Topic: PETA hates Mario for wearing fur *possibly offensive*

Nintendo has been teaching bad behavior to a younger generation for years, they're not about to stop now.

I think you all remember touching fuzzy and getting dizzy.

No. Just no. I saw this story on GoNintendo, and it completely shocked me that PETA would stoop this low. Oh who am I kidding? They've done this before.

PETA is not in the same league as the ASPCA, Humane Society, and other animal rights groups. PETA shouldn't even be considered a real animal rights group because of the crap they do to get publicity.
that was totally my original comment an I'm only 9

But seriously... I feel really motivated to boycott Nintendo because they made a game which features Mario wearing fur!! Made from a cute lil' TANOOKI! THOSE THINGS ARE ADORABLE NITNENDO DONT KILLEM!! Seriously, I bet they stole like twelve tanookis and KILLED EM SO THEY CAN LOOK AT THERE SKIN FOR THE GAME DESIGN!!!! STOP NINTENDO!! MAKEEMSTOP

They had to kill a new set of tanukis for each redesign. _{the costume went through 64 redesigns before the release of this game}
D:

But don't worry, none of these precious skins went to waste. They simply reused them for every enemy in the game.

Actually there is something ironic about all of this. Mario never skinned a tanooki to get his suit, yet in PETA's game Mario is wearing an actual fursuit.

Irony?!

And in their game, the tanuki could put it's fur back on quite easily, so I guess skinning tanukis is not so grave after all.
Seeing how they'll start chasing you, leaving a blood trail, I wouldn't recommend doing so, though.

I can't believe that so many people that apparently have IQs so high (from the thread in the General Discussion forum) can't wrap their head around the concept of hyperbole, or what PETA is all about.

Not that I agree with the way PETA behaves on a whole, but if the fanboys can't get that this is part of a far broader message that PETA is trying to get across, and that Nintendo wasn't the target at all, then I I'm going to have a Sheldon Cooper reaction to you all :3

You do realize that Nintendo was the target right? Oh wait, no. No you don't.

No. PETA was using Nintendo to make a much broader point.

This is like saying Greenpeace is JUST attacking Nintendo for flopping the green rankings it runs on a yearly basis. When really it's not attacking Nintendo, nor singling Nintendo out at all.

So... shouldn't this be closed now? As it has been resolved?

Well yeah. And thanks for proving my point.

You do know what target means, right? To go after one thing at the exclusion of others?

Must ... defend ... everything that ... doesn't need ... to be ... defended!

Of course I do. Nintendo was targeted whether PETA was proving a point or not, they used Nintendo to get publicity so it's voice could be heard. Again. Through the media. And why not pick on Mario because in his new game he his technically wearing animal fur.

This isn't the only jab they make at nintendo. A cursory look at some of their other games has them painting Nintendo characters in a bad light as well. I think it's fair to say their target was Nintendo.

Nah. You don't understand what target means at all. PETA is about animal rights and all that stuff. It's not about criticising Nintendo. The fact that this campaign included a Nintendo character is purely opportunistic, and if Nintendo (or its fans) were offended by this (and Nintendo wasn't, so I am talking about the fans), grow the hell up.

Must ... defend ... everything that ... doesn't need ... to be ... defended!

I have little to no interest in PETA. I'm not defending PETA. I'm telling Nintendo fans they shouldn't act like crybabies because an aggressive activist group, well known for utterly insane (though well-meaning at core) stunts decided to use Nintendo when there's a lot of media interest in Nintendo to express a point.

Especially since Nintendo hasn't actually been impacted in any way whatsoever by any of this.

Once again. You all apparently have high IQs. Use your brains.

This isn't the only jab they make at nintendo. A cursory look at some of their other games has them painting Nintendo characters in a bad light as well. I think it's fair to say their target was Nintendo.

Just like Greenpeace wants to see Nintendo fall over tomorrow because it's just such an unclean company that Greenpeace has had to fail it multiple times.

Oh wait. They don't. Whoops.

A question for you all: Have ANY of you actually been involved with an activist group? If you have, then you should realise that an activist group cares only about the message it's making. It has so little interest in attacking other companies/ groups (unless said companies/ groups are directly involved in what they're fighting against - in PETA's case, poachers and people that make fur coats). But often they're a good opportunity to make a point. It's a publicity stunt. If anything, you guys should be happy that Nintendo has enough relevance left to attract the attention of PETA.

If you think that 99% of PETA folks actually, genuinely have a problem with Nintendo... well, whatever. You're wrong, but hey, let's not let rationality come between a fanboy and his beloved company!

Yup, I'm the one who needs to use my brain. Good luck getting Nintendo fans to change their minds on this, bro! I'm gonna be sitting here laughing at you the entire way.

PETA Calls Out Nintendo For Fur-Wearing Mario
The People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals are blasting Nintendo and their beloved gaming plumber Mario over what they claim is a message that it's OK to wear animal furs.

In Super Mario 3D Land, which was released this weekend, one of Mario's many power-ups is a Tanooki suit which grants him the ability to glide across the screen after jumps. The suit looks more like a one-piece jumper or costume than it does a fur, but PETA says the game is sending the wrong message to gamers.

"Tanooki may be just a 'suit' in Mario games, but in real life, tanuki are raccoon dogs who are skinned alive for their fur," according the the PETA Mario Kills Tanooki website. "By wearing Tanooki, Mario is sending the message that it's OK to wear fur."

On the Mario Kills Tanooki website, players can turn the tables on Mario, taking on the role of a bloody and skinned tanuki chasing a surly Mario as he drifts through his familiar world, a trail of blood dripping from his suit.

"Tanukis are real-life raccoon dogs who are beaten and, as PETA's undercover exposés show, often skinned alive for their fur," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "This winter, everyone can give raccoon dogs and other fabulous animals a 1-UP by keeping our wardrobes fur-free."

Here's what Bass quoted. Maybe this will help you understand everything you do not get.

_{And besides reasoning with you is like talking to a wall anyways.}

I'm not saying that they have a vendetta against Nintendo and that every PETA person frowns at the mention of the word. Just that the evidence shows this isn't the first time they've painted nintendo characters in a bad light. Anyone who thinks that they weren't targeting nintendo in some way has got to be insane. They used one of their characters to make a point. It's like saying I'm going to nuke another country because part of their culture reflects something I don't agree with and then claiming that they weren't the target.

Well, in my experience you can't convince Nintendo fans to think rationally about much at all

_{Applies to Microsoft, Sony and fans of anything else, really. Being a fan by default means you have an irrational attachment to something.}

I'm not saying that they have a vendetta against Nintendo and that every PETA person frowns at the mention of the word. Just that the evidence shows this isn't the first time they've painted nintendo characters in a bad light.

Bingo. Not Nintendo. If I do an animation of Jigglypuff being ripped in half for singing badly, it doesn't mean I have a problem with Nintendo, or that I believe Nintendo promotes bad singing.

It's like saying I'm going to nuke another country because part of their culture reflects something I don't agree with and then claiming that they weren't the target.

Um. No. They're not the same thing at all, since nuking a country kills a few million people.

PETA's stunt won't affect Nintendo in any material way. It's harmless activism, so just get on with your lives and stop villifying PETA for being passionate about a cause. Lord knows most of you people are far more passionate about a far less worthwhile cause (Nintendo's wallet).

You act like Nintendo fans are a disease. Then again you can't really get Australians to think straight for more than five minutes before they recommend wrastlin' with kurockeez.