Because they can get 300,000+ views on Youtube after the press reports on them being banned?

But they don't get paid for youtube views do they? I'm just asking because I really don't know.

Any news is good news.

And yes, it's true. We do have better sex. Peta's a bunch of wankers though.

news => publicity

ehh, would peta somehow get paid if the ads did make it on?

I doubt they can afford the ads, and if they could it's still unethical since they consider themselves to be a charity.

They purposely make the ads dirty enough that they'll be banned so they can market them as "banned superbowl commercial" rather than "an internet commercial we made available the week of the superbowl"

No, we just fucking hate PETA.

I think Americans just don't want to eat their vegetables.

That's true, but if this was a commercial for beer, it would have been approved.

PETA tried to run a Superbowl ad a few years back with singing cows, and CBS refused to run that as well:

http://www.spike.com/video/peta-commercial/2419203

We're talking about PETA..

They're crazy.

Peta has a giant walk-in freezer to store the bodies of the thousands of animals they kill every year until a delivery truck can pick them up and take them to the big furnace.

Just one of life's little ironies, I guess.

I guarantee you there is someone out there who not only has a piss fetish, but specifically has an asparagus-pee fetish.

Asparagus doesn't just make asparagus-pee, it pretty much makes asparagus-everything.

If I were a vampire, I'd avoid drinking the blood of people who'd recently eaten asparagus.

"Someone," Hooper, sweetheart? You mean "some forum."

Now this is a movement I can get behind.

Exploiting animals by giving them vegitables: Good
Exploiting women by chopping them up and eating them: Bad

Studies say rampant internet use and use of the phrase "studies show" can maintain virginity indefinitely.

yeah man that totally explains why the populations of india and other asian countries are dwindling

Actually if you look into a little bit of the cultural determinism at work in India, the taboo on beef comes from the fact that beeves have to be saved at all costs in order to provide cooking fuel, building material, draw plows, and be factories for further animals of the same useful kind. It's quite pragmatic, just like the food codes in Deuteronomy.

PETA sucks, by the way, and militant veganism is an absurd luxury of a pampered culture.

Parts of the laws of Kashrut can be shown to make sense in terms of keeping sanitary. Certainly not all of them, or even most of them. Jewish scholars stopped following that notion a long time ago, since even the ones that promote sanitary/healthy eating tend to be contradictory. The only scholars who stick to that are Christians who believe in "Biblical foresight", that is, the idea that the Bible contains knowledge that scientists would only discover much later. An idea that has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Think about this: if your religion forbade cooking and eating pigs, would you be more or less likely to be married off to an Egyption or Babylonian? Less I would think. Also, the laws require day-to-day sacrifice and so test religious conviction.

Actually I was thinking more of an anthropological determinism, rather than any kind of post hoc justification based on theology. On those grounds I think the thesis stands up very well. Marvin Harris, though somewhat dated now within anthropology, still reads pretty well on this issue.

It's certainly not a perfect or complete explanation, though; there has got to be room for those initial deterministic laws to be misinterpreted, for the mechanisms of social control to be overlaid, and for the deeply personal symbolic, psychological, and religious aspect to take on a life of its own. And that's to say nothing of oppositional identification; i. e. "They do this, so we must do the opposite."