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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
139 replies · 14K views
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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?)
 
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.
 
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.
 
NOPE! Its no eating animals or your a MURDERER! like i said, crackpots.
 
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.

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?
 
tribdog said:
Question: Is PETA Pro-Choice?

That would be a non-issue if the person believed that life started after birth or viability.
 
Jelfish said:
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.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
Last edited:
tribdog said:
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?
 
tribdog said:
Question: Is PETA Pro-Choice?

Why would they all have to be one or the other?
 
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
 
SpaceTiger said:
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?
 
tribdog said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
SpaceTiger said:
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.
 
zoobyshoe said:
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:

SpaceTiger said:
"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.
 
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.
 
Bladibla said:
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.
 
SpaceTiger said:
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.
 
zoobyshoe said:
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 said:
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 definitely fits the former of your 2 examples. Whether there *are* non-ethical veggies is irrelevant.
 
Bladibla said:
But your missing the point. The point of this thread was to discuss about the moral validity of PETA, who most definitely 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.
 
SpaceTiger said:
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.
 
Jelfish said:
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!