Before the Kardashians claimed the throne of ‘most useless whoriest famewhores to ever whore a fame,’ PETA was there first, shoving naked models into cages in protest of whatever cause of the day they were on because they don’t understand basic operative conditioning (Think about it: if you reward animal cruelty with naked models in cages, then guess what? More animal cruelty. That’s Psych 101, you morons.) Anyway, it looks like we’ve come to a showdown, because Kim Kardashian is now under fire for wearing fur. Yes, of all the things they chose to go after Kim for, they went with her fur. TooFab reports:

PETA is planning to post a billboard next month in Los Angeles of the newly single Kardashian wearing fur next to a photo of baby foxes — with a message reading “Kim: These Babies Miss Their Mother. Is She on Your Back?”

“Kim knows that animals on fur farms are beaten, electrocuted, and often skinned alive,” says PETA Senior Vice President Lisa Lange. “We’ve explained it to her, and she’s watched a video exposé that was filmed inside fur farms.” But apparently the message wasn’t strong enough. PETA is hoping Kim will “Divorce herself from fur and say “I do” to a more compassionate wardrobe,” like her sister Khloe — who has posed for PETA’s ‘I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign.

I never thought I would say these words, but … Kim is not wro – OMG – MY HANDS JUST BURST INTO FLAME. Sorry about that, please excuse the bloody mess. Anyway, here’s the thing: do I wear fur? Nope. Do I think it’s morally right to wear fur? Unless you live in an area where it’s a necessity, then not so much. But PETA needs to realize that objectively speaking, a human being is worth more than any animal, and using shock tactics and ridiculous rhetoric to justify what should be an obvious point is going to make people hate you and your cause. There is such a thing as bad publicity. I should know: I write it.