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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a PETA staffer, Chris Garnett, who changed his name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com in support of an anti-KFC campaign. Participants explore various reactions to this name change, the implications of such actions, and broader critiques of PETA's methods and messaging.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness and seriousness of Garnett's name change, suggesting it may be seen as ridiculous or foolish.
  • Others defend Garnett's right to change his name, arguing that it is a personal choice and not indicative of coercion.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential confusion this name change could cause in practical matters, such as banking.
  • Several participants critique PETA's tactics, suggesting that their stunts alienate potential supporters and undermine the animal rights movement.
  • Some participants propose a shift from an "animal rights" movement to an "animal compassion" movement, arguing that the terminology affects public perception.
  • There is a discussion about the ethical implications of animal treatment in farming and the necessity of addressing animal suffering without resorting to extreme measures.
  • One participant draws a parallel between PETA and religious fundamentalist groups, suggesting that both take their ethical beliefs to logical extremes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding PETA's methods and the implications of Garnett's name change. There is no clear consensus on the effectiveness of PETA's campaigns or the appropriateness of Garnett's actions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific PETA campaigns and materials, indicating a broader context of ongoing debates about animal rights and ethical treatment. The discussion reflects varying opinions on the balance between activism and public perception.

  • #121
Danger said:
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.
They were screaming and bubbles were coming out of their mouths. :cry: I don't care what you call it. It was disturbing enough that I will never cook another live crab. :frown:

That post was from a LONG time ago, it must've gotten to you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
AHHAHAAHHA that's funny. Id just wack them with knife to shut up and turn up the heat. You should cook lobster EVO. You get to rip its arms off while its still alive and throw him in the pot to boil without his arms. People are too damn sensitized from thinking their food comes from a can or box, because no one can actually cook anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • #123
Evo said:
They were screaming and bubbles were coming out of their mouths. :cry: I don't care what you call it. It was disturbing enough that I will never cook another live crab. :frown:


If you think that's disgusting.. I've seen my dad rip open a live lobster before steaming it. It was still violently writhing to escape in all its slimy lobster-guts glory. Thank goodness for desensitization and super markets!
 
  • #124
Evo said:
That post was from a LONG time ago, it must've gotten to you.
When I read it I used google to try to find a source that explained the "screaming" since I guessed it was something like what Danger explained but I was unable to find anything that even mentioned it.
 
  • #125
I bet that was the best damn lobster you ever ate too.
 
  • #126
cyrusabdollahi said:
AHHAHAAHHA that's funny. Id just wack them with knife to shut up and turn up the heat. You should cook lobster EVO. You get to rip its arms off while its still alive and throw him in the pot to boil without his arms. People are too damn sensitized from thinking their food comes from a can or box, because no one can actually cook anymore.

What the hell. You stole my post! :mad:
 
  • #127
cyrusabdollahi said:
I bet that was the best damn lobster you ever ate too.

It was very good lobster, actually :biggrin:
 
  • #128
Hardly, you copied MY POST!
 
  • #129
Jelfish said:
If you think that's disgusting.. I've seen my dad rip open a live lobster before steaming it. It was still violently writhing to escape in all its slimy lobster-guts glory. Thank goodness for desensitization and super markets!
Poor Evo. You should stop trying to get her goat or she might lock this thread up.
 
  • #130
Nah, if she locks this thread ill steam a teddy ruxpin while its still alive! You should hear those things scream, boy I tell you. They try to talk you out of it, read you stories, but I digress.
 
  • #131
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
Could you provide a source to support this assertion please.
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
No that is vengeance. Justice would be to make those harmed whole again which is impossible in the case of murder.

And again I challenge you to provide evidence that your assertion is PETA's philosophy.
cyrusabdollahi said:
NOPE! Its no eating animals or your a MURDERER! like i said, crackpots.
To kill a creature that loves life as much as you, simply to satisfy your own gluttony is immoral, there is no two ways around it.
Bladibla said:
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?
Since most grain is fed to animals raised for human consumption, your statement is erroneous.
Livingod said:
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.
I would suggest you read the most extensive human nutritional study ever conducted, "The China Study". Humans do not need to eat meat, in fact eating meat is responsible for the majority of disease in humans, especially the affluent. Cancer, diabetes, and heart disease are all diseases of affluence.

cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
Would you eat a dead baby? It would taste really good. Why bury your grandparents when they die? Just grind them up and make sausages, that you can eat on special occasions to remember them by.

TheStatutoryApe said:
I think that this whole moral issue arises merely from a sense of familiarity with living things that are more similar to us than others. Plants are just as much living "breathing" life forms as any other. I don't see why they are ok to eat and other living things aren't. Plants have no more "desire" to be eaten than anything else does and have evolved means of protecting themselves from being "killed" just like every other life form.

So what is the morality behind eating only plants? They aren't like us and they can't run away so it's better?
We can eat plants without killing them. In fact the Jains do not eat roots for this very reason.

Plants depend on animals to eat them and fertilize the soil with there scats, spread their seeds, and exhale CO2 for them to breath. There is a beautiful symbiotic relationship between plants and animals.

Natural carnivores regulate the herbivores.

Most animals can survive on either plant or animal foods, humans are optimized to eat plants. When we eat animals it costs us our health.

cyrusabdollahi said:
Are you saying eaitng meat is immoral?
yes

cyrusabdollahi said:
Eating meat is moral Ape. Didn't Jesus make meat (Fish) for his people? I guess he thinks Jesus is immoral too...
How do you know?
It is a story about a miracle with no evidence to support the story.

His brother James ate no meat, nor drank no wine. If his brother was vegetarian, would it not be a logical assumption that Jesus was also?

"Blessed are the meek"

Slaughtering a living creature is not meek.
 
  • #132
Would you eat a dead baby? It would taste really good. Why bury your grandparents when they die? Just grind them up and make sausages, that you can eat on special occasions to remember them by.

That kind of nonsense makes me not take you seriously, so, back to making jokes with Jelfish! I have no problem slaughtering animals for food. None at all. I don't care if its not healthy, I don't care about a china report. I will continue to eat my meat. If all the supermarkets shut down, I would raise animals and slaughter them myself for meat. I love meat that much.
 
Last edited:
  • #133
cyrusabdollahi said:
That kind of nonsense makes me not take you seriously, so, back to making jokes with Jelfish! I have no problem slaughtering animals for food. None at all. I don't care if its not healthy, I don't care about a china report. I will continue to eat my meat. If all the supermarkets shut down, I would raise animals and slaughter them myself for meat. I love meat that much.
But I am serious. And curious.

Do you have a moral problem with eating a dead human?

If so. Why?
 
  • #134
Skyhunter said:
To kill a creature that loves life as much as you, simply to satisfy your own gluttony is immoral, there is no two ways around it.

I think that morality is often times a luxury. For example, if a man were to kill a cow because he was starving and had no other immediate food source, would that be an issue of morality? When a person goes through the weekly chore of food shoping at a huge super market and picks up a package of generic chicken breast, is she willfully invoking her moral fibre? If not, then how is it an issue of morality? This goes back to the example of animals being killed in grain harvesting. Wouldn't an aware moral person then abstain from all such products as well? There comes a point when this moral standard interfers with the human (and animal) desire for self preservation. That's why I don't think it's not particularly sensical to become a vegan for purely moral reasons.
 
  • #135
Jelfish said:
I think that morality is often times a luxury. For example, if a man were to kill a cow because he was starving and had no other immediate food source, would that be an issue of morality? When a person goes through the weekly chore of food shoping at a huge super market and picks up a package of generic chicken breast, is she willfully invoking her moral fibre? If not, then how is it an issue of morality? This goes back to the example of animals being killed in grain harvesting. Wouldn't an aware moral person then abstain from all such products as well? There comes a point when this moral standard interfers with the human (and animal) desire for self preservation. That's why I don't think it's not particularly sensical to become a vegan for purely moral reasons.
If I were starving, I would eat anything to stay alive. I would even kill it first. However, I live in the land of plenty. Abundance is everywhere. I eat only plants, since they are the optimal fuel for my body. I eat very little in the way of grains, since they are not particularly nutritious.

It is immoral to kill for selfish reasons. Because it tastes good is a selfish reason. Those who cannot see past their own taste buds are immoral whether they believe it or not. But it is not my concern. I just try to do the right thing, be as small a burden on the planet as possible, and not destroy the life of my fellow creatures needlessly.

And as for B12, it does not come from meat, it comes from bacteria. meat has a lot of bacteria, since it is a dead animal and begins rotting immediately. The bacteria that produces halitosis also produces B12, so the guy with bad breath is producing his own. B12 is produced in the large intestine, unfortunately it is absorbed in the small intestine. I have heard of people who have bacteria cultures in the small intestine, but I have not seen what I would consider a reliable source.
 
  • #136
Skyhunter said:
But I am serious. And curious.
Do you have a moral problem with eating a dead human?
If so. Why?

Look morality is subjective. A tribe in africa eats other humans, if that's what they want to do, then that's their right. Their society is set up that such actions are acceptable.
 
Last edited:
  • #137
cyrusabdollahi said:
Then your question is stupid and not worthy of a reply.
Stupid is as stupid does.

I believe you have no good answer.
 
  • #138
No, that question is crap, and we both know it. You are trying to equate eating animals for food and killing other people for food. Give me a break. Not to mention the other bogus argument you make about eating babies. Common man, am I supposed to take that seriously?
 
  • #139
Every PETA thread winds up in a fight that goes nowhere. I think we've exhausted any productive discussions.
 
  • #140
TheStatutoryApe said:
Poor Evo. You should stop trying to get her goat or she might lock this thread up.
What, he's after my goat now?

Once the mud slinging starts, there's no hope. I was going to lock it earlier and refer to the last PETA thread, this one hasn't been on the topic of the guy that changed his name for quite some time. :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K