If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(State of Virginia)   PETA - Proudly Euthanizing Thousands of Animals   (vi.virginia.gov) divider line 297
    More: Sad, street address, euthanasias  
•       •       •

10482 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-21 09:52:15 AM

meanmutton: DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.

No, they don't.  They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.


I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.
 
2013-03-21 09:53:52 AM
What is *Miscellaneous exactly if it's not adopted, reclaimed, euthanized or transferred?
 
2013-03-21 09:54:01 AM
I wonder how many of the people who surrendered their pets to PETA did so because they believed that PETA would not kill them.
 
2013-03-21 09:56:53 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


That's why i support capital punishment
 
2013-03-21 09:58:22 AM

RatzFatz: 718 of 733 dogs were "surrendered", I'd say abandoned, by their owners (Yo mama next?!)... 12 were adopted...
Two things can be done (besides the whining in this thread):
1. Let's do something about the cause, not the result.
2. Or pay more taxes to have the animals taken care of, so people can buy more puppies and abandon those later.
Neither is popular in this country. Business is everything.


I'd go for stricter controls on who can have pets.
My crazy aunt, for example, cycles dogs every year or so. She never spays or neuters them. Once they get to not be puppies anymore she dumps them at the pound because they're too much to handle.
How is an adult dog harder to handle than a puppy, you ask? Well it's easy if you don't try to teach the puppy any rules... So now here you go pound, a 1 year old misbehaving hellion. Have fun adopting this dog out.
The woman should be forbidden from keeping animals, but there's no law here to make that happen.
 
2013-03-21 09:59:35 AM
"Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?
 
2013-03-21 10:00:23 AM
PETA shares a flaw common with a number of social justice movements: They're so utterly and completely convinced that theirs is the One True Way that they don't ever consider the need to pick their battles. As such, they come across as a lunatic fringe element who's ideals (even the good ones) are summarily dismissed.
 
2013-03-21 10:00:39 AM
Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.

 
PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.

 
Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor. 

 
Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.

 
PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.
 
2013-03-21 10:04:59 AM

Walker: Do as they say, not as they do.
OMG YOU'RE WEARING FUR, I'M THROWING BLOOD ON YOU!!!!*

*as soon as I kill about 50 dogs today


Where do you think they get such a steady supply of blood?
 
2013-03-21 10:05:07 AM
Some homeless animals have to be euthanized for various reasons, and that's understandable.

Not everyone who surrenders their pet is an abusive g*t, and they may surrender the pet to PETA because the name implies the organization has ethics as far as animal welfare is concerned.  Likewise if someone finds an animal.

If PETA want to advertise their policy as loudly as they trumpet the rest of their cause; i.e. we don't try to place animals, we simply kill them to prove our point, that's perfectly acceptable.  But they don't; they claim the figures are wrong and carrying on raising money.  There are plenty of other charities which do actually care for animals - yes they will kill some of them, but not nearly as often as the preachy, right-on PETA w*nkers.
 
2013-03-21 10:05:16 AM

ReapTheChaos: 1045 cats euthanized, well that's a good start at least, but they're really going to have to step it up if they're going to solve the problem.


And then where would your internet be?
 
2013-03-21 10:08:52 AM

phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?


Arf! *bite* macht frei.
 
2013-03-21 10:10:12 AM

dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?


Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc
 
2013-03-21 10:10:28 AM

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


have three cats... contemplating a 4th.  All 3 rescues.
 
2013-03-21 10:12:40 AM

jfivealive: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/


PETA Kills Animals is a campaign by the Center for Consumer Freedom, "an American non-profit firm that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries".
 
2013-03-21 10:14:01 AM

cousin-merle: jfivealive: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

PETA Kills Animals is a campaign by the Center for Consumer Freedom, "an American non-profit firm that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries".


So that makes them wrong?
 
2013-03-21 10:14:13 AM
We had to kill the animals to save the animals.
 
2013-03-21 10:16:47 AM

nocturnal001: karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.

Their basic philosophy is that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans.

When you claim you believe that, and spend your budget protesting other causes while killing animals that you could instead care for?

IMO Peta is a bad thing for animals all in all. Legitimate problems like poor care in some zoos (and I believe for any intelligent animals like dolphins) are ignored by the general public because of fringe behavior from these nut balls.


Those "protests" you keep railing on about don't cost PeTA money... they MAKE PeTA money.  Do you think that PeTA would be a household name both here and abroad if not for these admittedly zany protests?
 
2013-03-21 10:18:02 AM

Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.


PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.


Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.


Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.


PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.


If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.
Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.
 
2013-03-21 10:19:28 AM

meanmutton: Ringshadow: This is old news. PETA is a bunch of raging hypocrites that has stated it's bad to use animal derived medicine while they have insulin dependent VIPs. They've also stated that it'd be better for all pets to be dead than in the hands of caring owners.

This thread has already shown that there are people unaware that the way they run their shelter is vastly different from the way reputable animal shelters are run.


This.

These people defending PETA, they're the Fark people you interact with every time you post on fark.

Even if some are trolls, you know people all over actually support PETA.  It's not like they're a legitimate business.  They have people all over completely snowed and that's where the money comes from.

Why the organization can no longer support itself, then it's old news.  Till then, they deserve any and every negative news story that comes their way.
 
2013-03-21 10:19:31 AM
We must kill them all to save them from how cruel life is.  Don't you get it?

Actually, I don't really disagree with euthanizing animals before they over-breed and create a situation where even more animals will suffer and die.  I just think most people that are part of PETA are self-righteous douche bags that get into other people's business (specifically food choices) way too much.  Is it even possible for someone to become a vegetarian without becoming a peachy little biatch about it anymore?
 
2013-03-21 10:21:09 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?

Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc


Sure, but its not miscellaneous animals.  It's miscellaneous dispositions.  Were they eaten?
 
2013-03-21 10:21:12 AM

nickerj1: Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.


PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.


Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.


Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.


PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.

If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.


shiat, it was supposed to be 8949-1875: 7074 total taken in
644/7074 = 9.14%
 
2013-03-21 10:23:11 AM
In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.
 
2013-03-21 10:24:52 AM
Admittedly, any shelter that doesn't turn away animals is going to have to euthanize a lot.   Many are just not adoptable either because they have health or temperament issues that render them unplaceable (abused animals are frequently poorly socialized to begin with) or just not cute enough to fill the demand.

The problem is that PeTAs numbers however are staggering.   The truth of the matter is that they actively propose against keeping pets, so it seems they have somewhat of a conflict of interest trying to place animals.   8/1000+ cats is horrendous.   In fact, there's no practical way for the public to adopt a PETA "rescued" animal.  The shelter is not open to the public.   There is, in fact, no attempt to place these animals.

In fact, PeTA is a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites.   They publish their own "standards" that shelters should follow, but their own shelter misses the proposed standards by a mile.

In fact, the shelter in the article was operating illegaly and the Virginia humane people (DACS) found that they were not treating the animals humanely.
 
2013-03-21 10:27:14 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: I don't really have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) but that sounds like a bullshiat, made-up, unsupported statistic.


It's much higher, but it's hardly indefensible. PETA shelters accept any animal in any condition. Very, very few shelters do that. They also take in a huge number of surrenders which can be euthanized the same day.

As a result, they have an unusually high euthanasia rate.

Industry groups associated with restaurants, supermarkets, etc. that get annoyed at PETA for protesting their practices or exposing abuse in their farms then latch onto this statistic and trumpet it every couple of months without any context to make it seem like PETA is just killing animals left and right for no reason.

Then stupid people on Fark run with it without thinking about it for even a second.

Then we wind up having this retarded thread for the billionth time and a bunch of dumb people who just like to whine every time "PETA" comes up start screaming their fool heads off because "ZOMG hippies!".

/ then Drew writes a book as if he's somehow above the sewer he's complaining about instead of one of its biggest contributors
 
2013-03-21 10:29:16 AM
stop with your whining about how peta helps, is a benevolent organization blah blah
it's a cult for weak minded and overly sympathetic
animal companion..really

supporting domestic terrorists
firebombing buildings,
releasing non native species to the wild in the name of freedom
helping and hiding members of elf and alf
setting up protests

inspiring idiots with crap information
apparently, like you
 
2013-03-21 10:30:45 AM

karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.


They believe owning a pet is akin to slavery, as far as being degrading to animals.  These people are that whacked out.  They have associations with ALF, IE paid them large sums of money.  ALF is a militant PETA.  Not in the figurative way, but the literal way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front

Don't mistake that for Alf, the funny alien from the sitcom.  Though there is an odd thing there, Alf was always trying to eat the cat.
 
2013-03-21 10:32:43 AM

spiderpaz: Is it even possible for someone to become a vegetarian without becoming a peachy little biatch about it anymore?


No. PETA is selling an identity, not an ideology.
 
2013-03-21 10:33:09 AM

karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.


<welcometofark.jpg>
 
2013-03-21 10:33:30 AM

WhippingBoy: So that makes them wrong?


Does that look like an honest website to you?  Do they mention that PETA offers free euthanasia service for people who can't afford to take their pets to the vet?  They also offer this service to animal shelters.  There is a link on that site though that will give you a better idea of the real story from VA inspection.  Basically, they take in the bad animals and refer the good ones to actual animal shelters.  PETA doesn't run an adoption service open to the public.  Here's an excerpt from the VA inspection report:

"Ms. Nachminovitch indicated that the majority of the animals that were taken into custody by PETA were considered by them to be unadoptable.  Adoptable animals were routinely referred to other area animal shelters; conversely PETA often took custody of animals denied admittance by other area shelters.  Ms. Nachminovitch confirmed that the shelter was not accessible to the public, and that most adoptions of animals were to PETA employees and affiliates."

They aren't trying to find homes for animals.  It is a straw man argument because they intentionally take in the sick animals to give a humane death, for free.  Now, as for the classification as an animal shelter per VA law, maybe they deserve to lose that and whatever legal/tax benefits it offers.
 
2013-03-21 10:33:36 AM
Two weird things I noticed:

1) No animals died in facility (except the ones euthanized).  None.  If PETA takes in animals in any condition. and makes any sort of effort to save at least some of them instead of euthanizing them right away, wouldn't they have lost a few?  It seems to me that the only way to make sure you have no non-euthanasia deaths is to euthanize every animal ASAP.

2) Only one animal, a dog, was on hand on December 31.  This sort of supports the "euthanize every animal as soon as you get them" scenario.
 
2013-03-21 10:33:42 AM
Came for pictures of naked PETA models.

Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:04 AM
skozlaw:
It's much higher, but it's hardly indefensible. PETA shelters accept any animal in any condition. Very, very few shelters do that. They also take in a huge number of surrenders which can be euthanized the same day.

They have to euthanize them immediately, they in fact have next to NO capacity to house animals.   They have no procedure for the public to see the animals and adopt.    Essentially they are doing nothing but offering a garbage can for people to drop off animals they want disposed of.   They make a giant crying thing about some alleged man who tried to drop his dog at a no kill shelter and they couldn't accept it so the man killed the dog himself.   Nope, PeTA is the only one who is allowed to kill animals.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:50 AM

scallywaghotness: In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.


i1308.photobucket.com
Disapproves of your trolling
 
2013-03-21 10:35:43 AM

natas6.0: stop with your whining about how peta helps, is a benevolent organization blah blah
it's a cult for weak minded and overly sympathetic
animal companion..really

supporting domestic terrorists
firebombing buildings,
releasing non native species to the wild in the name of freedom
helping and hiding members of elf and alf
setting up protests

inspiring idiots with crap information
apparently, like you


Worst poem ever.
 
2013-03-21 10:36:03 AM

Cold_Sassy: Smidge204: Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?
=Smidge=

I always thought this was the State Dept. of Natural Resources responsibility.  Since when do they allow PETA to do this?


No, it is not their responsibility only. Rehabilitators of wildlife can take wildlife that is called in or they find (chemical burns, broken legs, caught in fence and partly disembowled, etc) to a veterinary clinic that they have a relationship with and get the licensed veterinarian to administer the euthanasia. I worked at a clinic north of Houston that had a rehabber for deer that used us every now and then, although the biggest animal she ever brought in was a 4-point buck in the bed of a pickup.

Probably the same deal going on here.
 
2013-03-21 10:39:40 AM

phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?


It's their Meowschwitz
 
2013-03-21 10:40:56 AM

nickerj1: nickerj1: Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.

PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.

Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.

Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.

PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.

If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.

shiat, it was supposed to be 8949-1875: 7074 total taken in
644/7074 = 9.14%


Your numbers are still wrong.  In 2011 (the 2012 numbers on VDACS are wonky and 2011 is more typical), statewide, 53,634/111,131 = 48.3% of cats were euthanized and 31,071/125,787 = 24.7% of dogs were euthanized.  Of course, when you consider that PETA specifically takes in sick animals, for free, so people can afford a humane death for their pet instead of going to the vet, the PETA numbers don't look so bad.  They don't even run a public adoption service.  This whole thing is a smear campaign based on a false premise run by an industry lobbying group.
 
2013-03-21 10:48:54 AM
That's a lot of wasted meat.
 
2013-03-21 10:53:13 AM
I swear, "Bullshiat" has spread more stupid ideas than they ever fought.
 
2013-03-21 10:54:01 AM
Hardly a smear.   PeTA lies.    In fact, PeTA diverts the animals from a plethora of Tidewater shelters that *DO NOT CHARGE FOR RECEIVING NOR TURN AWAY ANIMALS*.   PeTA is not offering a unique or even necessary service to the region.   PeTA is advancing their agenda that people should not have animals under any circumstances and has set up a black hole to suck in and KILL animals (there is no attempt to place them otherwise) because they don't want the animals to be adopted.
 
2013-03-21 10:55:53 AM
I'm fairly certain that euthanizing useless animals is the only responsible and productive thing PETA does.
 
2013-03-21 10:59:26 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: pkrzycki: AverageAmericanGuy: If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...

I'm okay with this. Enslavement of animals as "pets" is pretty sick on the face of it.



i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-21 10:59:32 AM
me texan: While I'm no fan of PETA's tactics, there's nothing wrong with euthanizing animals in a way that causes them the least amount of distress possible.  Euthanizing animals is not outside their charter.

There is nothing sensational here, move along.



Theaetetus: Of course not. It's concern trolling. The people criticizing PETA aren't doing it because they love animals and want to see all euthanasia end; they're doing it because they hate PETA. Frankly, I'm not sure why... with their naked chick campaigns, PETA panders to these idiots, so you'd think they appreciate it.



That's an overgeneralization at best, though you do have a point.

Any time you have a Group B criticizing a common activity of Group A, many of the members of Group A will respond with defensive anger.  You see this in so many Fark threads, whether the topic be abortion, eating meat, guns, homosexuality, or something else.  And especially you will see a LOT of anger if prominent members of Group B act in ways which seem clearly hypocritical.  Witness how people react, for example, when a prominent Conservative politician, known for anti-gay policies or rhetoric, is found out to have had a homosexual affair.

We don't like it when other people tell us our behavior is immoral.  We get defensive and angry.  And especially when the person condemning us is (or we believe them to be) hypocritical on that very issue.

That alone is sufficient to explain a lot of the anger against PETA.  But there are other reasons.  I won't even try to list them all, but I will give my own personal favorite: animal testing.

As you know, PETA is infamously opposed to ALL animal testing, no matter what medical breakthrough might arise from it.  And, I'll admit that this position is consistent with the premise that an animal's life is every bit as valuable as a human's.  But it leads to vast amounts of suffering and death for humans.  It's one thing to say, "You shouldn't wear fur" or "You shouldn't eat meat" for the sake of animal welfare.  It's quite another to say, "You should suffer for years and then die miserably" for animal rights, and that is precisely the implication of being adamantly opposed to any form of animal testing whatsoever.

I hate to resort to hyperbole like "attempted murder" or "war," but PETA has a clearly-defined agenda which -- they freely and cheerful admit --- would result in the painful death of millions of humans.  As a diabetic, I am one of those millions who would be dead if PETA had their way.  Even if I wasn't, I know too many other people who depend on medication that PETA would take from their hands.  It is, from this point of view, a struggle for survival.  PETA quite literally wants me dead.  I, in turn, want PETA dead metaphorically.

Let me be clear: I wish no physical harm or violence against its members, but I very much would like to see PETA as an organization utterly destroyed, or at least rendered completely neutralized.
 
2013-03-21 10:59:37 AM

dustygrimp: AverageAmericanGuy: dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?

Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc

Sure, but its not miscellaneous animals.  It's miscellaneous dispositions.  Were they eaten?


Released maybe?
 
2013-03-21 11:01:22 AM

cousin-merle: They offer free euthanasia services to counties that kill unwanted animals via gassing or shooting.


You know who ELSE approved of getting rid of the undesirables by gassing?

/Yes. I know this thread has already been Godwinned, SHUTUP
 
2013-03-21 11:02:13 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm okay with this. If people would properly spay and neuter their pets, the stray animal population would be a non-issue and people wouldn't end up with litters they didn't want.

Euthanizing the animals may be sad, but the reason for their deaths is because people don't care enough to have a simple procedure carried out on their pets.

It's far better these animals are put down quietly and humanely than to have them die of starvation, used as practice targets, run over by cars, poisoned, or mauled by other animals.


So You want what little is left of our ecosystem wiped out too? This will end well.
 
2013-03-21 11:03:45 AM

ciberido: but I very much would like to see PETA as an organization utterly destroyed, or at least rendered completely neutralizedered.


FTFM
 
2013-03-21 11:04:37 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: dustygrimp: "Miscellaneous*"

lolwut?

Clams. Spider monkeys. Mosquitoes.

You know. Misc


I've always wanted a pet clam...
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report