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?