Why Did a PETA Staffer Change His Name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com?

[Mk]

A 19-year-old PETA staffer has legally changed his name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com.

Chris Garnett, youth outreach coordinator for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said he changed his name in support of the group's anti-KFC campaign.

Yeah...

 

[Math Is Hard]

Got a link for that?

 

[Renge Ishyo]

http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4302509&nav=HMO6

And to think that parents used to criticize their kids for getting tattoos...

 

[Curious3141]

Umm...I think it's really his business what he changed his name to. If he wants to look ridiculous it's his business. No evidence of coercion here.

 

[Pengwuino]

Umm...I think it's really his business what he changed his name to. If he wants to look ridiculous it's his business. No evidence of coercion here.

I don't recall anyone saying he shoudln't be allowed to. If he wants to look stupid, so be it.

 

[Curious3141]

I don't recall anyone saying he shoudln't be allowed to. If he wants to look stupid, so be it.

Agreed.

And this bit is extraneous and expressly done for the purpose of lengthening my otherwise overly short post to meet the stringent inflexible requirements of the post length Nazi.

 

[scott1]

That can't be good for his checking account when someone writing him a check the bank might get mixed as a donation to the website.

 

[Cyrus]

Someone give him the darwin award for stupidity. He should not be allowed to breed.

 

[Mindscrape]

Who would want to be friends with him now? You can't just say, "Hey, kentuckyfriedcruelty.com, what's up?"

 

[Pengwuino]

That can't be good for his checking account when someone writing him a check the bank might get mixed as a donation to the website.

people that stupid never end up with any money, let alone enough for a checking account ($5)

 

[Mk]

Got a link for that?

OH jeez, I'm so sorry, I forgot to provide the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_fe_st/people_peta_staffer

 

[Pengwuino]

Ugh, impressionable kids... shouldn't PETA be charged with cruelty to impressionable children? :)

 

[scott1]

Ugh, impressionable kids... shouldn't PETA be charged with cruelty to impressionable children? :)

They should charge with illegally existing

 

[Math Is Hard]

OH jeez, I'm so sorry, I forgot to provide the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_fe_st/people_peta_staffer

Tank you. That is a truly bizarre story. I care about many of the same issues as PETA, but they continually tick me off with these weird stunts. Last month it was the "Your Daddy Kills Animals" comic book, which was so outrageous I thought it had to be a hoax. All they succeed in doing is making themselves look like a bunch of nuts, and ultimately alienate people who might be sympathetic to their causes.

Here's that comic book, BTW:
http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-newcomic.asp

 

[Cyrus]

PETA is full of crackpots MIH. Someone should start an animal rights watch group who aren't looney. They have crap posted like, "fish have feelings"... I guess we should put them in therapy along with the crackpots in PETA.

They have a site against killing lobsters too. I wish they saw an episode of this cooking show on PBS. It’s an Italian woman, whose son is a wine taster. She makes all these great dishes. One time she was cooking lobster. She cut off his arms with scissors while it was still alive. Then she dunked him in a boiling pot of hot water. All I can say is, delicious!

 

[zoobyshoe]

There's no reason for animals to suffer unnecessarily when they are raised and eventually killed for food. Just because the Peta people are ridiculous doesn't mean we should drop any concern for how the animals are treated. Farmers do some pretty horrendous things.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps you've never heard a group of crabs screaming in pain when you throw them into a pot of boiling water. It was horrible, it's something that I never want to hear again.

The problemwith PETA is that they don't keep out the nuts. Bringing awareness of animal cruelty to the public is good, psycho raids and attacks is not.

 

[Cyrus]

I agree zooby. I was just showing some of the outlandish things PETA does, makes them look like fools. That’s why I said its time for a new organization of people with some sense, not fundamentalists.

Its ok EVO, the sound you make, MMMMMMMMMMMM eating them, makes it worth it! Crabs are my favorite sea food! I could eat them 24-7! Maryland Crab cakes...yummy.

 

[Pengwuino]

There's no reason for animals to suffer unnecessarily when they are raised and eventually killed for food. Just because the Peta people are ridiculous doesn't mean we should drop any concern for how the animals are treated. Farmers do some pretty horrendous things.

I don't think anyone said they are dropping their concern for animals

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think anyone said they are dropping their concern for animals

That's good, because if no one cared I might start kicking some penguin butt.

 

[Pengwuino]

That's good, because if no one cared I might start kicking some penguin butt.

*calls PETA up to report you*

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"Stacked" star Pamela Anderson, who has narrated a PETA video showing the alleged abuse, supports Garnett's name change.

Hmmm.. wonder if "Stacked star Pamela Anderson" perhaps helped him make this decision.

 

[Jelfish]

Wow. If gleeful cynicism and rolleye-emoticons were pornography, I'd be quite turned on by this thread now.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I agree zooby. I was just showing some of the outlandish things PETA does, makes them look like fools. That’s why I said its time for a new organization of people with some sense, not fundamentalists.

I'm all for that. I would actually like to see the "animal rights" movement traded for an "animal compassion" movement. I think even the terminology makes problems. I think when many people see the word "rights" they assume that animals are being equated morally and intellectually with human beings, and it makes the idea nonsensical to them.

I used to be a very active supporter of PETA, but not anymore. I think they are setting back the whole cause of compassion and ethical treatment of animals. I think it is a disgrace how they have recently degraded into cheap stunts to gain attention.

I would like to see more efforts like that of http://www.matthewscully.com" . I recently read his book Dominion, and it thoughtfully and carefully examines our moral responsibility to animals. It is not overly sentimental or sensationalized, it just made good sense - to me anyway.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think there's a lot we can learn from PETA. From the moment we draw breath in this world, we're taught that life is beautiful, something to be valued and protected. We see it in our schools, our entertainment, our news (redundant, I know)...and it's not just restricted to people. Who among us wouldn't applaud someone who saved a dog from a savage beating? How many animals have made it into our movies and television as characters to be sympathized with and felt sorry for? Yet, still, we hunt, fish, trap, and "exterminate" many of these same animals. Why? At what point does an animal stop being a pet or a "helpless creature" and become a pest or a stupid animal?

PETA is, in many ways, the liberal equivalent of a religious fundamentalist group. They take the ethics they are taught and bring them to their seemingly logical conclusion. If one animal's life is to be valued, then so must another's. If the Bible is God's word, we must follow it to the letter. And so on.

If we are going to call either of these groups crackpots, we should, at least, think about why we are doing so. Is it because their ethical system makes no sense? Is it not self-consistent? At first glance, both would seem more self-consistent than the equivalent "moderate" stance, so then why are so many people moderates? Is the mainstream sense of right and wrong logically consistent, or is it more a consequence of historical convenience and gut impulse? Or, even further, does our sense of right and wrong need to be logically consistent.

I'm not trying to take political position here, I'm just trying to say that there may be a lot more here than our gut impulses would tell us. Morals are not like science...there is no objective means by which we can verify that a certain action is right or wrong. There are no experiments that can tell us definitively whether or not it's okay to hunt for sport or trap cockroaches.

"Fish have feelings."

Do they feel pain? I don't know. I do know, however, that our collective decision to fish (even for sport) was made long before we even had the means to answer this question. Before you cast judgement one way or the other, ask yourself why you're doing so. I think that process is more important than the ultimate position you take.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Before you cast judgement one way or the other, ask yourself why you're doing so.

This is what this whole thread has been about: the Peta people make concern for animals look ridiculous.

 

[SpaceTiger]

This is what this whole thread has been about: the Peta people make concern for animals look ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? That's what my post is about.

 

[Cyrus]

If we are going to call either of these groups crackpots, we should, at least, think about why we are doing so. Is it because their ethical system makes no sense? Is it not self-consistent? At first glance, both would seem more self-consistent than the equivalent "moderate" stance, so then why are so many people moderates? Is the mainstream sense of right and wrong logically consistent, or is it more a consequence of historical convenience and gut impulse? Or, even further, does our sense of right and wrong need to be logically consistent.

Its because they go on the news and say they are going to kill people and burn down companies that have anything to do with harming animals. COO--COO--COOO--COOO. Sorry spacetiger, but there crackpots, and there's no two ways around it.

 

[Jelfish]

I think there's a lot we can learn from PETA. From the moment we draw breath in this world, we're taught that life is beautiful, something to be valued and protected. We see it in our schools, our entertainment, our news (redundant, I know)...and it's not just restricted to people. Who among us wouldn't applaud someone who saved a dog from a savage beating? How many animals have made it into our movies and television as characters to be sympathized with and felt sorry for? Yet, still, we hunt, fish, trap, and "exterminate" many of these same animals. Why? At what point does an animal stop being a pet or a "helpless creature" and become a pest or a stupid animal?
PETA is, in many ways, the liberal equivalent of a religious fundamentalist group. They take the ethics they are taught and bring them to their seemingly logical conclusion. If one animal's life is to be valued, then so must another's. If the Bible is God's word, we must follow it to the letter. And so on.
If we are going to call either of these groups crackpots, we should, at least, think about why we are doing so. Is it because their ethical system makes no sense? Is it not self-consistent? At first glance, both would seem more self-consistent than the equivalent "moderate" stance, so then why are so many people moderates? Is the mainstream sense of right and wrong logically consistent, or is it more a consequence of historical convenience and gut impulse? Or, even further, does our sense of right and wrong need to be logically consistent.
I'm not trying to take political position here, I'm just trying to say that there may be a lot more here than our gut impulses would tell us. Morals are not like science...there is no objective means by which we can verify that a certain action is right or wrong. There are no experiments that can tell us definitively whether or not it's okay to hunt for sport or trap cockroaches.
"Fish have feelings."
Do they feel pain? I don't know. I do know, however, that our collective decision to fish (even for sport) was made long before we even had the means to answer this question. Before you cast judgement one way or the other, ask yourself why you're doing so. I think that process is more important than the ultimate position you take.

I agree with you on this issue and brought up a similar point a few months ago about vegetarianism.

I believe that human compassion is conceived from our ability to empathize. And from that, animal "rights" are born. For example, it is illegal in the United States domestically prepare horse meat for consumption (which is a question of legislating morality, actually). Well, as in SpaceTiger's reference to PETA, why does that not logically extend to all animals? It doesn't make sense to create a wishy-washy border of what's ok to protect and what isn't. And yet, many people wince in disgust at cruelty toward a cute puppy yet couldn't care less about hooking a fish. Is it desensitization or do we just care for things that are cute and cuddly? PETA wouldn't exist if their members had such a wishy-washy morality. I think it's easier (and morally "absolute") to just say that ultimately, you just don't care.

 

[Jelfish]

Its because they go on the news and say they are going to kill people and burn down companies that have anything to do with harming animals. COO--COO--COOO--COOO. Sorry spacetiger, but there crackpots, and there's no two ways around it.

If you really thought that animal cruelty and "murder" were equivalent to human cruelty and murder, wouldn't those tactics seem more reasonable?

 

[Cyrus]

No, and if you think so you need to read up about the justice system. You don't go around killing someone if they killed your family member do you? Your statement makes no sense, sorry. If they have a problem with it fine, I understand. But there is a right way, and a wrong way to do things. PETA always finds the wrong way of doing things.

 

[Jelfish]

Well, I'm not going to defend PETA for their violent actions because I don't agree with them. I thought the discussion was more focused on PETA's philosophy, since the thread starter referred to KFC's cruelty to chickens (a well-known PETA campaign). Though to respond to your analogue about killing my family's killer, many states in the US still practice capital punishment, so I wouldn't have to. (justice system, huh?)

 

[Cyrus]

Yep, that is justice. He had a court hearing. He was found guilty of killing a family, he showed no remorse, and so he was punished to death. That is what's called justice, as opposed to what you want, which is revenge. And what I brought up is exactly PETA's philosophy and is on topic.

 

[tribdog]

It's okay to be cruel to animals for 3 reasons and that's all
1.) scientific testing, ie mascarra rubbed into eyes of puppies to test tolerances.
2.) It tastes really good, ie goose liver from immobilized geese
3.) The animal is really ugly, ie bugs, reptiles or orangutans.
That's the only acceptable times to be cruel.

 

[tribdog]

Question: Is PETA Pro-Choice?

 

[Cyrus]

NOPE! Its no eating animals or your a MURDERER! like i said, crackpots.

 

[Jelfish]

Yep, that is justice. He had a court hearing. He was found guilty of killing a family, he showed no remorse, and so he was punished to death. That is what's called justice, as opposed to what you want, which is revenge. And what I brought up is exactly PETA's philosophy and is on topic.

Yes, but such a process to arrive at justice exists. How is it not reasonable for a PETA member to be angry because of what he/she feels is 'injustice' due to lack of process?

 

[Jelfish]

Question: Is PETA Pro-Choice?

That would be a non-issue if the person believed that life started after birth or viability.

 

[tribdog]

That would be a non-issue if the person believed that life started after birth or viability.

is that even an answer?
Okay I got a fourth time you can be cruel to animals

4. They answer your questions with odd psuedo intelligent replies. ie see above.

 

[Jelfish]

NOPE! Its no eating animals or your a MURDERER! like i said, crackpots.

Out of curiousity, would you feel that PETA would be reasonable in campaigning against an animal form of manslaughter instead of murder? Most people don't think about killing when they buy a steak from the supermarket anyway.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If they have a problem with it fine, I understand. But there is a right way, and a wrong way to do things.

"Right" and "wrong" in what sense? The ethical sense? The pragmatic sense? If it's the former, what are you basing your judgement on? If it's just the latter, then I agree, but that's beside the point. The point is to question why we view many of their methods as an ethical atrocity. That pamphlet isn't telling you to go out and kill people, is it? What makes the authors "crackpots"? Why is it crazy to change your name in protest of something you view as mass torture and/or murder?

It's easy to be dogmatic and say something just is or isn't the case, but it isn't really an argument. In fact, it more resembles propaganda and I can't honestly say I'm persuaded by your insistence that I have such a narrow view of PETA. I'm not a vegetarian, I do eat at fast food restuarants (including KFC), I do occasionally fish, and I do think it's wrong to kill people to save a few animals. I also think, however, that many of these PETA folks have a role to play and are, in some ways, worthy of respect. They fight for something that they believe in and they're working from an ethical system not all that much unlike my own. We shouldn't be using this thread to cast stones, we should be using it to explore the alternatives. Try to see things from the "crazy" person's point of view, you might find it enlightening.

 

[Jelfish]

is that even an answer?
Okay I got a fourth time you can be cruel to animals
4. They answer your questions with odd psuedo intelligent replies. ie see above.

Well, I don't know if they are pro-choice or not as an organization. But say they were pro-choice. What conclusion would you draw on their philosophy about animal rights?

 

[KingNothing]

Everyone hates peta. (perhaps even jesus)

 

[SpaceTiger]

Question: Is PETA Pro-Choice?

Why would they all have to be one or the other?

 

[tribdog]

I don't draw conclusions. I wait for you guys to tell me what to think. that's why I hate it when you don't answer my questions. Thanks for clarifying your comment for me though

 

[tribdog]

Why would they all have to be one or the other?

I didn't say they HAD to be. I was just wondering. I'm sure it gets boring out there chasing down whaling ships, 30 or 40 hippies in a boat, you know there is some "Wanna join the 4 fathom club" If any PETITES are concieved can the Momma PETA get an abortion without being ostricized by fellow PETAs?

 

[SpaceTiger]

I didn't say they HAD to be. I was just wondering.

According to this article, they're neither:

http://www.fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=press&action=display&ID=11"

I didn't feel like searching their website, so I suppose that could have changed since 2001.

 

[Jelfish]

I have a friend who is a strong animal rights activist and PETA member (he doesn't firebomb) and he is pro-choice, so I would say that there would be PETA members who would support her choice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why is it ridiculous? That's what my post is about.

It's not ridiculous. The peta people make it look ridiculous. The two examples cited, the kid who legally changed his name, and the comic book, ought to make that clear. If you don't find those two things ridiculous, then, of course, saying that Peta makes concern for animals look ridiculous won't mean anything to you.

 

[Bladibla]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html