discussions about human rights. No nation is perfect, so if we were to limit membership to perfect countries, no nation would fill that criterion. Nevertheless, the UN serves as one of the best vehicles for advancing the cause of human rights. It works best when everyone is at the table.

What's the alternative? Enforcing "human rights" through military violence, excersized of course by countries who are themselves human rights abusers? No thanks.

The consensus positions that come out of bodies like the UN Human Rights Commission are usually better than unilateral directives that come out of any one member nation.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 8:33 am

Involving a country in discussing human rights that is hostile to human rights is just giving them cover.

Internal pressures are slowly raising women up in Saudi Arabia, nothing to do with the UN.

Internal pressures of a growing middle class in China will demand rights, China being on UN commissions in the past, passing useless Chris Daly resolution does nothing. It actually acts as a cover for these abusers.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 10:03 am

"Those nations don't care about human rights"... sounds so absolute, but in real life things are rarely so. Some nations care more about human rights than others. Some nations even have legitimately differing opinions on what constitutes human rights. Some nations may be good on some human rights (better even than countries that consider themselves exemplars of human rights), but worse on others. Regardless, consensus world opinion does matter, and does constitute one form of pressure.

I'd probably say that it is more of a pressure than the things that market fundamentalists often cite -like that "growing middle class" of yours. Actually, I'd argue that China's growing middle class is helping perpetuate the system. For all the occasional rumblings in the hinterlands that you hear about, China is much more quiet than it was in 1989. They're nowhere near revolution. Did you ever wonder why it's calmed down? It's that growing middle class you cite. By all accounts, most people in China are basically content with their government, because material living standards are rising. As long as the middle class is growing, nobody wants to face the tanks in Tianamen Square. If you think that the growing middle class will automatically come with demands for more rights, then you're very naïve about the inner workings of the Chinese state.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

None of these countries went back totally to the status quo for long.

When the USSR and Eastern black fell apart the UN had little to do with it, they couldn't even help out much after the fact.

There was the Arab spring, no signs of the UN. All those revolutions got the Chomskynaughts all worked up as well.

In China in 1989 the UN was useless.

It's peace keepers keep getting caught horning underage girls and doing other idiotic things.

The UN defense in the Korean War was considered bad form by many "progressives" at the time, if the USSR wasn't boycotting the security council the progressives would have had their way and all of Korea would be a leftist Utopia.

The UN committees made up of abusers make Chris Daly proclamations that no one cares about, when actual human rights abusers get tossed out the UN seldom have anything to do with it, and when they do actually do something people get raped by the peace keepers, or the internationalist left thinks their actions are bad.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 27, 2013 @ 7:09 am

Unless you're willing to implement rationing of meat, I don't think it's going to happen. Well, we sort of already have capitalist rationing -most of the world's people don't eat meat every day anyway. It's only common in the rich countries, and I suspect it will become less common among non-rich people in rich countries as food becomes more expensive. In the end, we're probably headed for a human population collapse because of what we're doing to the planet.

But you're not going to get people to save the planet by voluntarily changing their habits, any more than you can fund social services through charity alone. I eat almost no beef, but that's only because I don't like the taste of it. As a foodie, I just wouldn't be willing to change my eating habits, especially when we're unwilling to do anything to stop corporations from destroying things on a macro level. Besides, given the kinds and amount of animal protein that I consume, a vegetarian diet wouldn't really be healthier for me. It wouldn't offer me much in the way of reducing cardiovascular risk, and may actually be worse because it would be much harder to get my omega 3s, but it would mean a lot of deprivation of things I like.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 10:15 pm

hmm interesting

Posted by elektronik sigara on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 10:58 am

No animal is killed or tortured by me eating eggs and cheese and I've never, ever talked with a vegan of which you describe. Perhaps such a person exist on message forums but out in the public no vegan has ever gone off on me for eating eggs and cheese.

You use the word "radical" in what I sense as a pejorative to label someone as "extreme." That's a right-wing tactic. Countless times I've heard the right-wing scream about "Oh those radicals..." referring to anyone they disagree with and used as a put-down. The founders of this country (the US) were radicals. I see radicals as positive, trying to shake up the stagnant and often corrupt status quo.

To "GuestInTheCastro": Thanks for the link to the "RADICAL" United Nations.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

Go to PETA's website... you know, the folks featured in this article n' stuff, and see what they say about cheese. Cheese is torture, according to PETA.

No vegan has gone off on you for eating cheese and eggs? Really? Well, OK, let's ask the vegans what they think about cheese and eggs. I posed a simple, neutral question on google: "Is eating eggs and cheese humane?" Here is a sample of what I got, mostly the first responses.
Again, PETA's president EMPTHATICALLY says NO!
According to PETA, you sir, are a torturer of animals by eating eggs and cheese. Is that a radical position? Well, you can decide for yourself. But that is, undeniably, PETA's position.

Here's a sampling of what real rank-and-file vegetarians think of your egg-eating habit. A few -a distinct minority -do agree with you, but most think that you are not a real vegetarian and you are not humane.

Another vegetarian weighs in on how cheese = cruelty to animals. I was giving vegans the benefit of the doubt by saying that they don't claim cheese is murder (merely torture). Apparently they do claim it's murder too.

These are not minority opinions among vegans. Heck, all you have to do is look at the link GuestintheCastro provided to understand what vegans think of cheese and eggs! You're saying that no vegan has ever gone off on you for eating cheese and eggs, praising him for providing a link, but his link is all about how horrible it is to eat cheese and eggs!!! The cognitive dissonance is mindboggling.

Again, you can decide for yourself whether it's radical to say that cheese and eggs = murder. Not just torture, apparently, but murder too, as I've now educated myself in vegan philosophy. I certainly think it's radical. I'm no right-winger, but to me that seems very extreme. You may differ on whether someone calling you a torturer and murderer is extreme or radical. We're all entitled to our opinions, you know.

But we're not entitled to our own facts. And the fact is that this is what vegans, for the most part, believe.

BTW... none of that takes anything away from this issue. I totally agree with them about the rabbits. But the rest of their radical agenda? Count me out!

Posted by Greg on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 9:57 pm

Sadly Penn and Teller interview idiots like the Nuge, but they document the crazy PETA.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

I admire their passion, I admire their advocacy. I just don't sign on to their whole agenda. Some of that advocacy is not only morally right, but courageous and unique. Not many people are going undercover to document these kinds of horrible abuses. They serve a purpose, and I'm glad they're out there pushing the envelope. You don't have to sign on to their whole agenda to agree with some of it and to recognize the importance of the work they're doing.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 10:44 pm

I thought they were a couple nice guys who did a magic/comedy shtick in Vegas. They should stick to that. Their political commentary is laughably one-sided and hypocritical. They poke fun of PETA for putting "ethical" in their name to sound innocuous ("who isn't for ethics?"), and then they turn right around and interview some dude from a group that calls themselves "People for Consumer Freedom." Well, we're all for "freedom" too.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 11:14 pm

You are an SF progressive that thinks the Bay Guardian is journalism and fall for all the left wing buzz words.

You complain about Penn and Teller while falling for the most moronic ravings of San Francisco progressives and such easily debunked non sense inequity studies that suit your biases.

You have high standards for those you don't like but zero from those you do, just because they agree with you.

PETA is a pack of assholes.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 12:24 am

You are the self-proclaimed arbiter of all that is wrong and hypocritical about progressives, but you're the biggest hypocrite of them all.

You parade your facile amoral nihilism as high philosophy, but when real thinkers (yes, like Wilkinson and Pickett who have done serious research) actually come up with something that explains the world around them in a way that the likes of Penn and Teller never will, you casually dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrow world view. You accuse others of narrow-minded thinking, but fail to see that you're the narrowest mind of all. Your entire ideology can be summed up in one sentence, and you refuse to consider anything that deviates from your narrow frame.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 8:31 am

so very very good

I posted a link by a person who debunked that inequity non sense and you called it right wing lies or some such thing.

Anyone familiar with statistics could drive holes through all of that neo-hippy BS right off.

I'm happy to point out Penn and Tellers total non sense, the one about Walmart was dumb for instance. In this case they debunked PETA. Your comment about the use of naming with these groups is somewhat astute, until one notes that progressive idiocy is your thing.

Greg, the problem is that you are a Utopianist. You will follow the lead of all the dumb things that progressives come up with because it is labeled as such and uses the correct buzz words. I don't believe anything just because it was dreamed up by Tom Ammiano and pitched by the Guardian.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

I most certainly do not follow the lead of all things progressives come up with. Case in point: this thread. I've disagreed with the Guardian on a number of occasions. But yeah, I'm progressive, so most of the time I agree with them.

You, OTOH, automatically reject anything BECAUSE it's supported by progressives. Even if you would otherwise tend to agree, you can't help yourself but find an angle to criticize progressives. It's like an itch you have, an obsession. Seriously, Matlock, you are not well.

As for Wilkinson and Pickett, they didn't start out writing a political thesis on inequality. They're epidemiologists. They just looked at the data -25 years of research, and drew the correlations. But since their correlations confirm things that progressives have been saying, you hate it.

So you found another hater who thinks like you do -a guy who works for some right-wing think tank, not a scientist but a hack (oh, excuse me, "freelance journalist") whose only previous contribution to the world of serious research was a similar book about how "warning labels don't work" for cigarettes. No surprise it was funded by the tobacco industry. His shabby hit piece on Wilkinson and Pickett's research was similar schlock playing fast and loose with the facts.

But this is just par for the course for you, Matlock. You want to disguise your single-minded, obsessive hatred of progressives as high philosophy, so you google to see if anyone agrees with you on any given issue, and manage to pull some nobody out of your ass. And then you pass yourself off as some erudite thinker because you can quote some hack off the web. I called bullshit on your shtick long ago.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 6:47 pm

for making my point.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 7:03 pm

Why don't you understand Matlock's proof of your error Greg?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 5:06 am

Penn & Teller are scum of the earth.

I remember them from back in the day when they played the Phoenix theater on Broadway.

That guy Teller ought to be locked up.

And Penn is just a big mouthed bully.

Posted by Eastside Clyde on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 8:22 am

but the points on PETA are astute, minus putting the Nuge on TV.

I linked it because it is infotainment form, for Greg.

Greg thinks they should stick to comedy, perhaps, but he thinks Tom Ammiano, a comedian is a deep thinker.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

Oh the hypocrisy! Jesus! To watch a person who eats animals (and all the bad things attached to that) rabidly attack a vegetarian who is doing more for the planet by being a vegetarian than the person eating animals is the height of hypocrisy I have to say.

I'm a vegan and I don't fit Greg's stereotype of vegans. I have friends and some acquaintances who are vegetarians and we eat together (yes!...imagine that...that's possible between vegans and vegetarians). They don't necessarily consider eating free-range organic eggs and vegetarian-rennet cheese "murder or torture" either. It came up on one occasion. We've talked about it in a casual, calm manner. As they say, from their research and their grocery store's in-depth research it depends upon where the eggs and cheese come from because not all dairies and chicken supplier are the same, nor do they use the same business practices. That's true. Often locally-sourced, non-corporate, small independent businesses are quite good in this regard They are humane. Major national corporate chains? That can be another story! Inhumane. Avoid.

Then Greg refers to "you sir" in his comment. One wonders if Greg is always sexist (as well as hypocritical) and assumes the gender of someone he doesn't know? Ugh.

Posted by GuestInTheCastro on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 1:55 am

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The entitlement of people who are doing things that no one asked them to do is so odd.

Posted by Matlock on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 2:50 am

I got my so-called "stereotype" from listening to what real vegans are saying, some of which can be found in the links I provided.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 8:20 am

Don't give me that troll bullshit. You know what I'm talking about, because you yourself have been accused of "hate" by trolls on other threads for specious reasons. Yes, I'm making a shorthand assumption about your gender, an assumption that's about 95% accurate on this board. That doesn't mean I'm sexist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't be an asshole about it. Just because an opening for a snide remark pops into your head, doesn't mean you should post it.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 8:48 am

When will you get it through your head that your personal choices belong to you and you only? They don't serve as a guidepost for how anyone else should live their lives other than you.

Babbling endlessly about your food choices, the type of phone you use, how many possessions you chose to have or not have and your hobby of watching corporate shuttles and counting the number of disembarking passengers is totally irrelevant to a discussion of policy. You're a useless old crank who really should learn to can it once in a while.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

Let's just go back to clubbing baby seals. They don't up nearly the fight rabbits do.

Posted by Chromefields on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 7:21 am

Or clubbing baby Kromefields.

Posted by Buzz Sawyer on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 10:42 am

This is friggin horrible to watch. The guy who is filming this should be punching the guy ripping out the fur in the face, not filming.

Posted by The Commish on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 8:06 am

wouldn't do anything to stop the cruelty. It would just prevent the world from knowing about it.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 24, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.