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

[SpaceTiger]

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.

See here:

"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.

You're speaking from a pragmatic point of view and I'm in agreement with you. However, I'm trying to get people to look beyond that. Perhaps you already have. If so, then my post wasn't directed at you.

 

[Jelfish]

Sure it might seem ridiculous, but it's due in part to the fact that PETA's philosophy seems ridiculous. For example, if some passionate teenager changed his/her name to FightAids, would it seem as ridiculous? If so, well, then perhaps the ridiculousness stems from changing the name, not the organization behind it. And maybe that can be attributed to over zealousness of some teenagers.

 

[Jelfish]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill
http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

Ok Maddox is occassionally humorous - I'll give you that. But there are also a lot of people who belligerently assume that vegetarians aim to emit guilt-rays at them because they are not vegetarians, when in fact there are non-ethical reasons to be a vegetarian.

The second article brings up some good points about vegan morality. I, personally, would never be a vegetarian/vegan for moral reasons.

 

[zoobyshoe]

See here:
You're speaking from a pragmatic point of view and I'm in agreement with you. However, I'm trying to get people to look beyond that. Perhaps you already have. If so, then my post wasn't directed at you.

I'm not sure what you want people to look beyond it to. Objecting to their counter-productive tactics demonstrates a concern for the issue.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I'm not sure what you want people to look beyond it to. Objecting to their counter-productive tactics demonstrates a concern for the issue.

So you honestly think everyone who views this thread just objects to their tactics and not their philosophy? Do you think it's wrong to go fishing?

 

[Jelfish]

Hey, it's free advertisment.

 

[Bladibla]

Ok Maddox is occassionally humorous - I'll give you that. But there are also a lot of people who belligerently assume that vegetarians aim to emit guilt-rays at them because they are not vegetarians, when in fact there are non-ethical reasons to be a vegetarian.
The second article brings up some good points about vegan morality. I, personally, would never be a vegetarian/vegan for moral reasons.

But your missing the point. The point of this thread was to discuss about the moral validity of PETA, who most definately fits the former of your 2 examples. Whether there *are* non-ethical veggies is irrelevant.

 

[Jelfish]

But your missing the point. The point of this thread was to discuss about the moral validity of PETA, who most definately fits the former of your 2 examples. Whether there *are* non-ethical veggies is irrelevant.

PETA isn't only about veganism. It's also about factory farming conditions and using animals for testing.

And also despite the fact that a vegan diet isn't "blood-free," the argument of intention isn't completely invalid, in my opinion. For example, construction workers have died from falling off skyscrappers. Does that necessarily mean that skyscrapper construction should be catagorized under the same ethics as say, breeding a human for the purpose of collecting his/her organs? I think a PETA member might think the same way about animals and wheat farming.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So you honestly think everyone who views this thread just objects to their tactics and not their philosophy?

I think most disagree with both. The tactics are the particular thing the thread is concentrating on.

Do you think it's wrong to go fishing?

I don't personally, if you're going to eat the fish, and there's no gratuitous pain to the fish involved. I don't fish myself, though, mostly because I'm too squeamish about killing them. I don't kill much of anything if it can be helped. I put out ant poison when the place gets invaded by them, but only because I don't know of any other way to get rid of them. If a spider is bothering me, I'll catch it in a jar and release it outside. Same with mice: I have one of those "humane" mouse traps, and I take the mice I catch out to a canyon and let them go.

I don't think a philosophy of not eating any animals at all makes PETA seem foolish. It's their methods of spreading that message that makes them look ridiculous.

 

[Bladibla]

PETA isn't only about veganism. It's also about factory farming conditions and using animals for testing.
And also despite the fact that a vegan diet isn't "blood-free," the argument of intention isn't completely invalid, in my opinion. For example, construction workers have died from falling off skyscrappers. Does that necessarily mean that skyscrapper construction should be catagorized under the same ethics as say, breeding a human for the purpose of collecting his/her organs? I think a PETA member might think the same way about animals and wheat farming.

But bear in mind that Construction workers don't have a moral crisis with their workers falling from skyscrapers. They accept that accidents *DO* happen even though they try to achieve maximum safety levels for their workers.

PETA on the other hand, actively 'care' about animals being slaughtered, and whatever they announce about their ethical policies. However, I don't understand their insistence (in this case, vegan diet) even though it has been suggested (from a respectable source) and maybe even *proven* that it does not contribute to animal rights pragmatically *and* ethically!

 

[SpaceTiger]

The tactics are the particular thing the thread is concentrating on.

Says you? Personally, I think the ethical points are much more interesting and entirely relevant to the original post. What drives someone to change their name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com?

I don't personally, if you're going to eat the fish, and there's no gratuitous pain to the fish involved. I don't fish myself, though, mostly because I'm too squeamish about killing them.

Same here. I feel awful watching them suffer and, to be honest, most of my actions toward animals are based on those feelings. Perhaps this is just rationalizing, but my ethical standpoint is something along the lines of "most good for the most creatures". The less aware a creature is of their suffering, the less "bad" I think it does them. There are a lot of caveats to the above, but I'd really like to hear what other folks think about it.

 

[Math Is Hard]

This is the sort of propaganda that really irritates me. This is from the back of the PETA comic book:

Until your daddy learns that it's not fun to kill
Keep your doggies and kitties away from him
He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals
That they could be next.

PETA has gone nuts!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Says you? Personally, I think the ethical points are much more interesting and entirely relevant to the original post. What drives someone to change their name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com?

I'm assuming there's no "what" at work here, meaning it really isn't the issue that "drove" the name change. I don't think we're dealing with a level-headed individual who changed to an extremist because of the particular cause. I think PETA is probably attracting people already predisposed to being overwrought. There may well be a lot of people who don't eat meat for humane considerations who don't want to be associated with PETA.

 

[Jelfish]

But bear in mind that Construction workers don't have a moral crisis with their workers falling from skyscrapers. They accept that accidents *DO* happen even though they try to achieve maximum safety levels for their workers.
PETA on the other hand, actively 'care' about animals being slaughtered, and whatever they announce about their ethical policies. However, I don't understand their insistence (in this case, vegan diet) even though it has been suggested (from a respectable source) and maybe even *proven* that it does not contribute to animal rights pragmatically *and* ethically!

The lesser of two evils perhaps?

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is the sort of propaganda that really irritates me. This is from the back of the PETA comic book:
PETA has gone nuts!

Yeah, this makes them look really bad.

 

[Jelfish]

I'm assuming there's no "what" at work here, meaning it really isn't the issue that "drove" the name change. I don't think we're dealing with a level-headed individual who changed to an extremist because of the particular cause. I think PETA is probably attracting people already predisposed to being overwrought. There may well be a lot of people who don't eat meat for humane considerations who don't want to be associated with PETA.

Couldn't someone not associate with PETA and still agree with PETA's view on KFC? I mean, there could be some substance to this KFC issue, no? Or have you decided that it's nothing more than extreme PETA propaganda? And if not, then maybe there is a valid driving force.

 

[franznietzsche]

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.

I've discovered that you can just add a number of spaces between the word and the period. It defeats the post length Nazi.

 

[Bladibla]

The lesser of two evils perhaps?

why?

'I don't understand their insistence (in this case, vegan diet) even though it has been suggested (from a respectable source) and maybe even *proven* that it does not contribute to animal rights pragmatically *and* ethically!'

 

[SpaceTiger]

I'm assuming there's no "what" at work here, meaning it really isn't the issue that "drove" the name change. I don't think we're dealing with a level-headed individual who changed to an extremist because of the particular cause. I think PETA is probably attracting people already predisposed to being overwrought.

I think it's easy to dismiss people who think very differently from us as just being overwrought or crazy, but I've definitely known sane people who would do outlandish things to make a point. I find it very hard to believe that their motivations are as simple as you're saying.

 

[Jelfish]

why?

'I don't understand their insistence (in this case, vegan diet) even though it has been suggested (from a respectable source) and maybe even *proven* that it does not contribute to animal rights pragmatically *and* ethically!'

Your bolded statement doesn't imply that a nonvegan diet contributes more to animal rights, however. That's what I meant by "lesser of two evils." If it came down to cutting one's losses, I would imagine that an animal rights activist would choose to not promote factory farming and things like beak clipping as one might imply by being a meat eater.

 

[Bladibla]

Your bolded statement doesn't imply that a nonvegan diet contributes more to animal rights, however. That's what I meant by "lesser of two evils." If it came down to cutting one's losses, I would imagine that an animal rights activist would choose to not promote factory farming and things like beak clipping as one might imply by being a meat eater.

So a vegan diet *does* contribute more to animal rights? The whole issue is *exactly* about which is more ethical towards animals. Implication of choosing to be a vegan is irrelevant to actual ethical consequence of being one i.e. MORE animals will die due to people taking on a vegan diet, and yet you say the animal right activist will choose a vegan diet EVEN as they know they are killing more animals?

That very ironic, and defeats the purpose of their 'endorsement of animals rights'.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it's easy to dismiss people who think very differently from us as just being overwrought or crazy,

Well, I hope you wouldn't think I'd dismiss someone on the basis of thinking very differently than me. In fact, that's frequently a reason I'm intrigued by someone.

but I've definitely known sane people who would do outlandish things to make a point.

I know what you mean, but outlandish isn't necessarily ridiculous.

I find it very hard to believe that their motivations are as simple as you're saying.

I don't think I ascribed any particular motivations to them, just extreme emotionality.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Couldn't someone not associate with PETA and still agree with PETA's view on KFC?

I thought that's what I just said:

"There may well be a lot of people who don't eat meat for humane considerations who don't want to be associated with PETA."

I mean, there could be some substance to this KFC issue, no?

From what I've heard about the way chickens are treated, I think there's a huge amount of substance to the issue. I don't see what I've said that gives the impression I think it's without substance.

Or have you decided that it's nothing more than extreme PETA propaganda? And if not, then maybe there is a valid driving force.

I don't see where anything I said should give you the impression there's nothing to be concerned about. A level headed person, though, should pursue a level-headed course of action. The guy could sit down and write letters to chicken growers, or try to get interviewed on TV to report how the chickens are treated, or orchestrate mass mailings to the general public. Instead he changes his name to "Kentucky Fried Cruelty.com". Just makes him look ridiculous.

 

[Danger]

I'm not going to contribute to the discussion in question, because all of you have expressed opinions that I agree with as well as some that I disagree with.
The only reason that I'm weighing in is to clarify something for Evo. Crustaceans, and mollusks for that matter, do not 'scream in pain' when immersed in boiling water. What you hear is pressure equalization through seams in the shell, the same as the whistle on a teakettle.

 

[Monique]

i.e. MORE animals will die due to people taking on a vegan diet, and yet you say the animal right activist will choose a vegan diet EVEN as they know they are killing more animals?

explain to me how being a vegan leads to the death/killing of more animals?

 

[Pengwuino]

explain to me how being a vegan leads to the death/killing of more animals?

I believe its because vegan diets tend to have a lot of wheat and grain and products of wheat and grain in them and unfortunately, a huge numbers of animals are killed during harvesting (remember, ALL animals count if we're dealing with the morality of killing animals) because of the harvesting machines and becuase its impossible to actually look into the fields to see where the animals are.

Kinda gross when you think about it

 

[Monique]

You probably mean pulses (pod-bearing plants), I don't think a vegan eats that much more bread

Cows need to eat a lot too and a lot of energy is lost during the conversion of plants to meat, so I'd highly doubt that the statement is true (not all cows grow up grazing in a field). I DID once find a dried grass hopper in between my lentils, never found a rabbit yet

But don't let this comment side-track the PETA discussion.

 

[Bladibla]

explain to me how being a vegan leads to the death/killing of more animals?

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

I say more because I think this article wouldn't exist in the first place if more animals weren't killed with the vegan diet.

 

[Bladibla]

Cows need to eat a lot too and a lot of energy is lost during the conversion of plants to meat, so I'd highly doubt that the statement is true (not all cows grow up grazing in a field).

I don't see how this point is related to what I imply:

'Vegan diet leads to more animal deaths than normal diets'

 

[franznietzsche]

You probably mean pulses (pod-bearing plants), I don't think a vegan eats that much more bread

Cows need to eat a lot too and a lot of energy is lost during the conversion of plants to meat, so I'd highly doubt that the statement is true (not all cows grow up grazing in a field). I DID once find a dried grass hopper in between my lentils, never found a rabbit yet

Have you ever seen a mechanical harvester? There wouldn't be enough left of it for you to notice, once they washed it off anyway.

 

[Pengwuino]

Have you ever seen a mechanical harvester? There wouldn't be enough left of it for you to notice, once they washed it off anyway.

Yah those things look like medieval mass murdering devices. Its basically a sharp helix blade that spisn like a screwdriver.

 

[Cyrus]

Jesus, this things getting way out of hand. Mass murdering harvesting devices? What do you have against fishing spacetiger? Fishing does a lot of good for the fish. If you hadn't noticed, people who go fising are not mass murders PETA makes them out to be. They care for the river, and try to sustain the fish population, as opposed to fishermen in the fishing industry. The same goes for hunting. You HAVE to kill the animals when there are no checks on them, or they will over populate, and their immune systems will go down, and result in more animals dying. MY GOD, I can't take any more of the crackpotery posts! Jelfish, why are you putting a spin on everything? Go read PETA's website, they DO make you feel inferior for eating meat, how can you NOT see that!? Why are you trying to defend a guy who changes his name to kentucky fried crackpot.com and stick up for him?

For example, construction workers have died from falling off skyscrappers. Does that necessarily mean that skyscrapper construction should be catagorized under the same ethics as say, breeding a human for the purpose of collecting his/her organs?

please, stop posting nonsense and bad examples that make NO sense at ALL.

 

[Monique]

I don't see how this point is related to what I imply:
'Vegan diet leads to more animal deaths than normal diets'

Cows are also fed with products harvested by plowing machines, you can better directly give the food to humans than to (for instance) cows, since the energy of the food is lost to energy that dissipates as heat or work. More food is needed in the end to get the same output.

The article doesn't say "eating meat is better than eating vegan, since less animals are killed", it proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production. I think many vegans would be happy to eat meat if they know that an animal did not lead a stressful live (ofcourse there is a group that just does not like meat).

Don't eat animal suffering, there are alternatives such as 'biologically' produced products that have higher standards of production.

 

[Livingod]

I am against animal suffering as well, but we as human beings need meat to live. If babies grow up the PeTA way, we'll be looking at a higher infant morality rate. The USDA did not make the food pyramid just for show.

 

[Bladibla]

Cows are also fed with products harvested by plowing machines, you can better directly give the food to humans than to (for instance) cows, since the energy of the food is lost to energy that dissipates as heat or work. More food is needed in the end to get the same output.

The article doesn't say "eating meat is better than eating vegan, since less animals are killed", it proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production. I think many vegans would be happy to eat meat if they know that an animal did not lead a stressful live (ofcourse there is a group that just does not like meat).

Don't eat animal suffering, there are alternatives such as 'biologically' produced products that have higher standards of production.

But you are assuming that the plants that cows eat are edible by humans as well. Theretically, yes, more energy would be used eating just plants th an eating meat. However, in reality, those plants are inedible for humans and not all ground are fertile enough to grow crops. On those gounds, there is no CHOICE but to farm meat from cows, pig, goat etc animals.

In the case of PETA, however, are just plain ignorant about this matter

 

[Monique]

I am against animal suffering as well, but we as human beings need meat to live. If babies grow up the PeTA way, we'll be looking at a higher infant morality rate. The USDA did not make the food pyramid just for show.

Where did you get the link infant mortality and vegetarianism from? Humans don't need meat to live, I know plenty of cases of people who have had a vegetarian diet from when they were in the womb. The only reason why meat would be necessary is for vitamin B12, but that is also present in milk and egg.

 

[Monique]

But you are assuming that the plants that cows eat are edible by humans as well. Theretically, yes, more energy would be used eating just plants th an eating meat. However, in reality, those plants are inedible for humans and not all ground are fertile enough to grow crops. On those gounds, there is no CHOICE but to farm meat from cows, pig, goat etc animals.
In the case of PETA, however, are just plain ignorant about this matter

Sure it is an interesting hypothesis and they should definitely look into it.

I am not assuming that the plants that cows eat are edible to humans as well. You either grow a field with grass and harvest hay or you grow the field with pulses and harvest that. Cows are also fed with by-products from harvests, think about corn or other crops.

 

[Livingod]

PeTA does not want people to eat eggs or drink milk.

Quote from the "Meet the meat" video on kentuckyfriedcruelty.com, "...if you drink milk, you are supporting animal cruelty" and they had something in there about hens and how they shock them for eggs

The PeTA way that I am talking about is without meat, milk, or eggs which comprimise two whole sections of the food pyramid: dairy and protein.

 

[Monique]

Eggs and milk are not meat. In your previous post you said "we as human beings need meat to live".

Sources of protein other than meat, dairy and eggs: nuts, pulses, tofu, tempeh. And vitamin B12: a bottle. And to be a vegetarian you do not need to go the PeTA way, you do not even need to go vegetarian: biological products are a solution. Did you notice that the amount of meat and diary got reduced in the food pyramid?

 

[Jelfish]

http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
I say more because I think this article wouldn't exist in the first place if more animals weren't killed with the vegan diet.

I wonder if Davis takes into account the amount of feed needed for cows.

The following article states that it requires 10kg of grain to make 1kg of beef. If that's true, then it seems to me that the average production of grain would decrease if cows were no longer used as food. Then it would also decrease the number of animals accidentally killed in grain production as well as the cows killed for meat.

http://www.Earth'save.bc.ca/materials/articles/articles/enviro/why_does.html

 

[Monique]

Yes, that is also what I was trying to make clear: cows don't just eat the grass in pastures.

 

[Jelfish]

Jelfish, why are you putting a spin on everything?

I don't think I'm spinning things. I'm just trying to find a rationale behind PETA's philosophy. I'm not so willing to believe that they're all mindless crackpots. Of course, there are some PETA members who do unwise things, but that isn't necessarily a direct result of animal-rights activism. My discussion is an attempt to understand the thinking process of a radical animal-rights activist rather than just dismiss them as crackpots. After all, I could easily agree with you, but where's the fun in that?

 

[Cyrus]

Jelfish, you rabble rouser

I'm just trying to find a rationale behind PETA's philosophy.

You will drive yourself insane trying to find any logic behind them...heheh.

 

[Jelfish]

Jelfish, you rabble rouser



You will drive yourself insane trying to find any logic behind them...heheh.

Insane enough to join PETA? hmm I spot a modus operandi.

 

[Danger]

It seems to me that the basic mentality, or lack thereof, displayed by the 'vocal' PETA members is the same as that of people who talk to plants. How long before they try to keep us from eating them too, and reduce us to a diet of rocks?

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think I'm spinning things. I'm just trying to find a rationale behind PETA's philosophy. I'm not so willing to believe that they're all mindless crackpots. Of course, there are some PETA members who do unwise things, but that isn't necessarily a direct result of animal-rights activism. My discussion is an attempt to understand the thinking process of a radical animal-rights activist rather than just dismiss them as crackpots. After all, I could easily agree with you, but where's the fun in that?

The non-insane people never hit the newspaper headlines.

 

[honestrosewater]

How long before they try to keep us from eating them too, and reduce us to a diet of rocks?

Hey, what did rocks ever do you you? Heathen.

For some people, including myself, the issue is not killing but pain. I'm not certain that you can experience pain, but I have good enough reason to think and act as if you can. Same goes for other organisms with nervous systems. One of the reasons I choose not to eat organisms with nervous systems is that it's not worth my time or energy to find out, for each one that I might eat, the likelihood that it experienced an unacceptable amount of pain in order for me to eat it. It's easier to just choose to eat other things like plants and rocks, which I doubt are capable of experiencing pain.

Regarding the USDA food pyramid and such, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html might be interesting. Consider, for example, this point:

The USDA's MyPyramid also had many builders. Some are obvious - USDA scientists, nutrition experts, staff members, and consultants. Others aren't. Intense lobbying efforts from a variety of food industries also helped shape the pyramid.
...
If the only goal of the Food Guide Pyramid is to give us the best possible advice for healthy eating, then it should be grounded in the evidence and be independent of business.
Instead of waiting for this to happen, nutrition experts from the Harvard School of Public Health created the Healthy Eating Pyramid [explained in article]. It is based on the best available scientific evidence about the links between diet and health. This new pyramid fixes fundamental flaws in the USDA pyramid and offers sound information to help people make better choices about what to eat.

Other pyramid guides to building a healthy diet -- including a vegetarian one -- can be found http://www.e-guana.net/organizations.php3?orgid=61&typeID=193&action=printContentItem&itemID=1521 (looks like they might be in the process of updating their site).

 

[Cyrus]

Who cares, it tastes good. I'd shoot a cow in the head and eat it, without hesistation. Painless death, and good food! Yummy. Yeah the cow will die, so sad... Hes not a pet cow. I don't really care if he's dead to be honest. I just care that he tastes good, and his skin makes good leather.

 

[Danger]

Hey, what did rocks ever do you you?

http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/frank.htm"

I'm out for revenge.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Who cares, it tastes good. I'd shoot a cow in the head and eat it, without hesistation. Painless death, and good food! Yummy. Yeah the cow will die, so sad... Hes not a pet cow. I don't really care if he's dead to be honest. I just care that he tastes good, and his skin makes good leather.

The way you propose to kill the cow is actually quite merciful compared to what happens to many of them at factory farms.