PETA Game Discourages Animal Testing in Breast Cancer Research

Animal rights group PETA has posted a new online game designed to spotlight the use of animals in breast cancer research.

Breasts, Not Tests is a Whack-a-Mole clone. Players click on cleavage shots and try to avoid clicking the animals and, oddly enough, fruits that appear. As play progresses, tiles vanish with ever-increasing speed. High scores can unlock rewards such as wallpaper and banners.

So what message is PETA pushing with Breasts, Not Tests? From the game’s web page:

We all know that breast cancer is a serious disease that affects most of us in some way (either personally or through someone we know), but did you know that it also affects animals?


It’s true. Monkeys, rats, mice, rabbits, cats, dogs, and other animals often suffer and die because of horrific tests that are conducted in the name of breast cancer "research." Besides being cruel, the "research" is also ineffective…

THANKS TO: Brett Schenker of the ECA and comic book site Graphic Policy for the tip!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Chamale says:

    This is why it’s hard to take PETA seriously. People might care when they complain about bear culling, or Japanese whale research, but they protest worthy causes in such proportions that their entire organization became a strawman of itself.

    This is a signature virus. Please copy and paste into your signature to help it propagate.

  2. jedidethfreak says:

    No, I’m arguing that the Federal Government shouldn’t have the power to tell me what medical procedures I have to get.  That should be my decision and nobody elses.  I shouldn’t have to worry about being thrown in prison for refusing treatment, or having treatment forced upon me, literally at gunpoint (if sent to prison, the medical procedure would be forcefully given, at gunpoint if necessary).

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  3. jedidethfreak says:

    All people.  If your doctor truly feels that your medical procedure is necessary, they can get a court order requiring it, even with religious exemptions.  The people in the story I linked claimed a religious exemption, to no avail.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  4. Ashkihyena says:

    "That part PETA conveniently omitted."

    Ah, just like Jack Thompson, PETA lies, omits things and such and such.  Wonder if he’s a member?

  5. Philippe says:

    Why is it okay for parents to let their children die?

    Because that’s essentially what you are arguing in favour of.

  6. Father Time says:

    Didn’t know that

    Is that just for pregnant women or for people in general? Oh and do they force jehovah’s witnesses to get blood trasnfusions or do they get a pass for it being a religious rule?


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  7. jedidethfreak says:

    Not true, if the doctor feels it is "medically necessary."  If women want to deliver naturally but the doc says she needs a c-section, they’ll get a court order if they have to.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  8. ecco6t9 says:

    PETA is nothing more than a group of a bunch of spoiled bratty teenagers who never grew up and have always had mommy and daddy to help them out.


    Lets see them pull off some of their acts in more hostile parts of the world.

  9. Father Time says:

    I think in that case they wouldn’t let the mother make the decision because it would be child neglect or something.

    Adults patients at the very least have a right to refuse treatment.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  10. jedidethfreak says:

    According to the law, they would have to.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  11. DarkSaber says:

    could =/= would


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  12. jedidethfreak says:

    True, but the rights for said decisions are supposed to transfer to parents or legal guardians, but in this case, it went to the courts.  Right or wrong, I don’t want the government telling me what medical care I have to get, and if I don’t get it, it will be forced on me.

    However, you missed the point.  I gave Peta an out to their moral dilemma.  The leader of Peta calls for bans on scientific animal testing while getting medical treatment found due to scientific animal testing.  If they didn’t take such medicine, as they should be morally obligated to do, the government could and would step in and force it on them anyway.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  13. Yuuri says:

    Said 13 year old is also mentally handicapped, and it was proven that he did not understand the ramifications of him not getting treatment, ie that he had a near 100% of dieing if left untreated.

  14. jedidethfreak says:

    I will give them an out here, because the State and Federal governments can, by law, step in and force people to undergo any medical procedure a doctor deems necessary that they refuse to take for any reason.  It happened recently in Minnesota, where a 13 year old didn’t want to undergo any more chemotherapy because of how sick it made him.  He talked his parents into shipping him away to avoid a court order forcing it on him.  For those of you always whining about me saying stuff like this without a link:

    This is nowhere near an isolated incident, either.



    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  15. Father Time says:

    But that would compromise their "we all ready have good alternatives to animal testing" line of bullshit.

    Then again they could always claim their funding even better alternatives. Why isn’t Peta doing this then?


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  16. hellfire7885 says:

    That part PETA conveniently omitted. This won’t just save the lives of humans, but the lives of ALL cancer suffering animals, including humans.

  17. State says:

    I don’t mind PETA saying that animal testing is wrong so long as they decide not to reap the benefits from it. Their members must refuse to receive any medicine or treatments produced from using animal testing. If their lives were on the line and there was a cure that was created from testing on animals then they should decide to die. At least Jehovah’s Witnesses follow their moral code and decide not to have life-saving treatment as it goes against their beliefs, PETA should do the same.

  18. Pinworm says:

     If you do a little research into some of this testing, they actually do most of it on rodents that have cancer already, and the suffering is the same type of suffering that chemo causes to cancer victims – it can make you sick, you can lose your hair, BUT IT’S BETTER THAN FUCKING DEATH.

  19. jedidethfreak says:

    This, right here.  Humane Societies are ususally run by responsible pet owners who are looking for good places to send discarded pets.  Peta is just a bunch of whackjobs.  More animal cruelty could be prevented in this country by educating would-be pet owners on the actual responsibilities of owning a pet than by shutting down KFC and medical testing.



    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  20. Lou says:

    I laughed so hard when I heard about this. They whine about a stupid housefly and yet they have killed over 21,000 dogs, cats and other types of companion animals in the last 10 years. It’s like having a dictator throw a fit because another nation killed one of his own and yet he commits massive genocites as a hobby.

  21. DarkSaber says:

    You obviously missed their press release about saving the common housefly after Obama swatted one in an interview.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  22. Philippe says:

    If I had to personally slay a billion puppies and kittens to save someone I loved from dying of cancer, I would do it.

    No question.  No hesitation.

    If you love animals, support your local humane society – not a political organization.

  23. hellfire7885 says:

    If PETA is so against animal testing then they can get in line.

    ME, I’d gladly put a rat under a radiation gun if I knew it could help move toward a life saving treatment, while thanking the little thing for it’s sacrifice for the greater good.

    If it was reported that testing was being done on spiders, cockroaches and flies, they likely wouldn’t have said a thing.

  24. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    That’s great. That’s real great.

    Hey, anybody got any links that back up this claim that the testing is actually cruel? What are we talking here?

  25. Saxy says:

    I should make some sort of witty comment… but PETA, Like old Jack-O, seem to be pretty good at self-destructing, so what’s the point?

  26. Kajex says:

    Yeah… a few years of "YOUR MOMMY/DADDY KILLS ANIMALS" pamphlets doesn’t invoke a good image. Fortunately, as Penn Jillette once stated, "Bullshit detection is written in our genes".

  27. Neeneko says:

    The only thing that will ever stop animal testing would be VERY sophisticed computer models, the type we are still decades off building (the best we have right now is simulating a single virus).

    So if PETA were intersted in actually stopping animal testing, they would be pouring their energy into improving computer technology.

  28. Ashkihyena says:

    Oh for the love of.  Yeah, once you tell the VP to get off her insulin, then you can complain you bunch of hypocrites.

  29. killatia says:

    No matter how much you wine about the medical research teams are not gonna stop animal testing. Its an important part of the process and without it we would lose 90% efficentcy on medical research.

  30. SounDemon says:

    That’s because a lot of the time, they don’t give a shit about the ethical treatment of animals, they’re too busy being self-rightous preachy reactionary vegan attention-whores. Also, they don’t give a shit about humans, they’re too busy caring about the animals.

    See Holocaust on your Plate Campaign.

  31. Neeneko says:

    PETA cares about animal liberation in the same way the inquisition cared about saving people….

    They do not just want to liberate animals, they want to exterminate any species that has evolved with humans.  So say goodby to cats, dogs, horses, etc.

  32. Lou says:

    You forgot to mention that PETA has been involved to eco-terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and they have paid legal expenses for terrorists caught by the authorities. Also they BARELY use the donated money to help and protect the animals they claim to protect. Most of the money is funneled to it’s umbrella organizations and the propaganda scattered all over the US.

    I stand against animal curely in any shape or form but organizations like PETA and HSUS are literaly domestic terrorists. When I donate money it goes to the SPCA and that’s it.

  33. Austin_Lewis says:

    Very nice.  Been a good while since I’ve had a good laugh a la Duke Nukem.  Ah, I still remember typing cd/duke3d and duke3d back in DOS.  Ah, the memories.

  34. Kajex says:

    "And as for your last point, if aliens come to earth and demand we serve them, you’ll either find me on top of a pile of alien carcasses or in a grave."

    Not without regulatory red tank-top, blue jeans, short haircut, mirrored black shades, lit cigar, shotgun, lack of bubble gum, and $100 bucks to invoke the lady types to "shake it, baby."

  35. Austin_Lewis says:

    Animal testing is still doing good.  Your point is already moronic.

    However, we’ll continue this charade and pretend you said something worth reading.

    ‘Ethical Treatment of Animals’.  Let’s review this idea.  It suggests that 1) there is unified code of ethics that everyone will agree on (hint: there isn’t) and that 2) it needs to be applied to animals.  But the real problem here is that first part.  

    For example, I like steaks.  So does much of America, and, for that matter, the parts of the world that can afford them.  Now, go to India and see if you can get a steak from a street vendor without offending them.  See, the majority view on ethics for animals in India says you can’t kill cows.  Drivers will actually cause car accidents by swerving into another lane of traffic rather than hit a cow.  On the other hand, you have places like Japan, where everything is eaten (well, nearly), and they even have a dish that sounds far more cruel than my crab legs, lobster, or steak; you see, they have a dish wherein they marinate shrimps (live) in strong liquor, and then you eat the shrimp, while it’s still alive.  To me, that sounds strange; to them, it’s a delicacy.  Oh, and in some asian countries, my dog is a delicacy too.  VARYING ETHICS.

    Discouraging animal testing is a good thing?  Fair enough.  I’ll let you believe that, if you’ll then agree that you and members of PETA can’t use anything that came from it.  Which means that one of the heads of PETA will, thankfully, die, what with her dependence on INSULIN.  Oh my goodness, the hypocrisy.  No, I think we should continue the research on animals, mainly because it still leads to great products and breakthroughs.

    You see, PETA agrees with their own slogan as long as it’s convenient to them.  For some great insight onto this, go to youtube and search for Wayne LaPierre PETA.  You should get a lovely video where PETA damns hunters for killing animals, and then defends themselves murdering dogs and cats left and right.  Sounds ethical to me, right?

    Or how about how they eat veggie bullshit.  That’s nice and all.  By the way, the ingredients for the veggie burgers that people in PETA seem to so love contain blood from the mice, snakes, rabbits, etc, millions of them mind you, that are crushed by farm equipment every year.  They don’t care about ‘Ethical Treatment’ at all.  The fact that you even believe they do is just hilarious, really.

    And as for your last point, if aliens come to earth and demand we serve them, you’ll either find me on top of a pile of alien carcasses or in a grave.  However, the fact that you would let someone else enslave you speaks volumes to your character.  Candyass.

  36. Yuuri says:

    It is because PETA doesn’t just want ethical treatment of animals, they want total liberation of animals. Which means no pets of any kind, no horses used for pulling carts or giving rides, no living assistance animals for the handicapped. To date they have killed close to 95% of all the animals they have ‘rescued’. Many of their videos showing animal cruelity are staged by them, ie are faked. Or the videos are from other countries that don’t have the same laws as US of A or are extremely old and out of date. Hence the reason why PETA are hypocrits. And they have supported a known eco-terrorist.

    There are (in the US of A) many laws governing how animal testing is done. On another forum, I’ve encountered a person that actually works in animal testing. He/She has stated if while testing something, and everything starts to go sour, they emediatly stop the testing to find out what is causing the problem.

  37. Neeneko says:

    I think the reason they get so much flack is not because of what they are fighting for, but how they do it.  Thier cause has a lot of support, but they themselves do not.

    Many people even feel that PETA hurts their own cause, so a lot of people who are against mistreatment of animals hate PETA.  It is a bit like working with NAMBLA… any support they can lend to your cause will probably do more harm then good.

    This game is an exelent example.  It does nothing positive… it gets PETA attention and builds status within the orginization, but real animal rights activists do NOT want animal activism be seen as opposing something like breast cancer research.  It is horrible press for real activists.  But I think at this point it is pretty well established PETA has no actual interst in animals.

  38. Thomas McKenna says:

    "We SHOULD be reducing the amount of testing done on animals, especially when the testing is no longer doing any good."
    Prove it.  This isn’t a statement that you nor PETA can throw around with ease.  Simply put, it’s not true.  Animal testing is still doing loads of good, and if it wasn’t then researchers would stop using it.  It’s as simple as that.  Animal testers aren’t some evil people who just want to see animals die.  They do it because it helps progress science. 

  39. Bennett Beeny says:

    Why is it, whenever a PETA article is featured here, we see the same mindless name-calling from almost everyone who chooses to comment?  I’m not a member of PETA myself, and I disagree with some of what they do.  But I don’t see why the idea of ethical treatment of animals should be automatically a cause for ridicule.  Discouraging animal testing is a GOOD thing.  We SHOULD be reducing the amount of testing done on animals, especially when the testing is no longer doing any good.

    If aliens come down to Earth someday I hope some of the folks here will not be hypocrites, and will support our alien overlords if they start doing painful and unnecessary tests on us just because they have no PETA to speak up for us.  Personally, I’m for ethics and against hypocrisy.

  40. mdo7 says:


    I think Ratchet & Clank would get pawned by Samus.  But I got a better idea.

    Ratchet & Clank vs Jak & Daxter.



  41. Father Time says:

    I’ve seen Mario vs. Sonic in a race to become governor of Minnesota.

    Although I’d like to see Ratchet and Clank vs. Samus.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  42. mdo7 says:


    I can throw that at PETA because they are supposed to be "Animal defender".  So shouldn’t that mean they should be defending Endangered Species.  I can throw that at them.  Tell you the truth, Couple of my professor (I work at NIH with researchers, and I know a Biology Professor from my college) who are better at animal liberations then PETA as in defending endangered species and protecting Whales, Rhinos, and Elephants from being killed just because of their valuable resources.  PETA doesn’t know the real meaning of "animal liberation" or "Animal defender".  If they want to be like that, they have to protect endangered species, and yes even go to Africa to protect the Rhinos and Elephants. 



  43. Father Time says:

    I’m no fan of PETA but I highly doubt they’re big enough to do all that stuff on the list.

    Also I don’t doubt that most members of PETA would be willing to help out with the items on that list.

    There are plenty of legit criticisms to throw at PETA but I don’t think this is one of them.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  44. Adamas Draconis says:

    My mother had cancer that had mestasized to her uterus while pregnant with myself and my twin brother. Thank the goddess we all survived.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  45. chadachada321 says:

    Great-grandma survived breast cancer twice, otherwise nonexistent, though I’ve spent a lot of time comforting my ex-gf whose mom is in an ongoing battle with cancer in her mouth.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  46. Father Time says:

    My aunt is a cancer survivor and I think one of my grandmothers died from it.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  47. SeanB says:

    Yes, we’ve got to watch out for that "research", because "research" isn’t always the "research" you’d think it is. What has "research" ever gotten us?

    "research" is totally ineffective? What kind of a message is that? Are they trying to say that since "research" hasn’t cured cancer yet, that it’s ineffective? Well, we may as well just stop trying altogether.

    More and more people are surviving breast cancer each year, and many are living longer, healthier, happier lives with the disease. Doesn’t sound like this "Research" is all that ineffective.

    Peta also fails to mention that of the monkeys, rats, mice, rabbits, cats, and dogs, 98% of them fall into the rats and mice category. Sorry, but it’s hard to shed a tear for rodents once you’ve seen what cancer does to a person, and very few people in the world can say they’ve been totally unaffected by cancer. My grandmother is a cancer survivor, but an idol and mentor of mine when i was young lost his battle. My 6 year old daughter has 2 (Yes TWO) classmates who are both fighting cancer right now. Cancer does not care how old you are.

    Sorry peta, but even if it takes a few million animals deaths to cure this disease, i’m okay with it.

    (Edit, if you guys don’t mind, please add how your lives have been affected by cancer with your comments)

  48. DarkSaber says:

    My aunt died of Lymphoma cancer a few years ago and my grandad just about beat cancer last year but it’s left him so weak he’s dying anyway.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  49. Father Time says:

    Well here’s one feminist blog thingy that hates PETA.

    Although in the battle I would side with all Mangled and Killed in a heartbeet.

    But if you forced me to choose it would be a tough one.

    Who I’d like to win: PETA. I do sympathize with some of the feminists but very rarely do I ever sympathize with the radical ones, and yet I sometimes sympathize with PETA. The radical feminists seem to be completely devoid of humor and believe some of the stupidest conspiracy theories, privileged people (aka white males) control the world, capitalism is a big glass ceiling. PETA hates me because I choose to eat meat, fems hate me because I’m a man who doesn’t kiss their feet. Also fems I think are more dangerous because some people take their arguments seriously whilst PETA is dismissed quite often.

    Who would probably win: PETA.

    Fems are content with shrieking like harpies and doing very little else. PETA does more crazy shit all the time. They throw blood at rich people who could probably sue, they have more experience dealing with police and of course dealing with firebombers. Fems on the other hand are huge cowards who are content with going after easy targets and won’t go after the biggest abusers of women on the planet, i.e. the Muslim hardcore with the same level of determination.

    Here’s how the battle will throw down.

    PETA calls in a few favors and all of a sudden the NOW headquarters or some den of radical feminism tripe begins to burn to the ground.

    Since they are struck the radical fems fall back on their first line of defense calling the attackers names, implying that they’re ok with rape and calling them sexist. This of course doesn’t bother PETA, who refute with animal murders and other such claims. Then the fems bring out the second line of defense, the battered and raped women which they have stored in their basement in case they ever need to grandstand about why feminism is still needed. PETA then responds with its own collection of abused dogs and other animals, but since they’re only animals they get creamed.

    Now PETA gets in for a direct act, now normally this would usually be a somewhat peaceful protest mixed with slander and loosely veiled threats, but since they’ve just seen unmistakable acts of unnecessary animal cruelty the gloves are off. Soon they attack with fanatical determination. Throwing buckets of blood at them then bashing their skulls in with the metal buckets. Bringing out the cute animal costumes which incidentally now have claws sharpened to a fine point. Some of them even start skinning and clubbing them with professional like skills having sought and spread hundreds of videos of people doing such things.

    However not all of the feminists are completely helpless, having been told that all men will rape you for no reason a lot of the feminists have taken rape prevention courses which gives many members of PETA several bruise and scars. Not all of the feminists fight back though those having continually and desperately hanging on to a victim status at all costs are using this as an opportunity to confirm their paranoia ‘the world’s out to get us’ fantasies and are such easily taken care of.

    Because of this PETA is able to run back to their headquarters and break out more of the crude molotovs they used to teach kids to make (and the ones that they used to burn down the other headquarters) and the feminists begin to cook like the burgers PETA is so against.

    With burns covering their flesh and being beaten to near death the remaining feminists beg PETA for mercy. Peta responds by saying that they will treat them ethically.

    They are then euphonized and thrown into a dumpster.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  50. mdo7 says:


    Zerodash, let me show you a good parody.


    On the next episode of Deadliest Warriors, it’s Radical Feminism vs Animal Liberation.  It’s female defender taking on the animal defender.  Who is Deadliest?  New episode premiere on Sunday 10 PM only on Spike TV.


    Any of you watch Deadliest Warriors on Spike TV??  How many of you think we should have a spin-off titled, Deadliest Warriors: video game edition? I would!! I want to see:

    Ryu (Ninja Gaiden) vs Sub Zero

    Ken vs Scorpion

    M.Bison vs Shao Kahn

    Ayane (DOA, NInja Gaiden) vs Kitana (MK)

    Samus Aran vs Master Chief

    Doom guy vs Gordon Freeman

    Sturm (Advance War) vs Kane (Command & Conquer)

    Zhao Yun (Dynasty Warriors) vs Kilik (Soul Calibur)

    Link (Legend of Zelda) vs Adol Christin (Y’s series)

    Sam Fisher vs Solid Snake

    GHOST Squad vs Rainbow Six

    Task force 141 (COD 4, Modern Warfare 2) vs Ghost Recon

    Any other suggestions, folks???

  51. Kajex says:

    I’d side with the feminists- even the feminazis, in that scenario. At least with feminazis, they only hate half of humanity- PETA hates not-PETA.

  52. Zerodash says:

    I hope this causes a Radical Feminism vs Animal Liberation war.  Two iconic far-left groups in a battle of words and crappy flash-games.  FIGHT!

  53. Father Time says:

    Is that still true? The last I heard of it was the Penn and Teller episode on PETA (great episode by the way) which was in 2004.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  54. mdo7 says:


    Well said, I think I want to say something to PETA, if they are defender of animals, why aren’t they doing this:

    -Go to Africa, and defend all the elephants and Rhinos from getting killed.  Everyday, one or two or more Rhinos and Elephants get killed because of their skin and their tusks/horns.  Why aren’t you defending those animals, PETA?  They need your help!!

    -Whale Hunting: These hunters are using loopholes in the whale laws.  They’re using loopholes to get whales and pretend they are "researching" and giving hungry people their meat which I found to be not useful because whale meats carried a lot of blubbers, when there’s blubbers, there’s fat and cholesterol.  Those are not good for human bodies.  Defend the whale, no eating them.

    -Endangered Specices: PETA, have you ever heard of the Endangered Species Act.  There are more then 1000 species where there are close to extinction.  PETA could have help with this, There are bunch of species that is near extinct like Mountain Gorillas, and sharks (they almost became extinct and I blame the movie, Jaws for that).  These animals are more important then "sea bunnies" and very cute animals.

    Goes to show you PETA, you are a disgrace to great animal defender.  I’m a better animal defender then you are, PETA.  I don’t go around doing what you guys do.  Think about it, what about the animal that are really in danger.  I have a good knowledge in Biology, and I have read what’s happening around the animal kingdom.  If PETA are animal defender, they should be protecting the Endangered Species, not the idiotic thing like dog and cute animals.   

  55. DarkSaber says:

    Don’t forget, it’s OK for animal-tested medicine to be used if they are using it, because they have to survive to save more animals.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  56. Kajex says:

    Oh FUCK YOU, PETA. If Ingrid Newkirk wakes up one morning and finds a lump in her tits, it’ll only be the saddest, cruelest irony this planet could conjure AGAINST her. No, wait, scratch that- there’s bound to be a member of PETA who has, or will have, breast cancer, maybe even a FEW.

    Once you’re on the other side of the fence, the tune changes pretty goddamn quick- usually. You still have hypocrites like Mary Beth Sweetland.

  57. chadachada321 says:

    Well to be honest I’d strangle a poodle just for the hell of it, I hate those god-awful creatures. But a larger dog I’d have to have a reason, like cancer treatment.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  58. Vordus says:

    One of my mother’s closest friends has spent the last couple of years fighting breast cancer. She has a husband, is the mother of two young (both under 5) children, and before she fell ill she taught music at the local middle school in my town.

    Quite frankly, I’d strangle a poodle to death with my own bare hands if it would aid her recovery.

    So how about you go after something less #*&^%ing useful than animal testing for medical research you sinister agenda driven hippies?

  59. Kajex says:

    My feminazi standards, I SHOULD be siding with them purely on the basis that since I’m a guy, and all guys are pigs who like tits, that, as a guy who likes tits, I’d side with women who will still have tits, as opposed to a group who would rather animals be saved and their tits be rotted away by cancer as a result.

    Except that I’m a switchhitter, which would make only partial sense either way. =P It’s hard to be attracted to something when it’s attached to crazy.

  60. Neeneko says:

    Actually when you start talking about radical feminists, they save their worst words for other feminists who are not radical enough.

  61. MaskedPixelante says:

    So, it’s not OK to save human lives. Wait, this is PETA, I forgot. Human life is inconsiquential. Well, unless it’s their own, at which point they should use whatever they need to keep on spreading this propeganda

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  62. Rabidkeebler says:

    If I’ve said it about PETA once, I will say it a thousand times.  If they are so hot on human testing, they should offer their own bodies.  Until that day comes, they are just a bunch of hypocrites.


    Foaming at the mouth

  63. Austin_Lewis says:

    Nevermind that the vast majority of lifesaving procedures, drugs, and treatments come from *gasp* animal testing.  PETA is made up of retards, and they prove it everyday.

  64. Nekowolf says:

    Especially considering their Vice President uses insulin. Which was founded through animal testing.

  65. DarkSaber says:

    I’m still waiting for their Save The Housefly game myself. Get on it PETA!

    Incidentely, is the vice-chairwoman of PETA ready to give up her animal-tested synthetic insulin yet? No? Didn’t think so.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  66. Ganjookie says:

    I am writing this letter to persuade you that I find PETA more irritating than a hair shirt. I will persuade you of this by providing a few examples and illustrations of the way in which PETA seeks to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to its criticisms. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into nativism. PETA maintains that either it understands the difference between civilization and savagery or that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. PETA denies any other possibility. May I assume that anyone who wants to destabilize society is either (a) licentious or (b) a disgusting backbiter? If so, then I have news for PETA: It wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician’s magic hat. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that PETA coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its convictions sound like they’re actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

    At one point, I actually believed that PETA would stop being so hateful. Silly me. The facts are, succinctly, these: First, PETA’s comments are unspeakably uncompanionable. Second, if it feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that’s just too darn bad. PETA’s arrogance has brought this upon itself. PETA, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. PETA claims that pauperism is a noble goal. I respond that all it does is complain, complain, complain.

    Whenever PETA tries to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases, so do cheeky, abominable racketeers. Similarly, whenever it attempts to twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children’s textbooks, biggety, careless finks typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that I wonder if PETA really believes the things it says. It knows they’re not true, doesn’t it? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that it would be charitable of me not to mention that this is kind of a touchy subject to some people. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that while we do nothing, those who issue a flood of bogus legal documents are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we debunk the nonsense spouted by its accomplices. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of PETA and its antics. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about PETA, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.


    Trevor Gray

    special thanks to Scott Pakin

  67. DarkSaber says:

    Yep, their natural order is humans > animals & insects > PETA


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  68. Kajex says:

    Yup- because on some level, PETA secretly admits they’re superior to animals: otherwise, they’d gladly die instead.

Comments are closed.