PETA ad

pmills

pmills

Active member
if you watched PhiliD's show today, you'd know he mentions a new PETA poster with Jonna Krupa

Seen here:

gallery_enlarged-1201_joanna_krupa_peta_00.jpg


apparently Bill Donohue, head of the 'catholic league' finds the image offensive.

(for reference who's Bill Donohue? www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bill+Donohue&search_type=&aq=f )

Anyways, here's my observation.

1. According to catholic belief, Adam and Eve put clothes on after they sinned in the garden of Eden.

2. Angels are without sin and therefore would not wear clothes

3. Since Krupa was portraying an Angel in the Advert, the accurate Angelic representation would be sans clothes.

Therefore Donohue, and anyone else who's upset about the nudity are full of shit

 
Wait. They were arguing over the nudity? What about the fact that PETA is a complete joke of an organization?
 
i'm pretty sure it's the nudity in the church that's got this guys panties in a bunch.

no one cares how serious an organization is
 
My point was that it's a PETA ad, so nobody should give a shit about what they post to begin with. By joke, I meant that it was not a respectable orginazation; I was not referring to a level of seriousness.

Also he can fuck off, I'm catholic and there's plenty of nudity in the Church (or at least the bible). Besides, it's just an ad.
 
First of all, I LOVE these ads. Joanna Krupa is pretty great looking, if we could just get rid of that cross and those stupid animals. It's funny how PETA, in their quest to attain equal constitutional rights for animals (HAHHAHAHAHHA), has to objectify women to get their point across. They still don't get their point across because I just want to see bewbz, I don't care any more about animals.
 
honestly peta has its head so far up its ass that any productive thing they might do for animals (shutting down puppy mills, saving whales n shit) is immediatly counteracted by all the petty little shit they stress about
 
I'm pretty sure he's not upset about the nudity. This could probably come across as somewhat sacrilegious to a devout catholic. Not being one, I'm not sure how though.
 
it's easy to see that using the sex appeal of an "angel" would be the sacrilege, however, as I pointed out the fault is in the observer not in the creator, because the creator has made an accurate representation of an angel.
 
I HATE PETA

on a more calm side, although it is an accurate representation, I think the sex appeal part of the marketing was more on the creators mind then accuracy of an angel
 
results of course/ but lets be real here: what resulted in getting your attention to read what was on the poster in the first place? tits
 
if you're a 'good' catholic, tits shouldn't be on your mind though. you should just think what a sweet angel with a positive message.

if the church wants to stick to ridiculous standards of morality (which would be the thought above) then they don't have much to complain about in the ad. They can complain about the moral indecency of normal folks, but that's been their job forever
 
i dont care how good of a catholic you are, those tits are going to cross your mind/ maybe for a second and then you go to confession, but they are gonna catch your attention/ its marketing and it did its job/ I agree with your statement with the church though
 
as far as a marketing standpoint, i think it's really only preaching to the choir (no pun).

As far as incentives go, the ad only encourages people to buy more puppies and eat more meat so PETA will make more hot naked posters. I mean if people started doing everything PETA wanted, they wouldn't make any more ads like this.

LET THIS BE A LESSON TO YOU ALL, do the opposite PETA says, and hopefully by the end of 2010 we can get PETA a showtime late night, save the animals, soft-core special
 
whats this say about PETA?

they dont stand a chance in hell of getting anyone's attention unless they stand some hot piece of ass up in front of an audience?
 
i wonder what the price of the ad was... im not a fan of PETA, but at least its not really pushy or judgemental. normally those people force their issues on everybody, this is a bit of a different route.
 
OP, your right about the part that the bible depicts adam and eve being nude. But if you look at the begins of christian art, you never ever see a figure without clothes (never). So the point that what ever his name is mad about is that it has a sexual appeal to it which is a little offensive to christians. But the Muslim sun and moon up there and you'll create a terrorist attack. You start to see nudity develop in christian in art in the high gothic period(13th century ce) that is. The reason for the clothing in early christian art is because they believed that the only thing capable of committing sin is the human body, therefore they wanted to present it in the simplest way. They embraced this so much that they even placed a bans of icons, which has many more reasons than this obviously.
 
PETA can be extreme and outrageously ridiculous with their missions and shit, but on the whole, their mission and mantra is genuinely for good causes.
 
fuck christianity, hooray peta. how do you all have your panties up in a bunch over some made up bullshit.
 
if i believed angels existed, i would certainly rather they look like that over something like this

archangel-gabriel.jpg


speaking of angels...

miranda-kerr.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top