On Friday we published pictures of Kim Kardashian being flour bombed at her fragrance launch by some angry chick. When the assault took place the girl (who PETA says was NOT doing it on their behalf) called Kim a fur hag because the girl is always wearing fur. Initially Kim wasn't going to press charges but she is reconsidering and PETA is pissed and has offered to pay for the crazy girl's legal costs should she ask them to.
While I simply DETEST that Kim wears so much fur without an ounce o care for the animals, I also detest violence of any kind. At one time Kim was getting this site's Friend Feed so I'm hoping she saw this video. To say it's disturbing would be a huge understatement. However if we start desensitizing ourselves to 'attacks' and justifying them because of a person's lifestyle we could easily justify anything and chaos would ensue. Okay maybe a slight exaggeration but you get my point, right? Don't get me wrong I'm not a huge fan of Kim's, but she is someone's daughter, sister, etc. If it were YOUR sister would you feel any different?
It kind of reminds me of (way) back in the day when prostitutes were found dead and cops didn't really put much effort into an investigation because they were prostitutes. I'm not calling Kim a prostitute although she does pimp herself out for any product. I'm just trying to make a point.
So I ask you, is Kim justified in suing the flour bomb girl or should she keep her cake hole (cake is made with flour…I just made a funny) shut because she wears furs that animals were probably killed in an incredibly cruel manner to get?