KFC Abuse Scandal [Archive]

Dissident Dan

Jul22-04, 11:51 AM

Ivan Seeking

Jul22-04, 03:52 PM

You may remember the mink farmer that I met who hates mink? He described much of the same kinds of activities on the mink farms.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul22-04, 08:53 PM

First of all, the mentor may wish to start this as a new thread, since I am sure this post will elicit many responses.

What is the big deal about this situation? I've just debated with my dad for over 2 hours about this.. I really don't understand the problem. These chickens were intended to die, and they died. Should it matter how they were killed? My dad says its an "inhumane death".. the chickens are not human! Their purpose in life, from the time they are developed (whether tubed or natural) up to the moment the sharpened metal meets their neck, is to die. They are bred for food, for death, and for nothing else. If we sit here and develop emotions over feed-chickens, we are in the wrong. Who cares if their necks were broken, beaks ripped off, wings torn, or thrown against a wall?

Some may call me cold hearted. I am far from it. I have several dogs, a cat, and even birds, which I humanize (give human traits to). I love them, and would be horrified to see this happen to them. BUT, they are not intended for death. They are intended for a life of domestication, not food.

Look in nature. The other day I was watching the discovery channel which yielded hour long specials stuffed with shocking video of this bastard lion stalking this poor wildebeest (probably a mother, giving her baby food). The inhumane lion then proceeded to chase the wildebeest to exhaustion, finally ripping its thigh wide open, ending with a bite around its throat, suffocating it to death. All the while the wildebeest struggled, bleated, and eventually fell limp. Someone should sue this lion. Fire it from the African plains. The family of the wildebeest should file claim upon claim, including wrongful death. By the way, include Mr Boa for swallowing that cute bunny WHOLE.. he didn't even have the common courtesy to chew! Also, make sure the sentence is also given to the other snakes and acid-digesting spiders.

This obviously is an over-approach to the obvious: nature does not care about emotions when it comes to survival (food). Cavemen used to throw rocks at chickens (pre-technology). If someone were to do that now, they would be charged and fired. But just because we have developed technology which produces a faster death (not for humane purposes, but for quicker processing, leading to a better economy), we are supposed to do it one way and not another.

I say the workers were not wrong. There is no abuse. There is no scandal. They were relieving primal urges. I say its better feed chickens than people.

These are all quick statements intended to bring about this side of the "issue". More will be said.

Monique

Jul22-04, 09:19 PM

I really don't understand the problem. These chickens were intended to die, and they died. Should it matter how they were killed? My dad says its an "inhumane death".. the chickens are not human!
:eek: :mad:

Isn't empathy a human trait? You would seem inhuman by your statement and thus deserve to die in the same manner? Please. :mad:

Evo

Jul22-04, 10:09 PM

Their purpose in life, from the time they are developed (whether tubed or natural) up to the moment the sharpened metal meets their neck, is to die. They are bred for food, for death, and for nothing else. If we sit here and develop emotions over feed-chickens, we are in the wrong. Who cares if their necks were broken, beaks ripped off, wings torn, or thrown against a wall? It is not their "natural" purpose in life. It is the desire of the owners that they be killed for profit. This does not mean that they should be tortured. Some people keep chickens for pets. Many chickens are raised for laying eggs.

Some may call me cold hearted. I am far from it. I have several dogs, a cat, and even birds, which I humanize (give human traits to). I love them, and would be horrified to see this happen to them. BUT, they are not intended for death. They are intended for a life of domestication, not food. You don't intend for them to be put to death. In some cultures they are intended for food. So, according to you, it would be ok to torture them then?

I say the workers were not wrong. There is no abuse. There is no scandal. They were relieving primal urges. I say its better feed chickens than people. We have laws in this country against cruelty to animals.

These are all quick statements intended to bring about this side of the "issue". More will be said.Your line of thinking seems to be a bit flawed.

I have always liked the following quote "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
--Leonardo Da Vinci

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul22-04, 10:44 PM

It is not their "natural" purpose in life. It is the desire of the owners that they be killed for profit. This does not mean that they should be tortured. Some people keep people for pets. Many chickens are raised for laying eggs.

I'm not advocating we change to this way of processing. I'm merely stating that this release of primal urge upon objects should not be punished. These chickens are bred for food. I know it is not their natural life, but for the last thousands of years they have been on this planet under the purpose of food. Your statement about people keeping people for pets is irrelevant. You must have missed my comment about domesticated animals. Animals raised for pets are raised for pets... not food. Yes, chickens are raised for eggs too. But what happens when they are beyond the age specifications they are sent to the chop shop.

You don't intend for them to be put to death. In some cultures they are intended for food. So, according to you, it would be ok to torture them then?

In cultures in areas such as eastern countries where they eat cats like we do pigs, it is ok for them to be eating cats. Who are we as a different culture to care about them eating precious cats? Look at India for example. Do you see us caring about their concerns when we slice into a nice juicy steak? In this culture, we regard chickens as typically being feed animals. These chickens in this particular discussion were definitely feed animals. They were not pets, they were not religious icons. They were objects for food for survival (more economic than for diet.. greasy KFC is hardly a hardy meal). Like I said above, I am not saying we turn back the clock 2,000 years and revert back to "torture" for killing our food. I'm just saying these people should not be punished. They did something immature, and if punished at all it should be for their lack of concern for safety of themselves; meaning the diseases and whatnot from blood.

We have laws in this country against cruelty to animals.

Yes, we do. And I believe they should be upheld. For domesticated animals. If one of these workers went to some farm where a guy had a pet chicken that he was raising as a domesticated animal and killed it, THEN he should be punished. But for an object that is about to die, he should be reprimanded for his lack of responsibility, not for his lack of emotion. It's issues like this that will cause me in my old days, or my children, to have to have a special permit to eat chicken. Look at what's going on here. All this disturbance over this small issue now will lead to huge changes in the future. soon PETA will be arguing that our current technology needs to be revamped. 20 years from now, we will be forced to be vegetarians and vitamin poppers, all because it will be inhumane (any way you look at it) to kill a living animal for food. then (in a exaggerated view) PETA will look at plants as living, and redefine the words living, and soul. We are becoming a civilization whose sole survival is becoming artificial. We pop vitamins, force our bodies on 0 carb diets, become disgusted in the way a few chickens were handled..

Your line of thinking seems to be a bit flawed.

Tell me where I have contradicted myself. Please. And if you are telling me I'm flawed for having this opinion, then shame on you. I'm allowed this opinion, and since there is no judicial or moral right or wrong in this issue (hence the allowance of opnions) i think I should be heard without prejudice.

I have always liked the following quote "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
--Leonardo Da Vinci

Isn't it ironic that at the peak of religious times (the times of jesus, etc) there were no discussions about how animals were killed, or that they were even killed at all for food. And now, in an age that has become more technological and "sensitive", and less dominated by religion, the issue springs up.

Let me ask you, before you knew about this, back at the last time you chomped down on a nice thick leg of chicken, did you think about how that animal was killed? Or did you revel with your pals about how tender the meat was, or how thankful you were to have that meal?

Moonbear

Jul22-04, 10:54 PM

When has PETA ever staged anything? People seem to immediately hate groups like PETA because they don't like their message, so they resort to slander and libel. How, exactly, could that many PETA members go into a chicken factory and do all the things done without being caught? Do you really think that people who care much more about animals than the typical person could do these horrendous acts?

They are extremists. Those "classic" photos they put in all their brochures of monkeys being "tortured" in research labs were all staged by PETA. They had one of their members apply for a job in a research facility as an animal care tech, and when the lab head left for a vacation or trip and left that person in charge of the animals, they staged all those photos. Of course the initial story of abuse made front page headlines, the later retraction after years of litigation to clear the researcher's name was a few lines in the "corrections" of the papers. It only required a few people get a job in one chicken factory, and with a job that requires unskilled labor, that's not a hard thing to do.

Don't you also think it's cruel when they release tame, laboratory animals out into the wild where they will quite quickly be killed by predators or die of exposure to environments for which they are not adapted? PETA does that too. And the reason a group that claims to be fighting for animal rights would do something so horrendous is the same reason an anti-abortion activist would blow up an abortion clinic with the people inside it...extremists do things that don't make a bit of sense to any of the rest of us, resorting to violence to achieve their agenda. It's not slander or libel to point out they have a known history of such activities and to state that I'd hold off judgement on the chicken farmers until I knew for certain who those people were in that video.

The other reason it wouldn't make sense that a producer would allow such behavior is that it would hurt the profits (sadly, this is often a greater motivator of humane treatment of animals than anything else for some people). It would hurt profits in a number of ways: 1) if those chickens are not yet ready for slaughter, they will lose the meat from any that die as a result of the abuse AND those that don't die will be extremely stressed and won't gain weight the way a healthy chicken would, 2) if those chickens are destined for slaughter, breaking their bones, as would have had to happen with the way they were stomped on and flung around, would reduce their value...bruised meat is considered poor quality, and 3) those employees are obviously spending time NOT doing whatever their assigned job is, which again reduces profits.

I guess I see this as the Abu Ghraib of the chicken world. The person taking the pictures is just as guilty of allowing animal abuse as the people in the photo. Did PETA do anything to stop the individuals involved, or inform their supervisors of these acts, or did they run straight for the videotape to get some big publicity for themselves? That doesn't sound much like they were really concerned for the animals so much as trying to campaign to get more donations for their organization.

Moonbear

Jul22-04, 11:06 PM

Isn't it ironic that at the peak of religious times (the times of jesus, etc) there were no discussions about how animals were killed, or that they were even killed at all for food. And now, in an age that has become more technological and "sensitive", and less dominated by religion, the issue springs up.

That's not true. I'm sure there are people here who know far more about religion than I do, but there are very specific rules about the slaughter of animals for food in religions such as Judaism (they are very particular about how an animal must be slaughtered for meat to be considered Kosher).

There is no reason to cause an animal to suffer needlessly. Even when they are brought in for slaughter for food, we still have an obligation to do that as humanely as we can. But for those who are unconcerned with those reasons, as I mentioned in my above post, mistreating animals is also costly for the producer...sometimes money talks where morals don't.

Evo

Jul22-04, 11:15 PM

Yes, we do. And I believe they should be upheld. For domesticated animals.I disagree, all animals have the right to be treated ethically. It doesn't matter if ultimately it will be killed for food, torturing the animal and inflicting unecessary pain is wrong. If one of these workers went to some farm where a guy had a pet chicken that he was raising as a domesticated animal and killed it, THEN he should be punished. But for an object that is about to die, he should be reprimanded for his lack of responsibility, not for his lack of emotion. It's an animal, it feels pain, it is not an object.

Tell me where I have contradicted myself. Please.I didn't say that you had contradicted yourself. And if you are telling me I'm flawed for having this opinion, then shame on you.I didn't say that you were flawed. Your reasoning on when it is and isn't right to torture an animal is, in my opinion, a bit flawed. I'm allowed this opinion, and since there is no judicial or moral right or wrong in this issue (hence the allowance of opnions) i think I should be heard without prejudice.Did I say that you didn't have a right to your opinion? no. You are being heard without prejudice. I have an opinion also. I disagree with you. Stop falsely accusing me of saying things that I didn't say.

Let me ask you, before you knew about this, back at the last time you chomped down on a nice thick leg of chicken, did you think about how that animal was killed? Or did you revel with your pals about how tender the meat was, or how thankful you were to have that meal?Yes, actually, I do think about it. I would hope they would not be cruelly tortured. I rarely eat meat anymore because I do think more and more about it.

Dissident Dan

Jul23-04, 02:29 AM

What is the big deal about this situation? I've just debated with my dad for over 2 hours about this.. I really don't understand the problem. These chickens were intended to die, and they died. Should it matter how they were killed? My dad says its an "inhumane death".. the chickens are not human! Their purpose in life, from the time they are developed (whether tubed or natural) up to the moment the sharpened metal meets their neck, is to die. They are bred for food, for death, and for nothing else. If we sit here and develop emotions over feed-chickens, we are in the wrong. Who cares if their necks were broken, beaks ripped off, wings torn, or thrown against a wall?

It doesn't matter what arbitrary purpose some people assign to them, they still have feelings and thus deserve to be treated humanely. They do not suffer less because someone intends to slaughter them. What humans ate humans and humans were raised for food? Would the fact that they had the purpose of becoming dinner mean that how they are treated is of no concern?

Dissident Dan

Jul23-04, 02:38 AM

They are extremists. Those "classic" photos they put in all their brochures of monkeys being "tortured" in research labs were all staged by PETA...Of course the initial story of abuse made front page headlines, the later retraction after years of litigation to clear the researcher's name was a few lines in the "corrections" of the papers.

Do you have any documentation for this?

The other reason it wouldn't make sense that a producer would allow such behavior is that it would hurt the profits (sadly, this is often a greater motivator of humane treatment of animals than anything else for some people). It would hurt profits in a number of ways: 1) if those chickens are not yet ready for slaughter, they will lose the meat from any that die as a result of the abuse AND those that don't die will be extremely stressed and won't gain weight the way a healthy chicken would, 2) if those chickens are destined for slaughter, breaking their bones, as would have had to happen with the way they were stomped on and flung around, would reduce their value...bruised meat is considered poor quality, and 3) those employees are obviously spending time NOT doing whatever their assigned job is, which again reduces profits.

Factory farming economics expect that many animals to die. For them, it is cheaper to neglect and abuse animals and let some die than to provide adequate care and have more survive until slaughter. I'll give you that the employees obviously wasted time...but that happens in any industry. People always try to slack off.

Jin314159

Jul23-04, 02:41 AM

Yes indeed. We must certrainly treat chickens with respect, courtesy and kindness.... before we rip off their feathers, gut them open, and grind their meat into Mcnuggets.

Jin314159

Jul23-04, 02:47 AM

Some may call me cold hearted. I am far from it. I have several dogs, a cat, and even birds, which I humanize (give human traits to). I love them, and would be horrified to see this happen to them. BUT, they are not intended for death. They are intended for a life of domestication, not food.

You're not cold-hearted at all. Furthermore, we have to draw the line somewhere. We can't mourn for every cockroach we accidentally step on. Some people draw the line when it comes to poultry intended for consumption.

And for those non-vegetarians complaining about this "scandal," you're all hypocrites.

Njorl

Jul23-04, 10:17 AM

Njorl

Jul23-04, 10:22 AM

I have always liked the following quote "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
--Leonardo Da Vinci

Leonardo Da Vinci worked for the Borgias. It is quite likely that those he associated with already looked upon the murder of animals as they did the murder of men. For those of you not up on your renaissance history, the Borgias were not vegetarians.

Njorl

Monique

Jul23-04, 11:36 AM

I'm not advocating we change to this way of processing. I'm merely stating that this release of primal urge upon objects should not be punished.
The people performing these acts obviously don't have respect for life, you think they will respect a human? Do you know what many serial killers had as a hobby when growing up? Ofcourse such cruel and anti-social behaviour should be punished.

These chickens are bred for food. I know it is not their natural life, but for the last thousands of years they have been on this planet under the purpose of food. Your statement about people keeping people for pets is irrelevant. You must have missed my comment about domesticated animals. Animals raised for pets are raised for pets... not food. Yes, chickens are raised for eggs too.
Chickens are also raised as pets, so how would that change the act performed by those people? It does not. The fact that makes those acts objectionable is that the animal suffers unnecessarily.

So you would say that anyone can buy a pig destined for the slaughterhouse and start dissecting it while still alive, since, the pig was destined to die anyway :mad: sick. I wouldn't even pull out a leg of a spider or put salt on a snail.

Gokul43201

Jul23-04, 03:33 PM

Ad Infinitum Nau :
You seem to have attracted a fair bunch of moral rebuttals, so I won't add to them. Your argument also seems to have several logical errors.

Primarily, it hinges upon the distinction you make between chickens bred for KFC and your pet dog.

These chickens were intended to die, and they died. Should it matter how they were killed?

Let me rephrase this without changing the meaning of this argument : "These chickens were intended to die. Should it matter how they were made to die?"

By the same argument, domesticated animals are intended to live till their natural death. So, should it matter how they are made to live ?

Can we not happily torture our pet animals, as long as we make sure we don't kill them ? After all, they are intended to give us happiness.

I see at least 2 more LOGICAL errors in your argument...but I don't intend to get into lengthy logical discourses just yet.

Gokul43201

Jul23-04, 03:43 PM

You're not cold-hearted at all. Furthermore, we have to draw the line somewhere. We can't mourn for every cockroach we accidentally step on. Some people draw the line when it comes to poultry intended for consumption.

And for those non-vegetarians complaining about this "scandal," you're all hypocrites.

This argument is weak, because the treatment of the chickens is not "accidental" !

A marginally stronger argument would use the fact that some people step on roaches intentionally, without receiving an equal amount of scorn. A much stronger argument would consider people that torture bugs for fun.

Monique

Jul23-04, 03:51 PM

And for those non-vegetarians complaining about this "scandal," you're all hypocrites.
It would be hypocrite if these non-veggies were against sacrificing animals. The case is, that objections are raised about the WAY these chickens are brought to their death.

jimmy p

Jul23-04, 07:06 PM

Unfortunately, a lot of animals are cruelly treated before they are slaughtered for our benefit or whatever. However, I personally dont want to dote on every piece of meat so as long as I dont visit these places, I couldnt care less as long as the food keeps landing on my plate.

Moonbear

Jul23-04, 08:44 PM

Do you have any documentation for this?

Fair enough...
I have information from two different sources here. One is from the Foundation for Biomedical Research. I'll understand if you're skeptical of that source since they are clearly in opposition to PETA's policies. The other is from a consumer advocacy website whose mission is to inform people of non-profit organizations that abuse their not-for-profit status, so is neutral regarding the causes but takes sides regarding how the organization spends money and whether donations are actually used for the purposes donors think it's being used. It's important to also note that in recent years, PETA has toned down what is done in the name of the organization PETA, but instead, channels funds to shadier organizations, such as ALF, which, as you'll see below, is considered a terrorist organization by the FBI. I believe Alex Pacheco was the one who staged the photos of "abuse" of the monkeys, but those would be old news stories, so not something I could provide sources for.

Here's additional information though.

Alex Pacheco
co-founder of PETA

*
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." 7
7. Bartlett, Kay. Associated Press Newsfeatures. January 3, 1989."

"Bruce Friedrich
PETA campaign coordinator
"It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow." 9
9.Speech at the Animal Rights 2001 conference. July 3, 2001. Quoted in a guest column by Richard Berman in USA Today, November 1, 2001.

Source: http://www.fbresearch.org/education/opponents.htm

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been described as “by far the most successful radical organization in America.” The key word is radical. PETA seeks “total animal liberation,” according to its president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of course; but it also means no aquariums, no circuses, no hunting or fishing, no fur or leather, and no medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.

Amidst the dozens of animal rights organizations, PETA occupies the niche of -- in Newkirk’s own words -- “complete press sluts.” Endlessly seeking media exposure, PETA sends out dozens of press releases every week.

In the past, PETA has handled the press for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a violent, underground group of fanatics who plant firebombs in restaurants, destroy butcher shops, and torch research labs. The FBI considers ALF among America’s most active and prolific terrorist groups, but PETA compares it to the Underground Railroad and the French Resistance. More than 20 years after its inception, PETA continues to hire convicted ALF militants and funds their legal defense. In at least one case, court records show that Ingrid Newkirk herself was involved in an ALF arson.

and

PETA is not an animal welfare organization.
PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,300 cats and dogs in 1999 alone, preferring to spend its money on cheap publicity stunts and criminal defense, rather than finding the animals suitable homes.

Source (above 2 quotes): http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause,” says Alex Pacheco, co-founder and former chairman of PETA. Pacheco launched his “direct action” career with the whale ship-sinking Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the late 1970s. He now serves on its board of directors. Rumored to be a “commander” of the Animal Liberation Front -- a criminal group listed as a domestic terrorist organization by the FBI -- Pacheco has been subpoenaed in connection to ALF activities.

Source: http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1459

loseyourname

Jul23-04, 09:10 PM

When Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh decided to refrain from eating meat during his last meal, PETA’s Bruce Friedrich told reporters: “Mr. McVeigh’s decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries, including Albert Schweitzer, Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein.”

And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks.

Are you kidding me? Who the hell in their right mind would think these kinds of things?

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul24-04, 02:24 PM

Yes, actually, I do think about it. I would hope they would not be cruelly tortured. I rarely eat meat anymore because I do think more and more about it.

Don't you see my point? All this disturbance over this one issue is changing many views on the way we eat meat. People are going to "think more and more about it" and lower their meat intake. In 20 years we will have humanized our feed animals so much that people like me who love love love meat are going to be downcast as murderers and psychotics. This is ridiculous. I remember the day when I was young on my grandpa's farm, and watched him kill his pigs and chickens. What he would do is whack them on the head with a shovel or the broad side of a hatchet so they would be knocked unconscious so he could decapitate them without them squirming. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it would just bounce off them. Sometimes he would have to catch the chicken to crack its neck, and sometimes that would just kill them, or sometimes it would render them parallized and seizuring. I never heard my family talk about that as uncruel. That was the way he had done it for years, and the way generations before him too. There's a difference between a feed animal and a domesticated animal. There's also a difference upon culture. For millenia we have killed cows for food. In India, they are religious icons, treated more fairly than humans. You people are asking me if people ate people should it not matter how they are killed, and i say NO it does not. You are obviously "cold-hearted" when you are ignoring the views of Indians. To them, we are murderers, psychos, and hell-bent nutcases.. because we, in OUR culture, eat cows.

By the same argument, domesticated animals are intended to live till their natural death. So, should it matter how they are made to live ?

Can we not happily torture our pet animals, as long as we make sure we don't kill them ? After all, they are intended to give us happiness.

They are intended to live.. period. Death comes to us all, naturally. These chickens are bred for death by humans. That is their sole purpose for life; to be killed by us. In our culture, a domesticated pet is intended to live and die naturally. There are people who keep chickens as pets, yes. And they should not be killed by humans because their purpose for life is to die naturally. These chickens in this chop shop were intended to be killed by humans. If any logic is flawed, it is yours because you are misconstruing my point. The only way these people wronged society it was becuase of their lack of concern for safety and economic prosperity. Bruised chicken meat is no good. Blood everywhere is not safe. But the "torture" was not wrong morally. These chickens should not be given moral or ethic labels.

Ivan Seeking

Jul24-04, 02:43 PM

All humans are intended to die as well. It matters how they are killed.

Njorl

Monique

Jul24-04, 03:06 PM

But the "torture" was not wrong morally.
:insert shocked smily:

Ad Infinitum NAU, how do you justify torture?

Monique

Jul24-04, 03:14 PM

In India, they are religious icons, treated more fairly than humans. You people are asking me if people ate people should it not matter how they are killed, and i say NO it does not. You are obviously "cold-hearted" when you are ignoring the views of Indians. To them, we are murderers, psychos, and hell-bent nutcases.. because we, in OUR culture, eat cows.
Cows are honored as living creatures in India, not as gods. There are no temples honoring cows, though the bull has a divine status because of the connection to the god Shiva. Cows are such honored animals in India for the riches it brings people: milk, yoghurt, butter, urine and manure (killing a cow would take away this resource and is disrespectful to the offerings this creature has made).

And do I understand correctly what you just said there is:
"If people at people: it would not matter how they are killed" ?

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul24-04, 03:30 PM

And do I understand correctly what you just said there is:
"If people at people: it would not matter how they are killed" ?

If there existed a culture of some creature (whether human, animal, or alien) in some land that bred humans for food purposes, we have no right to say that is wrong! To us, yes it is wrong, but to that culture it is right. In the culture of feed animals, it is right to kill chickens for food. In this culture it is right to kill cows for steak. In Indian culture it is wrong to kill cows for steak. Why are you people not angry at the way a boa kills its prey (by swallowing it whole and live). Why are you not angry at the way a venomous snake kills its prey (by injecting it with venom that kills slowly and painfully, much like torture). I am not an advocate of unnecessary torture, such as this KFC deal. It was unnecessary, yes. But it was not wrong or unlawful. It was merely un-economic. Torture is a primal urge.. yes it needs to be controlled, but there are some people who are immature. 7 year-olds tear the legs off grasshoppers, rip the tails off lizards, and shoot BBs at birds. 7 year-olds doing this are acting on primal urges. They don't know torture, and moral/ethical "humane" ways. It is a part of curiosity. Like I said before, there are times when it is unnecessary. There are times when it is wrong (say to a human or culturally-defined domesticated animal). But the KFC'ers were not wrong.

Monique

Jul24-04, 03:34 PM

There are times when it is wrong (say to a human or culturally-defined domesticated animal). But the KFC'ers were not wrong.
HAH! You just cut your own hand! Since so many people object to it: according to OUR cultural values: it IS wrong for those people to do what they did.

Hurkyl

Jul24-04, 03:42 PM

Why don't we have laws against pulling the wings off of flies? :frown:

Anyways, the main reason I'm chipping in is this:

They were relieving primal urges.

Why would you, or anyone, think this an acceptable excuse for anything?

Elizabeth1405

Jul24-04, 04:29 PM

I really don't understand the problem. These chickens were intended to die, and they died. Should it matter how they were killed? They are bred for food, for death, and for nothing else... Who cares if their necks were broken, beaks ripped off, wings torn, or thrown against a wall?

Let's see...if I follow your logic, ANYTHING "bread to die" can be abused on the whim of a human being. If the factory-farming conglomerates start breeding Golden Retrievers for food, can we throw them against the wall too? Can we stomp on them and rip their heads off? Have you seen PETA's video of the live markets in Asia? I have. Filmed in China, it shows kittens being boiled and skinned while they are still alive. They were "bread to die" by the Chinese, so is that behavior OK? If you want to see that video, PETA can provide you with a copy, most likely free of charge (somehow I doubt you'll take me up on this offer...)

Look in nature. The other day I was watching the discovery channel which yielded hour long specials stuffed with shocking video of this bastard lion stalking this poor wildebeest (probably a mother, giving her baby food). The inhumane lion then proceeded to chase the wildebeest to exhaustion, finally ripping its thigh wide open, ending with a bite around its throat, suffocating it to death.

Instead of eating the wildebeest, maybe this "bastard" lion should have ordered a bucket of chicken from KFC. What the hell else is he supposed to eat? Lions are carnivores. Human beings are omnivores--we can digest meat or plant matter. If humans needed meat to SURVIVE, as the lion does, every vegetarian on the planet, myself included, would be dead.

I say the workers were not wrong. There is no abuse. There is no scandal.

Two words for that last quote: very scary.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul24-04, 04:34 PM

Why would you, or anyone, think this an acceptable excuse for anything?

Because it's not an excuse, becuase in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong. Don't you run when frightened with danger? Don't you cover up when you're cold? Don't you feel the need to communicate?

Also, you are a part of an online community commited to wondering. Wondering, being inquisitive, curious about your surroundings.. these are ALL primal urges.

HAH! You just cut your own hand! Since so many people object to it: according to OUR cultural values: it IS wrong for those people to do what they did.
Sorry to disappoint you, but my hand is fine. People are objecting to it because they are in the sensitized liberal trap. What about all the people who do not object to it for the same reason as you? I object to their actions based on an economic viewpoint, rather than moral/ethical. Don't be so quick to judge how many people are on what side. Just because there have been so many posts against my view, and only one for it, doesn't mean I am wrong. It just means we do not have an accurate statistical number of posts. Go ask everyone in the entire Western culture, then I will be satisfied. Until then, please refrain from telling me I am wrong (objectively), or that the KFCers were wrong. It is merely your opinion.

Dissident Dan

Jul24-04, 04:40 PM

Fair enough...
I believe Alex Pacheco was the one who staged the photos of "abuse" of the monkeys, but those would be old news stories, so not something I could provide sources for.

All I've found is that the researcher, Edward Taub, claimed that the incidences were staged and a fisheries committe says that there's "persuasive evidence" suggesting that the conditions were staged. Taub was convicted in 1981 on 6 counts of animal cruetly (failure to provide veterinary care, I believe). They were later overturned on apeal, but on jurisdictional grounds.

Here's additional information though.

The rest is just smear work and has nothing to do with the way that chickens are treated.

Dissident Dan

Jul24-04, 04:47 PM

Don't you see my point? All this disturbance over this one issue is changing many views on the way we eat meat. People are going to "think more and more about it" and lower their meat intake. In 20 years we will have humanized our feed animals so much that people like me who love love love meat are going to be downcast as murderers and
psychotics. This is ridiculous.

I don't think so. That's just your social programming and, perhaps, genetically-programmed desires speaking.

There's a difference between a feed animal and a domesticated animal.

No, there are not necessarily differences in the animals. The difference exists only in our minds. The same chicken could theoretically be a pet or food. The bird can't be different from him/herself. The difference would be in the minds of the people interacting with them.

You people are asking me if people ate people should it not matter how they are killed, and i say NO it does not. You are obviously "cold-hearted" when you are ignoring the views of Indians. To them, we are murderers, psychos, and hell-bent nutcases.. because we, in OUR culture, eat cows.

I'm not cold-hearted. I don't eat cows. It seems that you do not believe that anything is necessarily right or wrong (funny coincidence: I'm listening to Tools' "Jerk-off"--no offense, I just thought that it was a funny coincidence, for those who know the song). It also seems that you do not have a good idea of our cultural standards, as most people in our culture would not approve of this treatment.

Elizabeth1405

Jul24-04, 04:48 PM

Most people who abuse animals eventually move onto abusing people. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy all tortured and killed animals before (and sometimes after) they abused and killed their human victims. Psychologists consider animal abuse a huge red flag when they see it in a patient. I'm sure it'd be very interesting to take a look at the criminal records and "extracurricular activities" of those guys on the KFC tape....

Monique

Jul24-04, 04:57 PM

becuase in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong.
Maybe something is wrong with your morals. You say it is morally right to torture, you really think there will be many people on your side???

As I asked you: how do you justify torture? The lion kills, since otherwise it would die. That's a justification for killing. There is no other way for the lion to go about it.

As I pointed out and Elizabeth again, torturing is anti-social behaviour: it shows a lack of empathy. That's why it should be punishable by law.

Hurkyl

Jul24-04, 04:58 PM

in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong.

If they did nothing morally wrong, then why would you feel the need to justify their behavior as being a primal urge? Even worse, you were making a sort of argument by force, implying that if they weren't allowed to abuse chickens that they'd be abusing humans instead.

Evo

Jul24-04, 05:05 PM

They were relieving primal urges.
Why would you, or anyone, think this an acceptable excuse for anything?
Because it's not an excuse, becuase in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong. Don't you run when frightened with danger? Don't you cover up when you're cold? Don't you feel the need to communicate?

Also, you are a part of an online community commited to wondering. Wondering, being inquisitive, curious about your surroundings.. these are ALL primal urges.What on earth do any of those things have to do with torturing and killing defenseless animals? There are things that NORMAL people do and then there are things that only a degenerate would do.

Just because there have been so many posts against my view, and only one for it, doesn't mean I am wrong. It just means we do not have an accurate statistical number of posts. Go ask everyone in the entire Western culture, then I will be satisfied. Until then, please refrain from telling me I am wrong (objectively), or that the KFCers were wrong. It is merely your opinion.I think the overwhelming number of responses against your reasoning is an accurate reflection of society as a whole.

The laws against animal cruelty are there because the majority of the populace is against cruelty to animals. What the people in the plant did was illegal, so I can safely say that they were wrong.

Monique

Jul24-04, 05:10 PM

I wonder how he thinks about someone having the primal urge to beat his wife.

Elizabeth1405

Jul24-04, 05:24 PM

Here's additional information though.

Source (above 2 quotes): http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

Source: http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1459

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Since when is some sham website considered a legitimate "source"?

Oooops, I forgot! If you read it on the internet, it MUST be true....

jimmy p

Jul24-04, 06:38 PM

The thing is, they are destined to die for our benefit, but humans dont usually die to feed other animals...

Elizabeth1405

Jul24-04, 06:52 PM

The thing is, they are destined to die for our benefit, but humans dont usually die to feed other animals...

Does that make it OK for people to abuse these animals for kicks?

Evo

Jul24-04, 06:58 PM

jimmy p

Jul24-04, 06:58 PM

Does that make it OK for people to abuse these animals for kicks?

Probably not but I dont really care. As long as I dont see it happening it doesnt matter to me.

If I dont eat meat because animals are being abused then I should socialise with humans because there are murders and rape and robbery and paedophilia going on in the world. I cant stop either from occuring so I'll just let it be.

jimmy p

Jul24-04, 07:03 PM

Chopnik, did you read the whole thread? It's about torturing animals.

Yes, we kill animals for food. That's not the issue here.

The question is should we people be allowed to cruelly and unnecessarily torture these animals by drop kicking them and stomping on them for enjoyment?

I did read the thread until it got to niggly arguements about how each person had shot themselves in the foot by a certain statement.

Torture occurs in the animal world anyway. A cat can play with a mouse for hours before it gets bored of smacking the mouse and digests it. Killer whales will toss seals in the air and butt them with their nose before they decide to eat them. What makes them different?

Tom Mattson

Jul24-04, 07:07 PM

What makes them different?

They are different because they have only a tiny fraction of our intelligence. They do not have our capacity for moral reasoning and reflection, and so they will never escape from their genetic programming. Humans, on the other hand, can and should engage in such reflection.

Evo

Jul24-04, 07:11 PM

Torture occurs in the animal world anyway. A cat can play with a mouse for hours before it gets bored of smacking the mouse and digests it. Killer whales will toss seals in the air and butt them with their nose before they decide to eat them. What makes them different?The difference is that as humans we should have the abilty to control ourselves. It's one of the things that sets us apart from cats and whales.

Moonbear

Jul24-04, 09:26 PM

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Since when is some sham website considered a legitimate "source"?

Oooops, I forgot! If you read it on the internet, it MUST be true....

What makes you think it's a sham website? Seriously, it seemed legit to me, but of course I could be wrong.

Dissident Dan

Jul25-04, 12:21 AM

Monique

Jul25-04, 07:09 AM

Probably not but I dont really care. As long as I dont see it happening it doesnt matter to me.
That is a really bad attitude. I avoid such fast-food chains because of how they respectlessly popularize meat. If I'd be in there, I'd opt for french fries. When I'm in the store and have a choice between a grass chicken or a machine chicken, my choice would be clear. A lot needs to be done in the industry and I'm not sure to what extend the regulations are reinforced. In my opinion the rules should be a lot stricter, let the price of the burger double..

I think the view of the opposite site has a lot to do with the de-sensitization that's occuring through mass media. Ad Infinitum NAU, just how many times did you watch the Nicholas Berg video? Jimmyp, did you watch it? I didn't watch it, watching such shocking acts or dreadful imagary plays with your mind and does not do good things to it.

Elizabeth1405

Jul25-04, 08:02 AM

As long as I dont see it happening it doesnt matter to me.

YIKES! You didn't see the Holocaust actually happening, so I assume that doesn't bother you either....

Moonbear

Jul25-04, 12:32 PM

activistcash.com is put together by the smear group Center for Consumer Freedom which has the agenda of attacking any group which tries to discourage or prohibit any sort of currently legal transaction. They even attack Mothers Against Drunk Driving: http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/17

Okay, so sure, they have an agenda of their own, but as far as I can tell, they aren't presenting inaccurate information. It seems nearly impossible to find any sites that present a balanced view of pros and cons regarding PETA. They are either completely pro animal rights or completely anti-PETA. I did locate a site that had PETAs IRS records, the ones that are available to the public because they are a non-profit organization, and it did show donations to ALF itemized. However, I'm not going to post it because I will concede I can't verify the forms weren't doctored. If they are real, very little of their money was going toward actually helping any animals. Most was paying for offices, brochures, advertising.

I was able to confirm that the FBI considers ALF a domestic terrorism threat:
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/lewis051804.htm
But the connection between PETA and ALF seems pretty circumstantial from what I can locate.

Anyway, my biggest concern with PETA is that they don't help the animals they say they are helping. If you want to help animals, donate food and blankets to your local animal shelter. There are no kill shelters, ones that won't euthanize any animal coming in unless it is too sick for keeping it alive to be humane...donate to those.

I just want to clarify something that seems to have gotten confused...I'm not in any way claiming those chickens were not abused. I saw the video, and those two men in the video definitely should be carted off in hand-cuffs. The reason I raised doubts about PETA was not to suggest those animals were not abused, or to suggest it was somehow excusable, but instead, I will wait to pass judgement on the entire corporation running that farm until the case is properly investigated and they get their day in court. It serves PETA's agenda to suggest this is a widespread problem throughout the entire industry, and while that's possible and should be addressed if it is, it is also possible this is a very isolated incident. Again, I'd like to know if the person witnessing this behavior reported it to a supervisor before videotaping it and putting it on the news. If a supervisor was aware of it and allowed it to continue, then they are equally to blame. However, if nobody brought it to the supervisor's attention and didn't give them an opportunity to correct the problem, then isn't the person witnessing (i.e., videotaping) these acts who did nothing to stop it also an accessory to the crime?

One very real problem is insufficient oversight of these producers. USDA is charged with inspecting these farms and ensuring they are meeting acceptable standards for treatment of the animals as well as cleanliness and safety. However, USDA is very underfunded and understaffed. They just don't have enough inspectors to get around to all these farms in a timely manner. This is a flaw in one of the things PETA lobbies for. They want USDA to add oversight of all laboratory rats and mice to their responsibilities (oversight of these species are already covered by the lab animal welfare act and NIH as well as at an institutional level). If USDA had to add that to their responsibilities, their inspectors would be spread even thinner, which would likely have a more detrimental effect on animal welfare by allowing those who break the rules to go longer without being caught. Now, if they simultaneously lobbied to increase USDA's budget to include more inspectors, it wouldn't be such a bad thing, although redundant.

Moonbear

Jul25-04, 01:36 PM

That is a really bad attitude. I avoid such fast-food chains because of how they respectlessly popularize meat. If I'd be in there, I'd opt for french fries. When I'm in the store and have a choice between a grass chicken or a machine chicken, my choice would be clear. A lot needs to be done in the industry and I'm not sure to what extend the regulations are reinforced. In my opinion the rules should be a lot stricter, let the price of the burger double..

I try to avoid fast food unless I'm traveling and have no better choice. It isn't healthy, and for what you get, it's actually pretty expensive anymore.

As for the choice between free-range chicken and factory-farm chicken, unfortunately, for too many people, cost is the more important factor in the buying decision. For many, they just don't have the extra money to pay more for the free-range chicken, even if they would if they could. The idea of paying double for a burger just isn't an option for a large portion of the population.

Then again, reading poultry packages lately, a lot of big producers now have labels stating things like "up to 15% broth added for flavor" or something like that. I tried it once and thought it definitely added flavor, bad flavor...ick. Seems to me more like a way to keep the price per pound low while selling less chicken and more water. I've been buying Amish chicken for several years now. They don't use antibiotics (I'm not sure if they'll use them if the chickens get sick...that might be a downside if they have more problems with disease), they aren't fed animal by-products (not that it matters to me, as long as they get a balanced diet), and they are considered free-range. They don't cost much more than the big name brands, and I happen to think they taste better, even if they are generally smaller, which is actually a plus for me because I'm only feeding me. I figure the slightly higher cost per pound is offset by the fact they aren't being injected with water...erm...broth, so I'll go out of my way to get those. Of course, because they aren't as large of an operation, they don't have the variety other brands have...I think I've seen some boneless chicken breasts sold, but pretty much everything else is on the bone or whole chickens. No big deal to me, I can de-bone my own chicken if I want boneless...there was no such thing as boneless chicken when I was younger, so this isn't something foreign to me.

Monique

Jul25-04, 01:57 PM

I try to avoid fast food unless I'm traveling and have no better choice. It isn't healthy, and for what you get, it's actually pretty expensive anymore.

As for the choice between free-range chicken and factory-farm chicken, unfortunately, for too many people, cost is the more important factor in the buying decision. For many, they just don't have the extra money to pay more for the free-range chicken, even if they would if they could. The idea of paying double for a burger just isn't an option for a large portion of the population.
You know, meat is not a necessity. If meat gets more expensive, but the animals are treated more humane, so be it.

*edit* just to add on the: "they just don't have the extra money to pay more for the free-range chicken, even if they would if they could"

They could eat vegetarian one day and eat the free-range chicken the other day. If they would they should.

loseyourname

Jul25-04, 07:10 PM

Elizabeth1405

Jul25-04, 07:25 PM

Anyway, my biggest concern with PETA is that they don't help the animals they say they are helping. If you want to help animals, donate food and blankets to your local animal shelter. There are no kill shelters, ones that won't euthanize any animal coming in unless it is too sick for keeping it
alive to be humane...donate to those.

I live in Norfolk, VA, where PETA is headquartered. PETA is very well-liked in the this community because of what they do to help. Their Community Action Program (CAP) does free or lost cost spay and neuter surgeries for low income residents. They always alter pitbulls for free, because so many of them get dumped at the pound. They have spayed and neutered thousands of animals in the last eight years since they have been in Norfolk. In last week's local newspaper there was an article about how PETA delivers free dog houses to low-income residents in VA and NC. To make a blanket statement that PETA doesn't help animals is simply untrue:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=73219&ran=244316

In principle, no-kill shelters are a wonderful idea, but they don't often work well. Last year I found a litter of five kittens that had been abandoned in a field near my house. I didn't want to take them to the pound--I was afraid they'd be euthanized. I called at least 10 "no-kill" shelters to see if they could take the kittens. I was even willing to drive out of state if need be. Not one of these organizations could help me, because they were all "full." The numbers of unwanted animals in this country is staggering, and the majority are put to sleep because there aren't enough homes. PETA focuses on the root of the problem--getting the animals spayed and neutered. If you want to support anything, support these types of programs. In the long-term, they are saving the most lives.

Again, I'd like to know if the person witnessing this behavior reported it to a supervisor before videotaping it and putting it on the news.

The supervisors knew what was going on. In one incident, workers were throwing chickens chickens at a wall and stopped when a supervisor walked by. He said "carry on" to them after he had passed. Would it have done any good to report the employees' behavior? Of course not. Eleven employees(including 3 supervisors) were all fired because PETA got actual footage. PETA operates by getting free press, and they got tons of press for this. Whether or not you agree with their tactics, they are responsible for getting these low-lifes fired, and I guarantee you that other slaughterhouses are being a lot more careful these days.

Dissident Dan

Jul25-04, 08:21 PM

If they are real, very little of their money was going toward actually helping any animals. Most was paying for offices, brochures, advertising.

Anyway, my biggest concern with PETA is that they don't help the animals they say they are helping. If you want to help animals, donate food and blankets to your local animal shelter. There are no kill shelters, ones that won't euthanize any animal coming in unless it is too sick for keeping it alive to be humane...donate to those.

If you believe that education campaigns don't help animals, then maybe you have a case. Of course, you still wouldn't have a case that they aren't trying to help animals. All the sheltering in the world (which is not what PETA claims to do) will not help farmed animals, animals in labs, etc. Also, Elizabeth did a good job of addressing the no-kill shelters.

Again, I'd like to know if the person witnessing this behavior reported it to a supervisor before videotaping it and putting it on the news. If a supervisor was aware of it and allowed it to continue, then they are equally to blame.

I've read that supervisors were fired.

However, if nobody brought it to the supervisor's attention and didn't give them an opportunity to correct the problem, then isn't the person witnessing (i.e., videotaping) these acts who did nothing to stop it also an accessory to the crime?

Do CIA agents immediately try to arrest those they're investigating?

One very real problem is insufficient oversight of these producers. USDA is charged with inspecting these farms and ensuring they are meeting acceptable standards for treatment of the animals as well as cleanliness and safety. However, USDA is very underfunded and understaffed. They just don't have enough inspectors to get around to all these farms in a timely manner.

The USDA does not care. It's all a sham. Lester Friedlander is a former USDA vet who headed the inspection at a slaugherhouse (in Pennsylvania, I think). He was reprimanded for speaking up about violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to his superiors. He eventually quit in disgust in 1995.

This is a flaw in one of the things PETA lobbies for.

So, now we're talking about flaws in their strategies rather than character or agenda?
--------------------------------------------------

Anyway, if you want to start a thread about PETA, feel free. This thread is about the chicken abuse.

Elizabeth1405

Jul25-04, 08:43 PM

The page devoted to PETA may be one-sided, but is it true?

There are tons of factual "inaccuracies" on activistcash.com. For example, they state that "PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs." This is completely false. PETA is opposed to seeing-eye dogs that are abused or mistreated. There's lots of very happy seeing-eye dogs out there that are in great homes. PETA doesn't have a problem with that.

Activistcash.com also slams the Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, NY. The site has an entire paragraph dedicated to ripping the founders of this organization because they are "hippies" who used to go to Grateful Dead concerts. Who cares? It's a personal assault that nothing to do with what the organization actually does. If that doesn't define "smear" I don't know what does.

Moonbear

Jul25-04, 09:33 PM

Anyway, if you want to start a thread about PETA, feel free. This thread is about the chicken abuse.

My apologies for getting so carried away about that. I had only brought it up initially in relation to the chicken abuse tapes because their history leaves me distrustful of them, and in responding to the questions about that post, I drifted astray of the topic at hand.

I've found more news articles on the chicken abuse in the meantime, and will agree that while I don't always agree with PETA's agenda or methods, in this case, it looks like they did catch a real problem, so I'd admit to eating crow for that if I didn't think the animal rights folks would get mad about that too. :redface:

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5481874

KFC President Gregg Dedrick said the fast-food company will stop buying from the Moorefield plant until the company can ensure no future abuse will occur. KFC also will place a full-time inspector in the Moorefield plant to watch for further abuse.

PETA and the Humane Society of the United States want Hardy County Prosecutor Lucas See to charge workers and managers with animal cruelty, but See said Wednesday he has not finished viewing the videotapes. Once he does, he may ask local authorities to begin an investigation.

Under state law, employees found to have tortured the birds could be charged with felony animal cruelty, which carries a prison sentence of one to three years.

PETA spokesman Michael McGraw said that the group also wants all KFC suppliers, including Pilgrim's Pride, to install cameras on slaughter lines that he said move too quickly and are staffed by poorly paid workers and uncaring managers. PETA also wants the phase-in of "controlled atmosphere killing," in which chickens are gathered by machines instead of people.

"In cases where workers are paid so little -- and they really do have terrible jobs -- they tend to take out their frustrations on the animals," McGraw said. "Modern technology can actually be more humane."

Now, this is a KFC supplier, but why are they focusing specifically on KFC suppliers and not all poultry operations? Pilgrim's Pride is a large corporation, they supply poultry to a lot of grocery chains as well, so why are they only nailing KFC for this, or why nail KFC at all? Did KFC have specific knowledge of the abuse that the other companies to which Pilgrim's Pride supplies chickens wouldn't have known about? PETA wants us to boycott KFC, but why not target the company responsible and boycot Pilgrim's Pride brand products? Wouldn't that be the more appropriate target?

The other thing I wonder is do we really want to eliminate jobs and automate the process? Is it really fair to suggest all poorly paid workers will take their frustration out on the animals? Do the actions of a few sick people who might have abused animals even if they didn't work there mean all the rest of the employees will be put out of work? I'm not opposed to mechanizing the process if it's going to be better for the animals, I just wonder if it's true. Or would it be better to improve working conditions for the employees, improve their education about animal welfare, and thereby improve the way the animals are treated as well? I actually do like the idea of putting cameras up to monitor the slaughter lines continuously. That's one difficulty with only occassional inspections -- it's hard to catch people doing things wrong if they behave when inspectors are present. And if they have nothing to hide, nobody will mind the cameras being present.

jimmy p

Jul26-04, 11:29 AM

YIKES! You didn't see the Holocaust actually happening, so I assume that doesn't bother you either....

There a bit of a difference to fowl abuse and the Holocaust....

jimmy p

Jul26-04, 11:35 AM

Dissident Dan

Jul26-04, 11:47 AM

There a bit of a difference to fowl abuse and the Holocaust....

While I disagree, that was not the point that she was trying to make. She was just addressing the "If I don't see it, I don't care" statement that someone made.

russ_watters

Jul26-04, 11:52 AM

They are different because they have only a tiny fraction of our intelligence. They do not have our capacity for moral reasoning and reflection, and so they will never escape from their genetic programming. Humans, on the other hand, can and should engage in such reflection. Ironically, the exact opposite argument is often used to for the same point - we are no different from the animals, therefore our morality should apply to them.

In light of what goes on in the animal kingdom, I consider "ethical treatment of animals" to exist primarily to make people feel better about them.

I don't support mistreatment of animals because it pains me to know it exists. But I had a cheeseburger for lunch.

jimmy p

Jul26-04, 11:54 AM

While I disagree, that was not the point that she was trying to make. She was just addressing the "If I don't see it, I don't care" statement that someone made.

... :redface: That was me...

However she just assumed that because I dont care about abuse to chickens I dont care about the killing of thousands of people because I wasnt there.

loseyourname

Jul26-04, 07:40 PM

There are tons of factual "inaccuracies" on activistcash.com. For example, they state that "PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs." This is completely false. PETA is opposed to seeing-eye dogs that are abused or mistreated.

And what does PETA consider to be abused or mistreated? What are the other factual inaccuracies - on the page devoted to PETA?

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul26-04, 09:30 PM

Filmed in China, it shows kittens being boiled and skinned while they are still alive. They were "bread to die" by the Chinese, so is that behavior OK?

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture??? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals. If one day in the future we found pigs were no longer healthy, and that a certain breed of feline could benefit our health and prolong our life if we ate it, I say start farming that breed as a feed animal. That doesn't mean take away peoples pets. By all means, have your pets. But there comes a time when we have to think about survival whether it be culturally defined or not.

Maybe something is wrong with your morals. You say it is morally right to torture, you really think there will be many people on your side???.

As I asked you: how do you justify torture? The lion kills, since otherwise it would die. That's a justification for killing. There is no other way for the lion to go about it.

As I pointed out and Elizabeth again, torturing is anti-social behaviour: it shows a lack of empathy. That's why it should be punishable by law

Nothing is wrong with my morals. Im not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food. Once you start getting emotional over your food, then survival becomes threatened. Do you see monkeys taking extra special care when they feed on berries or bananas? Tell me of one other living being other than humans that has emotions over its food?? YOU CANT.. All they care about is survival. They don't worry about HOW they treat their prey. Their motives are to kill, whatever way possible. I don't know about you, but I haven't walked into many alligator community meetings where the subject on the blackboard was "Boar Cruelty".. C'mon now! I understand it is morally wrong to do this sort of thing to another human, or pet animal, but a feed animal is a feed animal. We cannot bother ourselves with its "feelings". That hinders survival. We should only be bothered with the lack of concern for economic prosperity shwon by these employees.

All these employees did was release a natural urge. Though immature (because they now have bruised the meat of chickens which could have been used for food), there is nothing wrong, since there is no torture. There is no difference between their action and throwing cucumbers against the walls and ripping them in half.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul26-04, 09:36 PM

They are different because they have only a tiny fraction of our intelligence. They do not have our capacity for moral reasoning and reflection, and so they will never escape from their genetic programming. Humans, on the other hand, can and should engage in such reflection.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you should put "right and wrong" into the same column as "Brain capacity".. If anything killer whales know more right and wrongs than we humans. Moral reasoning is not based upon brain capacity. Morals are developed upon survival. "Thou shalt not kill" is an example that morals are wrapped with nature.. Back in the "cavemen" days, if a member of a tribe killed another, he was wrong, because now the tribe is one member short, which will harm the tribe because they will not have as much food next hunt, etc.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul26-04, 09:40 PM

Ad Infinitum NAU, just how many times did you watch the Nicholas Berg video?

I've never seen it, I've only seen one picture off CNN from the other guy who was beheaded. I'm not an advocate or pleasure seeker of pain and violence. I think the media shows too much of that, broadcasting fear into the weak-minded. I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed. I've never been in any wars. My arguements are based on logic. No emotion, or biased liberal media has influenced my opinion. I'm simply looking at the situation as everyone should, from an outside view, kept hidden from any bias..

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul26-04, 09:43 PM

You know, meat is not a necessity.

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity!!! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

Evo

Jul26-04, 09:48 PM

Nothing is wrong with my morals. Im not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion.You are saying that it is morally right to torture another living creature as long as you do not consider it worthy. How convenient for you.

now! I understand it is morally wrong to do this sort of thing to another human, or pet animal, but a feed animal is a feed animal. We cannot bother ourselves with its "feelings". That hinders survival.How does killing without torture hinder survival? Explain that one. Torturing the animal before eating it somehow makes it more nutritious? Or are you saying that unless the animal is tortured before kiling it has no nutritive value?

There is no difference between their action and throwing cucumbers against the walls and ripping them in half.That is just plain ridiculous.

Evo

Jul26-04, 09:52 PM

Hurkyl

Jul26-04, 10:51 PM

If there was no advantage to eating meat, we wouldn't be omnivorus..

Evo

Jul26-04, 11:26 PM

If there was no advantage to eating meat, we wouldn't be omnivorus..True, but the point Monique was making was that we don't have to eat meat.

loseyourname

Jul27-04, 12:19 AM

I'm not sure that we have to eat anything living. I'm sure it's possible to live entirely off of manufactured supplements, though I doubt they exist, since it's much easier to derive the nutrients from living matter.

Moonbear

Jul27-04, 12:50 AM

Nothing is wrong with my morals. Im not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food. Once you start getting emotional over your food, then survival becomes threatened. Do you see monkeys taking extra special care when they feed on berries or bananas? Tell me of one other living being other than humans that has emotions over its food?? YOU CANT.. All they care about is survival. They don't worry about HOW they treat their prey. Their motives are to kill, whatever way possible.

You are aware that these chickens were not being slaughtered when they were being abused? This wasn't a difference between arguing if it's better to snap their neck or cut their head off or whack them over the head with a club to kill them, this was people tossing LIVE chickens around, stomping on them, and laughing about it. This isn't about getting emotional about your food. I still plan to eat chicken, had it last night, was roasting it while reading these posts, but the point is to not cause unnecessary suffering of the animals. What precisely we define as necessary or unavoidable is something that we may all disagree on, but I don't see how the treatment of those chickens portrayed on that video was in any way necessary. It clearly didn't even kill all the chickens as some were tossed fluttering away (I'm not sure if any were actually killed, or just injured). To say that's okay would be like saying it's okay to beat the crap out of a terminally ill patient because they were going to die soon anyway and the family had requested life support be terminated based on their living will.

The cucumber analogy is ridiculous. Last I checked, cucumbers don't have a nervous system and aren't capable of feeling pain. Even animals in the wild kill their prey swiftly, or as swiftly as they can given their abilities, such as snapping the neck or injecting them with a poison. It would be to a predator's disadvantage to play with their prey prior to killing it, as that would increase the risk of it escaping and them going without a meal that day. The only situations where you see an animal carry back live but stunned prey is when they are teaching their young to hunt, or when they are still young and inefficient hunters.

All social animals have rules, and when those rules are broken, the offenders are punished. Humans are social animals, and one of our rules is you don't play with your food, you kill it swiftly if you plan to eat it, and you don't waste it by killing it before it's ready to be eaten.

Monique

Jul27-04, 06:49 AM

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture??? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals.
But what are those morals based on? Your example is particularly bad since it has NOTHING to do with torture.

I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food.
Ok, so if I decide one day that you are not worthy of emotions, does that mean your emotions seize to exist? Don't serial killers view their victims as lacking emotion?

All these employees did was release a natural urge.
All serial killers do is release a natural urge, since they view their victims as lacking emotion, they don't commit torture either.. according to your logic.

I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed.
I remember you telling a story about your granddad butchering animals in the backyard. :confused:

I remember the day when I was young on my grandpa's farm, and watched him kill his pigs and chickens. What he would do is whack them on the head with a shovel or the broad side of a hatchet so they would be knocked unconscious so he could decapitate them without them squirming. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it would just bounce off them. Sometimes he would have to catch the chicken to crack its neck, and sometimes that would just kill them, or sometimes it would render them parallized and seizuring. I never heard my family talk about that as uncruel.

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity!!!
Just how many vegetarians walk this world? They are perfectly healthy, I'd say they have a better health than the meateaters. Proteins are also in beans/nuts/oils.

Tom Mattson

Jul27-04, 10:50 AM

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you should put "right and wrong" into the same column as "Brain capacity"..

Why not? Moral reasoning is a cognitive function. We can do it, other animals can't. Does that make you uncomfortable?

If anything killer whales know more right and wrongs than we humans.

Oh, now I've heard it all! Move over Socrates, Shamu is the next great moral philosopher! :rofl:

What evidence do you have for this?

Dissident Dan

Jul27-04, 11:10 AM

If there was no advantage to eating meat, we wouldn't be omnivorus..

It probably provided an advantage by being an available energy and nutrient source while we roamed the African savannahs, but today there is no benefit.

Elizabeth1405

Jul27-04, 02:41 PM

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity!!! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

Wrong again. Protein is necessary for human beings, but the "vitamins in meat" (whatever that means) is not. I am a vegan and have not eaten meat in over 10 years. How come I am still alive? Lions are CARNIVORES, as are snakes. They cannot digest plant matter. Human beings can--we are OMNIVORES. Meat is NOT necessary for human beings, and in fact the average vegetarian lives 6 to 10 years longer than the average meat-eater.

Elizabeth1405

Jul27-04, 02:47 PM

There a bit of a difference to fowl abuse and the Holocaust...she just assumed that because I dont care about abuse to chickens I dont care about the killing of thousands of people because I wasnt there.

I am aware that there are differences btween these two situations. My answer was in response to your comment that "if I don't see it happening, it doesn't matter to me." If you make generalized statements like that you should be prepared for the responses you get. I never said you were in favor of the Holocaust, and I would never presume to imply that about ANYBODY without knowing them. Please read posts more carefully before you make accusations like this. Thank you.

Elizabeth1405

Jul27-04, 02:57 PM

I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed....My arguements are based on logic. I'm simply looking at the situation as everyone should, from an outside view, kept hidden from any bias..

Perhaps this would explain your lack of empathy for other living things. Perhaps you should see something suffer. If you spend five minutes on the killing floor of a slaughterhouse, and you will see the TRUTH. Go do it--I dare ya.

Elizabeth1405

Jul27-04, 03:27 PM

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture??? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals. If one day in the future we found pigs were no longer healthy, and that a certain breed of feline could benefit our health and prolong our life if we ate it, I say start farming that breed as a feed animal. That doesn't mean take away peoples pets. By all means, have your pets. But there comes a time when we have to think about survival whether it be culturally defined or not.

My eyes ARE open, thank you very much. I don't care what culture you are from--in my opinion, torturing an animal is unnecessary and WRONG, and I'm guessing a few people out there agree with me. It doesn't matter if you're in Kansas or China. What takes place on factory farms and in slaughterhouses every second of the day is just as horrible as what takes place in the Asian live markets. It's not a cultural judgment, it's a moral judgment.

And what is all this about "survival"? Are you really afraid of starving to death out there in Arizona? Don't you guys have enough food out there? If there were no meat available tomorrow, nobody in the United States would starve to death. Admit it--you eat meat because you like it. It's OK. Stop hiding behind the argument that taking away any form of meat is a threat to the survival of the human race. I'd buy it if you lived in Sudan, but it doesn't fly here.

Elizabeth1405

Jul27-04, 03:48 PM

And what does PETA consider to be abused or mistreated? What are the other factual inaccuracies - on the page devoted to PETA?

I am a strong supporter of PETA, but I am not a spokesperson for that organization. If I were to guess, I would say "mistreatment" of a dog would include lack of proper food and water, physical abuse, over-work, etc. Just like any other dog.

More innacuracies? To start, the connection between PETA and ALF. PETA is a non-violent organization and they currently do not have any connection to ALF. Yes, there may have been in the past, and there may be sympathizers within their membership rolls. ALF is not part of PETA, as activistcash.com seems to imply. Also, PETA employees throwing red paint on women wearing fur coats never happened. These incidents did NOT involve PETA staff members--they were attributed to others outside the organization, and were not organized or supported in any way by PETA.

loseyourname

Jul27-04, 05:38 PM

And the rather alarming quotes from PETA leaders suggesting that a human life is no more valuable than the life of a lab rat or even a cockroach? If that philosophy is an accurate assessment of the official beliefs of PETA, then that alone completely discredits them and makes them radical.

Elizabeth1405

Jul27-04, 07:04 PM

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 08:18 PM

Even animals in the wild kill their prey swiftly, or as swiftly as they can given their abilities, such as snapping the neck or injecting them with a poison. It would be to a predator's disadvantage to play with their prey prior to killing it, as that would increase the risk of it escaping and them going without a meal that day. All social animals have rules, and when those rules are broken, the offenders are punished. Humans are social animals, and one of our rules is you don't play with your food, you kill it swiftly if you plan to eat it, and you don't waste it by killing it before it's ready to be eaten.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but as the point has been made before, killer whales often play with the seals they are eating, while eating it.. they throw them into the air out of the water, etc. Also, felines (even your common housecat) play with mice for hours until they are bored and either eat it or leave it to die (all the while slicing and dicing it). A lot of animals in the wild don't kill their prey swiftly!! Spiders leave their prey wrapped in webs and then inject them with a fluid that dissolves them.. while they remain alive, slowly losing feeling to their bodies. Some snakes have venom that kills very quickly, some have venom that slowly torments the victim. Wouldn't you think if it was "natural" for animals to have rules, that evolution would have made all animals swift killers?

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 08:26 PM

Wrong again. Protein is necessary for human beings, but the "vitamins in meat" (whatever that means) is not. I am a vegan and have not eaten meat in over 10 years. How come I am still alive? Lions are CARNIVORES, as are snakes. They cannot digest plant matter. Human beings can--we are OMNIVORES. Meat is NOT necessary for human beings, and in fact the average vegetarian lives 6 to 10 years longer than the average meat-eater.
you are still alive because you take supplements. artificial supplements. Meat is a natural source for us omnivores to survive. Just because we have developed artificial ways to pump our body doesnt mean meat is no longer a valuable resource. Grizzly bears (among many other species of animal) are also omnivores, eating fish and berries. If it was so unnecessary for omnivores to eat meat, why hasn't evolution, or your god, developed a way around it? Why haven't we all (all animals, humans included)been designed or developed into herbivores, if meat was so unnecessary?

Monique

Jul27-04, 08:31 PM

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 08:41 PM

My eyes ARE open, thank you very much. I don't care what culture you are from--in my opinion, torturing an animal is unnecessary and WRONG, and I'm guessing a few people out there agree with me. It doesn't matter if you're in Kansas or China. What takes place on factory farms and in slaughterhouses every second of the day is just as horrible as what takes place in the Asian live markets. It's not a cultural judgment, it's a moral judgment.

Morals are culturally defined, 'thank you very much'. If we were visited by another life form from another system, and found that they harvested Cocker Spaniels for food, and found their way of killing the animals was against our views, you, I, or the president of PETA has NO AUTHORITY, NO RIGHT, and absolutely NO moral justification to say that they are wrong. That's it. That's all there is to it.

And what is all this about "survival"? Are you really afraid of starving to death out there in Arizona? Don't you guys have enough food out there? If there were no meat available tomorrow, nobody in the United States would starve to death. Admit it--you eat meat because you like it. It's OK. Stop hiding behind the argument that taking away any form of meat is a threat to the survival of the human race. I'd buy it if you lived in Sudan, but it doesn't fly here.

It flies anywhere.. Just because we are prosperous in our food market now doesn't mean we should slack on our priority of survival. The only reason you are here to debate me today is because of the priority of survival. We kept it number one 3000 years ago, and it should remain number one for as long as we exist. That's nature. A bear doesn't limit itself to the number of fish it slices and dices to make itself as fat as possible for the coming winter. It has no feelings about the fish. It just thinks about survival. If anything its better to OVER prioritize survival.

By the way people of the crowd, something just dawned on me while talking about fish. How many people do you know have fish as pets? Whether it be a small goldfish, or an aquarium full of exotic/rare, or large fish?

Then think about how many people you know who fish as a game, luring a fish in with an artificial worm, then snagging it on a hook, reeling it in, tearing the hook out of its mouth, then throwing it in a cooler where it can flop around til it suffocates? (that or being caught in large fishing nets by the thousand and then hang in the air until suffocating)

Fish serve 2 purposes: 1) for a pet 2) for food (and we dont mind its "torture")

I don't see you people being angered over this, and i don't even have to show you a video. I'm sure many of you have fished before. Why is this not "torture"?? ITS NOT! It's how we do it. It's how we've done it. It's how we'll continue to do it. It's the best and fastest way to achieve economic success. You all are angered over this ordeal because a chicken somehow has gained more emotional outlook over its processing. Since it has feathers, which resembles fur, which makes you think of ol scruffy, you humanize it and worry about its "feelings". Why not worry about the feelings of mr. trout?

Some of you might try to reply with "Oh but i do care about how fish are killed"... don't bother. that's ridiculous.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 08:47 PM

Meat was necessary since you have to eat less for the same amount of energy. Now that we cultivate all our products, meat is not a necessity anymore. You also don't need to take supplements as a vegetarian, just eat a balanced diet.

Don't tell me meat eaters eat a balanced diet, that'd be hilarious..

And i ask again, just because we have developed artificial supplements meat is no longer necessary?

I would consider myself to be the healthiest person I know. I workout, run, don't smoke, don't drink in excess of a party here and there, eat plenty of meat, vegetables, fruits, and i drink maybe one soda a week, if that. I love water. I limit my fatty foods a good deal because i'm too conscious about my body. I enjoy the attention it gets me too much to go a screw it up. So, I would say my diet is perfectly balanced.

By the way, if you were into nutrition at all you would know that a "balanced diet" is different for every single person.

Monique

Jul27-04, 08:51 PM

Since when are vegetables/beans/nuts artificial supplements??!
Since when did meat become a healthy food? Chicken may be a good source of protein, but red meat is a no no.

but this is a different discussion and does not belong in this thread.

Monique

Jul27-04, 08:54 PM

Morals are culturally defined, 'thank you very much'. If we were visited by another life form from another system, and found that they harvested Cocker Spaniels for food, and found their way of killing the animals was against our views, you, I, or the president of PETA has NO AUTHORITY, NO RIGHT, and absolutely NO moral justification to say that they are wrong. That's it. That's all there is to it.
You are such a fun person, so I guess those terrorists blowing up innocent people and American soldiers are not doing anything wrong either. Do you really not see your logic is flawed?

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 09:13 PM

You are such a fun person, so I guess those terrorists blowing up innocent people and American soldiers are not doing anything wrong either. Do you really not see your logic is flawed?

No I don't. The terrorists did nothing wrong IN THEIR CULTURE. BUT! BUT! But, the neglected to see and understand OUR culture. They were wrong because they neglected to care that believing in your god is the way this culture does it. The same logic applies to the Chinese. Just because they skin cats alive doesn't mean we should go in and fine them and make arrests. That's how their culture does it, not ours. We would be wrong to go in and shut down their restaurants, just as the "terrorists" were wrong to come in and kill us. they are not wrong for neglecting the moral of human life, because to them it was right. they are wrong for laying their cultural beliefs (and their boxcutters) on our planes.

As a member of a physics community, you should understand the paradoxical situation arising in YOUR arguement.. You say they are wrong for the lack of moral respect they showed. However, to them they did nothing morally wrong. You should be able to understand that morals are relative (based on culture, quite like the relative nature of distance in physics). The only wrong the members of the Taliban committed was that of crossing over into our culture and not understanding our rights and wrongs. The same caution is taken by true historians. When they look back and tell us commoners what happened 3000 years ago, they must ascend their moral bias, in order to take on the moral bias of the time they are studying, so they can accurately tell what happened. Point: morals are culturally defined!

Hurkyl

Jul27-04, 09:32 PM

They were wrong because they neglected to care that believing in your god is the way this culture does it.

Is this not a moral value, which would necessarily be culturally defined? Aren't you now imposing your moral beliefs on the terrorists?

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 09:44 PM

Is this not a moral value, which would necessarily be culturally defined? Aren't you now imposing your moral beliefs on the terrorists?

No this is not a moral, it is logic/natural. For the best chances of survival, or for the most accurate description of history, or whatever, it is best to not inflict your moral beliefs upon those of others.

Hurkyl

Jul27-04, 10:02 PM

Silly me, why would I have thought it's a moral value? :rolleyes:

I remain entirely unconvinced; most (all?) morals can easily be argued to have arisen because they are beneficial to the culture that adopts them.

And there's the fact that there are a good number of morals that do benefit a society, in the long run, to "inflict" on others.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 10:12 PM

I remain entirely unconvinced; most (all?) morals can easily be argued to have arisen because they are beneficial to the culture that adopts them.

And there's the fact that there are a good number of morals that do benefit a society, in the long run, to "inflict" on others.

You're right that morals are culturally defined (if that's what you're implying by "adopts them"). However they should never be inflicted upon other cultures. I use my "alien" example again. If we found an alien civilization who deep fried cocker spaniels, we have no right to say that is wrong. What morals are you speaking of that "benefit a society, in the long run"? Just because they are good for our culture, doesn't mean they are good for another.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul27-04, 10:16 PM

I can see this is leading into a "moral/culture" discussion. I'm asking the mentor(s) to keep this all in the same thread, since moral issues are the base of the original discussion.

Anyone care to respond to my fish idea?

loseyourname

Jul27-04, 10:31 PM

Again, I don't speak for PETA, but it's really interesting to me how everyone is so anxious to discredit PETA when they know nothing about them. You asked me for examples of inaccuracies (aka, lies) on activistcash.com, and I gave you three examples (you can research it further if you don't believe me). What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being. That is totally ridiculous. If activistcash states that on their website, that's just one more "inaccuracy" that we can add to their already long, long list.

Just so you won't question the source this time, all of the following is directly from the PETA website:

“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).

There you go. They believe animals (all animals, as they do not draw any line here) have rights equal to those of a human being. Clearly this includes the cockroach. If experimenting on a cockroach produced a cure for cancer, PETA would not approve. Would you?

“Where do you draw the line?”
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help .… He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.”

Equal consideration to earthworms is always nice, even though they have no CNS and can't feel a thing.

“It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?”
It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose.

Neither do ants or gnats. While it can be mean-spirited to intentionally kill them, nothing has been hurt any more than when the weeds are pulled.

“How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.

Just to end the debate on this issue, PETA proclaims on its own website official support of a terrorist organization, comparing it to the Underground Railroad and French Resistance. So activistcash was accurate there.

“How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?”
There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.

"Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important." There you go. Humans are no more important than animals, and it is clear that they include insects when they say "animals." So I was right to say that they consider a cockroach to be just as valuable as a human. Do you believe this, Elizabeth?

Moonbear

Jul27-04, 11:20 PM

Actually, Elizabeth is right, PETA would never say a cockroach was MORE valuable than a human being. They'd say the cockroach was equal.

Elizabeth, when I was young and naive, I contributed to PETA as well. I thought they were just out to help abused animals, a noble mission in my mind. Then I learned what their mission really is, which is just as loseyourname has quoted from their website. Even pet ownership is considered a necessary evil by them. Basically, their view is that we've bred these animals dependent upon humans for survival, so we have to take care of them. But they'd prefer if we didn't have pets.

While it seems they have uncovered very real abuse at that Pilgrim's Pride location, and that's a good thing to put it to a stop, you'll also notice they are trying to use this against the entire poultry industry. This is what they do. They videotape one incident and try to convince the public that this is the norm rather than the exception.

loseyourname

Jul27-04, 11:26 PM

Actually, Elizabeth is right, PETA would never say a cockroach was MORE valuable than a human being. They'd say the cockroach was equal.

I never said PETA thought cockroaches were more valuable. Here is my original post:

And the rather alarming quotes from PETA leaders suggesting that a human life is no more valuable than the life of a lab rat or even a cockroach? If that philosophy is an accurate assessment of the official beliefs of PETA, then that alone completely discredits them and makes them radical.

I said they believe human life to be no more valuable. I didn't say less valuable.

Moonbear

Jul27-04, 11:39 PM

I actually wasn't refuting that part of your statement, just the part where you were challenging Elizabeth's statement, which, technically, was correct.

She said:
What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being.

loseyourname

Jul28-04, 12:08 AM

None of the alarming quotes had anything to do with a cockroach being more valuable than a human. I was challenging her contention that my assessment (and the site's assessment) of PETA was inaccurate.

Dissident Dan

Jul28-04, 12:10 AM

You're right that morals are culturally defined (if that's what you're implying by "adopts them"). However they should never be inflicted upon other cultures.

If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.

Moonbear

Jul28-04, 12:34 AM

If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.

:approve:

Morals are such a tricky thing to try to argue over. Many would find it immoral to not "inflict" their own sense of morals on others who they view as behaving against those morals. That's going to be tough to reconcile with someone whose morals dictate that they should not inflict their morals on others. This is why wars start over different opinions of morality. Morals are pretty much just another name for your own personal beliefs, which are shaped by your experiences.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul28-04, 06:16 PM

If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.

I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures. And i'm also saying that once a culture imposes their morals onto us, such as the 'terrorists' did, then the situation should be treated logically. As moonbear said morals are a tricky subject to argue over.. so maybe we shouldn't go there. But my opinion is that , in your words, it is 'inhumane' and does not benefit any culture if morals are imposed.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul28-04, 06:20 PM

...something just dawned on me while talking about fish. How many people do you know have fish as pets? Whether it be a small goldfish, or an aquarium full of exotic/rare, or large fish?

Then think about how many people you know who fish as a game, luring a fish in with an artificial worm, then snagging it on a hook, reeling it in, tearing the hook out of its mouth, then throwing it in a cooler where it can flop around til it suffocates? (that or being caught in large fishing nets by the thousand and then hang in the air until suffocating)

Fish serve 2 purposes: 1) for a pet 2) for food (and we dont mind its "torture")

I don't see you people being angered over this, and i don't even have to show you a video. I'm sure many of you have fished before. Why is this not "torture"?? ITS NOT! It's how we do it. It's how we've done it. It's how we'll continue to do it. It's the best and fastest way to achieve economic success. You all are angered over this ordeal because a chicken somehow has gained more emotional outlook over its processing. Since it has feathers, which resembles fur, which makes you think of ol scruffy, you humanize it and worry about its "feelings". Why not worry about the feelings of mr. trout?

Some of you might try to reply with "Oh but i do care about how fish are killed"... don't bother. that's ridiculous.

comments? rebuttals?

Evo

Jul28-04, 08:05 PM

They're not taking live fish and jumping up and down on them, tearing their fins off, or kicking them.

The thread is about intentional abuse to animals.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul28-04, 08:30 PM

They're not taking live fish and jumping up and down on them, tearing their fins off, or kicking them.

The thread is about intentional abuse to animals.

I understand that, but I'm asking yall why you don't see that as abuse, since it too is intentional. Fishermen, when fishing, are intending to lure a fish in, hook it, de-hook it, and throw it in a cooler. no, they are not jumping on them, tearing their fins off (though sometimes tearing their "lips" off) or kicking them. But, they are snagging them with a hook that prevents the fish from coming loose, ripping it right back out, and suffocating the fish to death. It would be the same as pulling a worm across the dirt intending to catch a chicken, only when the chicken caught the worm, a very powerful cinch caught around its beak. then, to get his line back, the chickenman would have to rip the cinch off the chicken's beak, soemtimes ripping the beak off as well. Then he/she would proceed to wrap a plastic bag around the chicken's head, suffocating it to death. THAT, i'm sure, you would most definitely label as abuse.. so why not so with the fish?

Dissident Dan

Jul28-04, 09:46 PM

I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures.

Well, that's not a moral of our culture. In fact, I don't know of any culture that, to my knowledge, has that moral. So which culture's morals are you imposing on ours?

-----------------------------------------

The treatment of fish is also horrible. I do not condone that, either. However, people are not consistent in their views, so they will condone fishing because it's more mainstream than beating chickens.

There's also the argument that animal abuse such as that uncovered in the Pilgrim's Pride facility leads to abusing humans. This argument is corroborated by empirical evidence. Fishing has not been shown to lead to abusing humans.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul28-04, 10:30 PM

Well, that's not a moral of our culture. In fact, I don't know of any culture that, to my knowledge, has that moral. So which culture's morals are you imposing on ours?

It's not a moral. It's logic. Its logic that should be used. You find it in nature, but humans have somehow lost it.

The treatment of fish is also horrible. I do not condone that, either. However, people are not consistent in their views, so they will condone fishing because it's more mainstream than beating chickens.

There's also the argument that animal abuse such as that uncovered in the Pilgrim's Pride facility leads to abusing humans. This argument is corroborated by empirical evidence. Fishing has not been shown to lead to abusing humans.

That argument only exists because people look for that certain thing when analyzing a serial killer. I doubt many serial killers have been investigated about how often the fished.. but i'm sure there is some statistician who could find the correlation that fishing leads to serial killers (if that was the mainstream excuse for serial killer behaviour). There are many people who have "tortured" living beings who have not become serial killers. I have talked to many people at college who tell of stories from when they were younger, of how they would do this and that to a cat, rabbit, squirrel, lizard, pigeon, etc. But out of alllll those people, how many would i say are able to become serial killers? none. most of them are deeply religious. I think the correlation between 'torture' of animals and serial killing is bogus. yes, serial killers tortured animals in the past, but that doesnt mean that's what led them to killing humans. it's like the whole bowling for columbine thing.. just because there's evidence that darren and whats-his-face went bowling the morning of the shooting doesnt mean the act of bowling is what started the behaviour. If it was there, it was there all along. The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour. It was there. If anything the "torture" vented their urges and kept them from killing humans sooner. It is a psychological disorder that was there from the beginning, from something done to the person, or just the way the brain is organized. People who investigate serial killers look for anything that might be the "cause" of the behaviour. And yes, 9 out of 10 times there is an animal abuse. But I bet you could poll 1000 people in america and ask them if anytime in their life they have tortured an animal and i would say that 90% have. But that doesn't mean there are 900 serial killers on the loose.

Moonbear

Jul28-04, 10:57 PM

It's not a moral. It's logic. Its logic that should be used. You find it in nature, but humans have somehow lost it.

How is it logic? Explain that, please. I don't see anything logical about not imposing one's own morals on others. Afterall, if they are that important to you, wouldn't it be more logical to, indeed, impose them upon others? If I didn't feel the need to expect such moral behavior of others, why would I expect it of myself either?

And where do you find morals in nature, other than humans? Many philosophers would argue that morality is what makes us human, and what distinguishes as separate from other animals. It is because we have morality that we are expected to act against our instincts, at least according to certain philosophies.

Though, I'm suddenly thinking of a strange contradiction here...if animal rights groups believe that humans are no better than animals, then wouldn't that mean we shouldn't be expected to behave any better than them either? Do we then not have morality above that of the animals, such that we are under no obligation to act against our instincts to protect them? Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?

Dissident Dan

Jul28-04, 11:57 PM

And where do you find morals in nature, other than humans? Many philosophers would argue that morality is what makes us human, and what distinguishes as separate from other animals. It is because we have morality that we are expected to act against our instincts, at least according to certain philosophies.

Though, I'm suddenly thinking of a strange contradiction here...if animal rights groups believe that humans are no better than animals, then wouldn't that mean we shouldn't be expected to behave any better than them either? Do we then not have morality above that of the animals, such that we are under no obligation to act against our instincts to protect them? Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?

Actually, I do not believe that humans are the only animals who act in moral ways or who have sense of morality. An experiment has been done in which macaque monkeys would not take food from a dispenser when they knew that taking the food would cause another macaque electric shock. The correlation was even stronger in the monkeys that had been shocked themselves.

Anyway, I would not say that we are "better". I do not believe that classification of "better", in general, is a meaningful classification. I only believe in things being better in ability to achieve specific goals. What we do have is the highest level of intelligence. Because we have that, I'd hope that we employ it in making more ethical decisions.

Monique

Jul29-04, 03:14 AM

I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures. And i'm also saying that once a culture imposes their morals onto us, such as the 'terrorists' did, then the situation should be treated logically.
Another real-life example: President Bush freeing a country of a vicious dictator. Apparently Bush had no right to inflict his morality of having people live in freedom upon another culture.. where would this world be if everyone lived in their own little word and absolutely did not care about what goes on outside of it?

About your fish example: morals are based on the balance of receiving benefit and inflicting damage. I already gave the example before of lab-animals, we can only use them because there are strict rules that tell us that:
*The research must serve an important goal
*There is no suitable alternative to reach that goal
*Not more animals are used than required
The same rules apply when it comes to the use of human embryo's, with a further restriction that the research must be aborted 14 days after fertilization (that's when the notochord, the placenta starts developing). You can think the same way about the fishery.

Monique

Jul29-04, 03:26 AM

About the serial killers "The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour", the lack of empathy for living beings is a traitmark of serial killers.

Just the other week I watched an interview with 'America's most dangerous man', he used to work for the maffia and murdered all the people who couldn't bring up the money. He was ice-hard. He'd tell the stories of killing these people (the count was around 100-150) without showing any emotion towards them. One time, he said, a man was crying for his life, begging to god to safe him. Well, the killer gave him 30 min to pray, if there were a god, he'd be saved. This was the biggest mistake he ever made, he said, and telling this story really bothered him: obviously he allowed the man to have emotions.

Anyway, so at the end he starts telling about his family: wife and kids, and suddenly almost breaks down in tears. Where is emotions were completely lacking when talking about his victims, his emotions overwhelms him when realizing his wife has a serial-killer as a husband and he felt horrible for her to live with that fact. I was seriously surprised by those emotions.

I wondered: how about all the families of the men you killed, did he ever think about the damage he did to them?

Anyway, you saying: I'm merely stating that this release of primal urge upon objects should not be punished. [and] I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food. made me think of that man, and the logic that must've been in his mind.

You never answered my question whether a man beating his wife, to release a primal urge, should be left unpunished. Or in certain countries where it is ok for a man to mutilate his wife if she's suspected to have glanced at another man.

Isn't it our duty to go into those countries and better the situation, give humanitarian help? Ever heard of amnesty international?

Dooga Blackrazor

Jul29-04, 09:36 AM

I'm fairly borderline on eating meat. I probably always will because it tastes good, but who knows.

My thought is a quote from a beautiful mind I believe. It was something like to achieve the best result you must choose the option best for yourself and the group.

If we didn't work on a race level as humans and consider the group every living thing then I assume the theory would still apply. Chickens can't possible provide enough positive over negative contributions to society to make up for what we gain by using them as food. Or can they? I don't know much on their benefits aside from the use of food. While the pleasure of the chicken counts towards a certain amount, is it really worth as much as a contributing human. A person who contributes more as a whole should get more, and therefore their self-enjoyment should be worth more, shouldn't it?

I'm just looking for a calm discussion on this.

On another note: Is natural selection generally deemed wrong? If so, why? I've been thinking lately that it might be the most general-populace sufficient path for society to trend on. But something tells me I'm not getting all the information.

~Thanks for reading my post.

Be Happy!

Jul29-04, 08:50 PM

And what does PETA consider to be abused or mistreated? What are the other factual inaccuracies - on the page devoted to PETA?

The CCF-(Center for Consumer Freedom) is an organization not dedicated to consumer freedom, but to the freedom of industry to do as they want...they are funded by the tobacco, restaurant and other food supply industries to put down any organization that stops thier companies from making money...this is a smear campaign.

I seen many debates on TV with CEO of the CCF and the president of PETA...and I have to say the PETA person completly out shone the CCF guy-- her agenda to me seemed pure and for the betterment of the world....imho. :smile:

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul29-04, 10:01 PM

About the serial killers "The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour", the lack of empathy for living beings is a traitmark of serial killers.

Yes, but also for many other poeple as well, like i said before.

Just the other week I watched an interview with 'America's most dangerous man', he used to work for the maffia and murdered all the people who couldn't bring up the money. He was ice-hard. He'd tell the stories of killing these people (the count was around 100-150) without showing any emotion towards them. One time, he said, a man was crying for his life, begging to god to safe him. Well, the killer gave him 30 min to pray, if there were a god, he'd be saved. This was the biggest mistake he ever made, he said, and telling this story really bothered him: obviously he allowed the man to have emotions.

Anyway, so at the end he starts telling about his family: wife and kids, and suddenly almost breaks down in tears. Where is emotions were completely lacking when talking about his victims, his emotions overwhelms him when realizing his wife has a serial-killer as a husband and he felt horrible for her to live with that fact. I was seriously surprised by those emotions.

I wondered: how about all the families of the men you killed, did he ever think about the damage he did to them?

What about the people in the penal system who put to death 100 prisoners a year? How are they somehow more justified than the mafia man? What of the families of the people sent to death by the judicial system? You seem not to be worried about that too much. Just the serial killer's victims. maybe the guy who injects the poison or throws the switch abused a few animals in his day. Does that not make him a serial killer, by your standards? he kills people. Shows no emotion. abused animals in his life. OOP! must be a serial killer. He should be sent to jail and put on death row. Then the person who executes him will go through the same process, then sooner or later the world will be left with no one, all because your criteria for a serial killer includes the abuse of animals.

You never answered my question whether a man beating his wife, to release a primal urge, should be left unpunished. Or in certain countries where it is ok for a man to mutilate his wife if she's suspected to have glanced at another man. Isn't it our duty to go into those countries and better the situation, give humanitarian help? Ever heard of amnesty international?

The man should be punished, in this culture, because the abuse of another human being who does not deserve it ( IN THE WESTERN CULTURE) is not right. therefore he should be punished. In those other countries, where wife-mutilation takes place, we have no moral justification to help them, unless they ask us to help them whereby their culture must agree to shed their bias and adopt our morals. The thing in Iraq.. I've never heard any evidence of the people there asking us to come in and help them. If they did, then the action was justified. If not, then it was wrong of us to go in there and change that culture.

About your fish example: morals are based on the balance of receiving benefit and inflicting damage...
...*The research must serve an important goal
*There is no suitable alternative to reach that goal
*Not more animals are used than required
The same rules apply when it comes to the use of human embryo's, with a further restriction that the research must be aborted 14 days after fertilization (that's when the notochord, the placenta starts developing). You can think the same way about the fishery.

First of all, the goal of catching fish does not mean anything for survival. We catch fish for the sport. We suffocate them for the fun of it. Does this not constitute as torture, according to your book? Also, many times there's no limit to how many fish you catch or not. If there is, it is because there's a balance to keep the population of fish at in order to allow for further seasons of fishing.. not because we "care" about their "emotions".

By the way.. all this talk and I never once asked: How do you know the chickens even have emotions???? yes they felt pain, but the feeling of pain is nothing more than a nervous system reflex. Love, sadness, happiness, joy, sorrow, etc are all emotions unfelt and unaffected by the nervous system. They are brought on by the mind, as well as certain chemical balances in the brain. Obviously chickens do not have the same brain structure as we do, so how do you know they too feel "sorrow, suffering, torture". Just because there is pain (reflexes of the nervous system) does not
mean there is emotional value. I mean this can be seen with my fish example again. To fish, some people use an earthworm on their hook. This includes such glorious actions as threading the hook through the worm's body. Worms obviously have nervous systems, thus they have the reflex of pain. But are you willing to go as far as to say they are "suffering"??? Are you going to now give earthworms human traits?

Ad Infinitum NAU

Jul29-04, 10:20 PM

How is it logic? Explain that, please. I don't see anything logical about not imposing one's own morals on others. Afterall, if they are that important to you, wouldn't it be more logical to, indeed, impose them upon others? If I didn't feel the need to expect such moral behavior of others, why would I expect it of myself either?

It's logic which guarantees the most survival of all species/cultures. If they are that important to a culture, doesn't mean they would be to another.

And where do you find morals in nature, other than humans? Many philosophers would argue that morality is what makes us human, and what distinguishes as separate from other animals. It is because we have morality that we are expected to act against our instincts, at least according to certain philosophies.

I didn't say you could find morals in nature.. I said you can find this logic in nature. Most species of animals are territorial, forming their own herds, groups, packs, flocks, etc. Also, among those species are certain guidelines, or rules of logic, that the species generally follows to ensure the greatest survival of the species. One of these guidelines appears to be to not go into other herds/packs/groups/whatever and completely change the way those animals survive. Never in nature do you see a "Lion King" scenario.

Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?

Humans should not assume MORAL responsibilty to care for animals. They've cared for themselves the last million years, why should we all of a sudden think we are somehow their decision makers? That is just purely egotistical and VERY VERY whiggish.

Dissident Dan

Jul29-04, 10:36 PM

By the way.. all this talk and I never once asked: How do you know the chickens even have emotions???? yes they felt pain, but the feeling of pain is nothing more than a nervous system reflex. Love, sadness, happiness, joy, sorrow, etc are all emotions unfelt and unaffected by the nervous system. They are brought on by the mind, as well as certain chemical balances in the brain. Obviously chickens do not have the same brain structure as we do, so how do you know they too feel "sorrow, suffering, torture".

Emotions are a function of the nervous system. The brain is a part of the nervous system. I know that they have emotions through the same mechanisms that I use to determine that humans have emotions--through observation of behavior and brain structure. I am highly skeptical of earthworms being sentient (capable of subjective experience), but I am completely sure that chickens are sentient.

Moonbear

Jul29-04, 11:57 PM

Emotions are a function of the nervous system. The brain is a part of the nervous system. I know that they have emotions through the same mechanisms that I use to determine that humans have emotions--through observation of behavior and brain structure. I am highly skeptical of earthworms being sentient (capable of subjective experience), but I am completely sure that chickens are sentient.

I wouldn't be as certain of that. Emotions would involve cortical areas. Chickens have a far less developed cortex than humans. A bird brain is quite different from a mammalian brain.

Though I'm not sure it's relevant to the issue anyway. What matters is that they feel pain, not whether they then are sad or mad about it.

I'm also can't recall now how we got into the whole topic of imposing morals upon other cultures. Is there a culture that favors stomping and throwing around live chickens? Were those people in that video members of that culture? I haven't heard any arguments it was part of their religious beliefs or observing some cultural ritual that involved throwing chickens against walls.

physicsisphirst

Jul30-04, 12:16 AM

Just so you won't question the source this time, all of the following is directly from the PETA website:

It seems to me that your criticisms of PETA are based on your pre-conceived interpretations, rather than what is actually written on the site.

For instance, you use the "animals are not ours to use ..." quotation and conclude:

There you go. They believe animals (all animals, as they do not draw any line here) have rights equal to those of a human being. Clearly this includes the cockroach. If experimenting on a cockroach produced a cure for cancer, PETA would not approve. Would you?

even though the quote clearly says that animals "deserve consideration of their best interests" and nothing about equality of rights. Then you bring your cockroach in and through its virtue you produce a cure for cancer as though the "experimenting" and the "cure" are necessarily causally linked.

Next we take the Schweitzer quote in which is written "A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help" and turn it into a crusade for earthworms:

Equal consideration to earthworms is always nice, even though they have no CNS and can't feel a thing.

completely ignoring the point of the quote which was that humans have an obligation to aid all life. This is not really such an unusual or revolutionary idea as it has been echoed by many (religious and otherwise) throughout the centuries - in fact, that's how the 'humane' got into 'humanity'.

Let's skip your gnats, ants and French Resistance interpretations which are really bizarre, and go right to your final conclusion:

"Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings they are both important." There you go. Humans are no more important than animals, and it is clear that they include insects when they say "animals." So I was right to say that they consider a cockroach to be just as valuable as a human. Do you believe this, Elizabeth?

There's that cockroach of yours again!

Now you seem to think that PETA is saying that "Humans are no more important than animals" simply because they take their work seriously. What a strange conclusion to come to! Please note that it clearly says "Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings" and not "animals are not any more or less important than human beings" which is how you choose to 'interpret' it.

PETA is a non-profit with a mandate to help animals (which by the way, they happen to do extremely effectively despite a couple of comments to the contrary on this thread). This is why people from all walks of life support them. This is why they vigorously opposed the Pilgrim's Pride workers cruelty and brought it to the attention of the public.

If I were to support PETA financially, I would expect them to use all their energies to foster animal rights and animal welfare issues. To expect them to advocate for human issues officially would absurd, because I would obviously give my dollars to an organization whose focus would be appropriately different. I certainly don't expect the Non-Smokers Rights Association to officially advocate for the Family Caregivers Support Society. In fact, I would hope that whatever the personal feelings of the former for caregivers, they would consider their own mandate to be foremost in their actions.

Some people use the old "if you care for animals, then you are not caring for humans" trick to discredit animal rights activists, but what they don't realize is that many AR activists are also deeply committed to human rights. However, that is an individual and personal option - not an official mandate.

Elizabeth has argued fairly and honestly throughout this thread. However, her most telling comment is that some people tend to criticize PETA without knowing or even wanting to know what that organization is really about.

In friendship,
prad

loseyourname

Jul30-04, 02:42 PM

even though the quote clearly says that animals "deserve consideration of their best interests" and nothing about equality of rights. Then you bring your cockroach in and through its virtue you produce a cure for cancer as though the "experimenting" and the "cure" are necessarily causally linked.

What the hell are you trying to say? That experimentation on animals never results in curing disease? Of course there's a link. In fact, it's part of the process that every single drug must go through, by law, before it can be tested on humans. Now would you prefer we kill a couple of lab rats or we kill a couple of humans? By opposing experimentation on animals - which is what PETA does - you impose the only alternative: experimentation on humans first. This means that humans are going to die. It's one way or the other. Drugs have to be tested somehow.

Next we take the Schweitzer quote in which is written "A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help" and turn it into a crusade for earthworms:

completely ignoring the point of the quote which was that humans have an obligation to aid all life.

And I contend this is wrong. It is stupid to consider a man unethical if he steps on earthworms. Earthworms do not have brains; they do not feel anything. They could care less if you step on them because they don't care about anything. Should we also have respect for the harmless bacteria we kill every time we wash our hands or brush our teeth? They certainly weren't doing anything wrong.

Let's skip your gnats, ants and French Resistance interpretations which are really bizarre, and go right to your final conclusion:

No, what's bizarre is comparing a terrorist organization to the French Resistance. Do you support the actions of the ALF?

Now you seem to think that PETA is saying that "Humans are no more important than animals" simply because they take their work seriously. What a strange conclusion to come to! Please note that it clearly says "Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings" and not "animals are not any more or less important than human beings" which is how you choose to 'interpret' it.

All right, you know what? This is getting really frustrating. What did I say that was different from what you said? If helping animals is no less important then helping humans, how is there not the implication that animals are no less important than humans?

PETA is a non-profit with a mandate to help animals (which by the way, they happen to do extremely effectively despite a couple of comments to the contrary on this thread). This is why people from all walks of life support them. This is why they vigorously opposed the Pilgrim's Pride worker's cruelty and brought it to the attention of the public.

Good for them. I'm sure they do a lot of great work. They also hold stupid stances on the use of animals for research and they openly support a terrorist organization.

Elizabeth has argued fairly and honestly throughout this thread. However, her most telling comment is that some people tend to criticize PETA without knowing or even wanting to know what that organization is really about.

In friendship,
prad

Perhaps, but I don't think you can accuse me of that. I've taken the time to look for third-party evaluation of them as well as look at their own website and official statements. I don't see how much more I could do to find out what they are really about.

To be fair, I don't have any problem with most of what they do.

physicsisphirst

Jul30-04, 10:41 PM

In fact, it's part of the process that every single drug must go through, by law, before it can be tested on humans. Now would you prefer we kill a couple of lab rats or we kill a couple of humans?
What a lot of people are led to believe is that the testing actually protects people. Actually, the testing protects the companies from being sued when the drug does something it wasn't supposed to like kill or maim the consumer. Animal models are not as successful as they are made to seem and if you want to investigate this further (since it is off topic here), you can do some of it at
http://www.curedisease.com/index.html

And I contend this is wrong. It is stupid to consider a man unethical if he steps on earthworms.
The real issue is, when it is not necessary to deprive another creature of life, should we do it? The implications of our attitudes towards the weak and the helpless be they humans, chickens or even earthworms is quite profound.

No, what's bizarre is comparing a terrorist organization to the French Resistance. Do you support the actions of the ALF?
Some think that the ALF is a somewhat extreme wing of the AR movement. It is really rather extreme and bizarre to consider this to be a terrorist organization especially considering that there are far, far more dangerous ones around.

Generally, AR activists do not resort to the destruction of property. However, ALF considers destruction of property to be non-violent:

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.
The ALF's short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. Their long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business.
It is a nonviolent campaign, activists taking all precautions not to harm any animal (human or otherwise).
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm

I also think that it would be hard to deny that many realities would not have been uncovered if ALF (and others) had not initiated covert operations.

While you may argue the validity of ALF's position, you should also consider that practically all social justice movements had its more 'extreme', 'illegal', even 'violent' side (consider unionization, apartheid or women's suffrage). In fact, one could say that the existence of America itself came about through extreme, illegal actions far more violent than anything any animal rights organization has been responsible for. (I suppose the Brits thought they were dealing with a bunch of terrorists too, though I don't think the term was in fashion back then).

All right, you know what? This is getting really frustrating. What did I say that was different from what you said? If helping animals is no less important then helping humans, how is there not the implication that animals are no less important than humans?

Let's look at what you said and what you were trying to do. The PETA line is that "Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings they are both important." You take the 'less' part to try to paint the picture through your 'implication' that PETA regards animals to be just as important as humans - specifically your cockroach regarding which you directed your question to Elizabeth.

Say I regard helping a cat at the SPCA important - in fact, I obviously regard it more important than helping the impoverished drunk on the street corner since I do not do help that individual at all. Can you conclude from my actions that I consider the cat to be more important than the drunk?

If you do, then it would seem that by far the vast majority of people in America (possibly yourself included) consider their pets (whom they help regularly) to be 'more important' than the millions of starving humans (whom they don't help at all) throughout the country and the world.

If you don't, perhaps then you are agreeing with what PETA says that "Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings", without any implications of equal importance of the individuals concerned. The statement then is being taken according to its actual meaning which is that PETA considers helping animals and helping humans to be equally important. Personally, I would hope that this is not the case, since I would hope that PETA's primary responsibility would be towards animals and that as an organization they would consider helping animals to be more important than helping people whatever the personal beliefs of the individuals in the organization.

Good for them. I'm sure they do a lot of great work. They also hold stupid stances on the use of animals for research and they openly support a terrorist organization.
You are indeed right about the first part and this cruelty expose is just one example in a 2 decade history (here's more if you are interested: http://www.peta.org/about/milestones.html). However, if you investigate the latter, you may be surprised to see that one is not just a 'stupid stance' and that the 'extent of support' may need some qualification as would the term 'terrorist'.

Perhaps, but I don't think you can accuse me of that. I've taken the time to look for third-party evaluation of them as well as look at their own website and official statements. I don't see how much more I could do to find out what they are really about.
Ok I won't accuse you of criticizing "PETA without knowing or even wanting to know what that organization is really about". I really wasn't accusing you specifically anyway - I was merely pointing out that the way you were interpreting the PETA statements was considerably different from their actual meaning and intent.

The reason you did this, I think, is because you have some negative notions about PETA actions - no problem with that, I do too and I doubt if everyone in the organization necessarily likes everything that the organization does.

However, it is inappropriate to let your 'bias' on say the assumed 'lifesaving advancements of medical science as a direct result of animal experimentation', propose the conclusion that PETA considers a cockroach and a human life to be of equal value because they consider 'helping humans and helping animals to both be important'.

Unfortunately, such reasoning gets in the way of seeing what PETA actually does do which is to try to stop the abuse of animals. PETA has brought a very serious act of cruelty out in to the open - even the executives at KFC and Pilgrim's Pride are appalled (there's no reason to believe their revulsion is purely a media-motivated, fabricated pretense). This is the issue we should deal with, as many people in the thread have done with outrage, logic and compassion such as Evo, Monique, Elizabeth and Dissident Dan. It is hardly the time to be debating whether PETA supports terrorist organizations or cockroachs - because whatever PETA does has no bearing on what has happened.

To be fair, I don't have any problem with most of what they do.
I am not surprised by that. The one line of yours that that I thought was especially significant was "The page devoted to PETA may be one-sided, but is it true?" - in the post to DD about MADD (though I think your analysis of CCF regarding MADD is far too generous). I think you are sincere in finding out what is true. At least you use PETA's actual words (albeit with somewhat liberal poetic licentiousness), but you do not fabricate or resort to tabloid absurdity. Therefore perhaps you will continue to find out more about PETA through their website or through direct communication with their representatives. If you don't agree with their stance on a particular issue, hopefully you'll try to investigate rather than dismiss it.

PETA really is a significant and important force in our times and you may be surprised at the quality of people both in and supportive of that organization. You can find out about some of them on the PETA site (or even go to CCF who have done a fair job tracking a few of them down, LOL).

In friendship,
prad

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 08:46 AM

you are still alive because you take supplements. artificial supplements. Meat is a natural source for us omnivores to survive.

Nope, try again. I don't take ANY supplements. I eat a healthy, balanced vegan diet (no meat, dairy, fish, eggs, etc). I am in EXCELLENT health, and feel great. Meat is NOT necessary for humans to survive (or be healthy)--I am living proof.

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 09:00 AM

Morals are culturally defined, 'thank you very much'. If we were visited by another life form from another system, and found that they harvested Cocker Spaniels for food, and found their way of killing the animals was against our views, you, I, or the president of PETA has NO AUTHORITY, NO RIGHT, and absolutely NO moral justification to say that they are wrong. That's it. That's all there is to it.

Maybe YOUR morals are culturally defined, but MINE are not. Torturing animals is against MY morals, and therefore I choose not to participate by adopting a vegan, cruelty-free lifestyle. You go ahead, wait for those aliens to land, and have a cocker spaniel steak with 'em. Have fun. This country was founded on freedom of speech--the president of PETA can say whatever she wants, and so can I.

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 09:18 AM

"Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important." There you go. Humans are no more important than animals, and it is clear that they include insects when they say "animals." So I was right to say that they consider a cockroach to be just as valuable as a human. Do you believe this, Elizabeth?

No, I personally don't believe that a cockroach has equal rights to a human being. Like I told you fifty times, I am not a spokesperson for PETA, nor am I responsible for what's on their website. PETA can say whatever they want about cockroaches, but I will always support the GOOD things they do to help animals (the good things, by the way, that never get any press). I don't really care if you hate PETA or what they stand for--my point was to inform you that you should educate yourself about a subject before you make judgments. It was obvious that you already had a negative view of PETA BEFORE you knew anything about them. You went out of your way to defend everything on activistcash.com. I pointed out the innacuracies, and you chose to ignore everything I said. If you still want to believe the lies on that website, that's your problem--not mine. I don't agree with everything PETA does and says, just like I don't agree with everything MADD (or any other organization) does. However, I am open-minded enough to overlook some things in order to assist with a greater good. PETA is not a terrorist organization. I guarantee you cannot name one incident of property damage, human injury, etc. that PETA is responsible for. What PETA did with the undercover investigation of the KFC supplier was heroic and WILL cause changes that result in less suffering for those animals. Do you find any value in that at all?

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 09:35 AM

The only reason you are here to debate me today is because of the priority of survival. We kept it number one 3000 years ago, and it should remain number one for as long as we exist. That's nature. A bear doesn't limit itself to the number of fish it slices and dices to make itself as fat as possible for the coming winter. It has no feelings about the fish. It just thinks about survival.

So, are you equating humans with bears? That humans have the same kind of cognitive functions as a bear? You're contradicting yourself. You obviously believe that humans are "superior" to bears, yet at the same time you state that since bears don't have feelings, why should we. Which is it?

The "priority" of survival is not the same as it was 3000 years ago. Back then we didn't have grocery stores, fast food chains, foodbanks, etc. And nobody in this country needs to fatten up for anything--we're already the fattest, most unhealthy society in the world.

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 10:06 AM

Elizabeth, when I was young and naive, I contributed to PETA as well. I thought they were just out to help abused animals, a noble mission in my mind. Then I learned what their mission really is, which is just as loseyourname has quoted from their website.

Please don't stoop to personal attacks, OK? We're adults here--I am neither young NOR naive. Thanks.

Please go to the links below from the "victories" section of PETA.org. This is what they have done to help animals (I noticed everybody's ignoring that part in favor of philosophizing about earthworms and cockroaches).

http://www.peta.org/feat/cap/

http://www.peta.org/about/victories-wild.asp?Campaign=wildlife&year=2003

http://www.peta.org/about/victories-ca.asp?Campaign=companion%20animals&year=2002

http://www.peta.org/about/victories-wild.asp?Campaign=wildlife&year=2001

Monique

Jul31-04, 10:23 AM

Elizabeth, there is no reason to get offended so easily. No personal attacks were intended in those posts.

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 11:18 AM

In fact, it's part of the process that every single drug must go through, by law, before it can be tested on humans. Now would you prefer we kill a couple of lab rats or we kill a couple of humans?

Actually, drugs do NOT have to be tested on animals by law, and not every drug is tested on animals. Where are you getting your information? Can you find and quote this "law" for me?

And why do we have to kill ANYTHING? Just because that's the way it's always been done? I think we're all a little more intelligent than that.

To be fair, I don't have any problem with most of what they (PETA) do.

Then why are you slamming them so hard? And the extent of your "third-party evaluation" consists of a slanted website with documented inaccuracies on it. Perhaps you should "research" activistcash.com as closely as you've "researched" PETA.

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 11:50 AM

I understand that, but I'm asking yall why you don't see that as abuse, since it too is intentional. Fishermen, when fishing, are intending to lure a fish in, hook it, de-hook it, and throw it in a cooler. no, they are not jumping on them, tearing their fins off (though sometimes tearing their "lips" off) or kicking them. But, they are snagging them with a hook that prevents the fish from coming loose, ripping it right back out, and suffocating the fish to death.

I see it as abuse, that's why I don't eat fish or any other animal.

Dissident Dan

Jul31-04, 04:59 PM

Nope, try again. I don't take ANY supplements. I eat a healthy, balanced vegan diet (no meat, dairy, fish, eggs, etc). I am in EXCELLENT health, and feel great. Meat is NOT necessary for humans to survive (or be healthy)--I am living proof.

You should consider taking vitamin B12 (or B12-fortified foods), and probably some omega-3 fats. There used to be lotsof B12 in the soil and water, but not anymore. The plants that we ate provide us with enough B12 when we were still "uncivilized". However, today, food and water sources have changed. These are important nutrients that are typically lacking in modern, Western, vegan diets, not because the diets are "unnatural", but because our modern way of life is "unnatural". Not that I'm against that. I'll take clean water and a B12 pill (or B12-fortified foods) over dysentery.

http://www.veganmd.org/talks

I would recommend a multivitamin for anyone, vegetarian or not. Typical American diets are severely lacking in many key nutrients. There are some nutrients which omnivorous folk (foodsluts...[;)]...just a joke, relax) tend to take in more of, including B12 and Zinc. But there are even more nutrients that vegetarian/vegan diets tend to provide more of, including "carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, boron, folate, antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotenoids, and phytochemicals" (http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm), as well as lower levels of harmful substances such as saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.

Arguments against vegetarian diets on the basis of them typically lacking in certain nutrients are very one-sided and ignore the nutrients lacking in omnivorous diets. It is quite easy to get all the necessary nutrients on a vegan diet.

Monique

Jul31-04, 06:28 PM

Just a side-note: Dissident Dan is mentioning vegan diet, vegetarian diets should provide enough B12 (besides meat, B12 is present in dairy products and eggs). I agree, there is nothing wrong with taking supplements (although with a balanced diet you really don't need them).

Elizabeth1405

Jul31-04, 08:15 PM

You should consider taking vitamin B12 (or B12-fortified foods), and probably some omega-3 fats.

I know this is off the subject, but from what I understand, fortified soy milk (which I love and drink lots of) is a great source of B12. I'll check into the omega-3 info. Thanks Dan.

physicsisphirst

Jul31-04, 11:54 PM

(although with a balanced diet you really don't need them).

just a quick sidenote on your sidenote, you are absolutely correct - supplements aren't necessary at all (they don't even get in there for the most part unless they are in chelated form). the reason some veg people get sick is because they try to live on something like tofu and pasta, because someone told them that that is what being veg is all about.

the B12 threat isn't that big a deal either, though even the veg medical community seems to get people to worry about it, so if you really want to worry about it, elizabeth's fortified soya milk will do just fine (even though there will be some who argue that the B12 in there isn't absorbable, but you can't please all of the people all of the time).

btw, in case it is of any interest, i've been a 'strict' vegetarian (sometimes mistakenly called vegan - even by PETA) for nearly 15 years and a lacto-ovo veg for 18 years before that. my wife and son have been 'strict' veg for 14 years, he's been that way for all his life. there are a lot like that who don't do the vitamin and supplement thing.

in friendship,
prad

Dissident Dan

Aug1-04, 01:10 AM

I know this is off the subject, but from what I understand, fortified soy milk (which I love and drink lots of) is a great source of B12. I'll check into the omega-3 info. Thanks Dan.

Most are. Silk brand has 50% RDI per cup, if I remember correctly. Fortified foods are a good source of nutrients. I probably get most of my calcium from orange juice.

Elizabeth1405

Aug1-04, 08:34 AM

btw, in case it is of any interest, i've been a 'strict' vegetarian (sometimes mistakenly called vegan - even by PETA)

Curious--what's the correct definition of vegan? I've always been under the impression "vegan" and your definition of "strict vegetarian" were one and the same. Thanks for the info.

physicsisphirst

Aug1-04, 12:49 PM

Curious--what's the correct definition of vegan? I've always been under the impression "vegan" and your definition of "strict vegetarian" were one and the same. Thanks for the info.

the popular definitions of vegetarian and vegan don't really take into account the actual meaning of the words. vegetarian really refers to diet, while vegan really describes a lifestyle. Here's a brief depicition of vegetarian (from that chess site):

A vegetarian doesn't consume any animal products such as meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, sea foods, or even honey (a vegan is a vegetarian who has adopted a lifestyle avoiding animal products like wool, leather, silk). The 'veg' in vegetarian after all does represent vegetation (vegetables, fruits and other plant-based foods). People who include dairy to an otherwise vegetarian diet consider themselves to be lacto vegetarians. Those who consume both dairy and eggs call themselves lacto-ovo vegetarians. Of course, by that reasoning those who eat everything other than red meat should fancy themselves to be lacto-ovo-pesco-polla-miele vegetarians.

most 'vegatarians' are lacto-ovo vegetarians which is why the term vegetarian is used for them rather than strict vegetarians. this led to the incorrect usage of 'vegan' to define people who are strict vegetarian even in dictionaries (eg http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Vegan)

in fact, you will find that different dictionaries give different definitions for vegetarian.
my randomhouse dictionary defines it something like "someone who for ethical or nutritional reasons doesn't eat meat, fish, poultry, eggs and sometimes even milk and other animal products."
while my merriam-webster says: "one that believes in or practises living soley on plant products" (very veganish, but incorrect because a vegetarian may use leather for instance since he is not eating it)

an examination of the historical roots of the word vegan will show that there is much more than diet involved since its inception in 1944 by Donald Watson in england. i have posted the relevant information below from the article by Joanne Stepaniak.

so just to illustrate with my development as an example - i was a lacto-ovo vegetarian, then became a (strict) vegetarian dropping the milk and eggs, then when i stopped the leather, silk, wool stuff i adopted a vegan lifestyle. by the way, it is pretty difficult to be purely vegan these days simply because there are animal products in so many things (eg tires). however, what is important, i think, is that we do what we can because the principle is to minimize the exploitation of animals which is why so many alternatives to animal-based products have become available.

the common usage of the words, however, is largely the way you have described it.

in friendship,
prad

http://www.vegsource.com/jo/vegan.htm
Being Vegan

To understand what it means to be vegan, it is vital to reflect on the historical roots and origin of the word. Many people think of the term vegan and its associated lifestyle as something new, faddish, insurgent or radical. In many ways, just the opposite is true. The word vegan was coined in England by Donald Watson in 1944. He, along with several other members of the Vegetarian Society in Leicester, England, wanted to form an alliance of nondairy vegetarians as a subgroup of the Society. When their proposal was rejected, they ventured to start their own organization. They prospected what to call themselves, and, after evaluating a range of ingenious possibilities, agreed that "vegan" (decisively pronounced VEE-gn, with a long "e" and hard "g" ) was best. It was derived from the word "vegetarian" by taking the first three letters (veg) and the last two letters (an) because, as Donald Watson explained, "veganism starts with vegetarianism and carries it through to its logical conclusion."

In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, followed shortly thereafter by the creation of a manifesto describing their unified mission and perspective. Although the group advocated a totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals' milk, butter and cheese, they also encouraged the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal commodities, including clothing, shoes and other apparel. In addition, the group acknowledged that the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society and emancipate both humans and animals.

(there is more in the article at the website it is from)

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug1-04, 04:59 PM

Maybe YOUR morals are culturally defined, but MINE are not. Torturing animals is against MY morals, and therefore I choose not to participate by adopting a vegan, cruelty-free lifestyle. You go ahead, wait for those aliens to land, and have a cocker spaniel steak with 'em. Have fun. This country was founded on freedom of speech--the president of PETA can say whatever she wants, and so can I.

Go right on ahead. I think you may have missed my point(s). I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm not saying we should all torture chickens. I'm not saying I'm more right. I'm merely adopting a 'sort of' devil's advocate approach to my arguments, as Monique (or one of yall) pointed out previously. Thought it's not a full D.A. viewpoint because I still believe in my opinion. I'm just trying to get you all to see the full spectrum of this issue. The whole point to the cultural morality posts is to keep an open-air about other culture's beliefs and our responsibility as another culture of this world to respect their ways (the chinese and their cats, the indians and their cows, the aliens and their cockers). Also, I'm glad you said "Maybe YOUR morals are culturally defined, but MINE are not. Torturing animals is against MY morals" because you pretty much voiced my opinion: not only do cultures have their set of morals, but individuals also host their own, possibly different, moral scales. I'm not suggesting we keep this in mind for murderers or serial killers. I'm just saying in this particular case of the chicken tossers we have to keep in mind that different cultures, and even the individuals within those cultures, have different values about the animals they eat. Some, like me, think that feed animals should not be allowed emotional responsibility (by us). Then others, such as yourself and many people on this thread, try their best to respect any animal, regardless its purpose we have imposed upon it.

There's a lot of discussion now about human's responsibility over animals. I don't think we, as a dominant species, are supposed to have obligation over all other species. As you see in nature, the species at the top of certain food chains don't regulate their inferiors, just themselves. We should just keep after ourselves. By doing so we will let nature have part of its role back; that is, letting nature resume its process of balance and checks.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug1-04, 05:03 PM

So, are you equating humans with bears? That humans have the same kind of cognitive functions as a bear? You're contradicting yourself. You obviously believe that humans are "superior" to bears, yet at the same time you state that since bears don't have feelings, why should we. Which is it?

The "priority" of survival is not the same as it was 3000 years ago. Back then we didn't have grocery stores, fast food chains, foodbanks, etc. And nobody in this country needs to fatten up for anything--we're already the fattest, most unhealthy society in the world.

I brought up the bear example not to say that we are like bears cognitively, but that we should be like bears naturally, meaning we are all a part of nature. You are so quick to disagree with what i'm saying that you may not be completely seeing my point(s).

I disagree about your survival point. Just because we have all these grocery stores, etc, doesn't mean we should 'put off' or lower our priority for survival. The only reason we are here, like i said, is because our ancestors (regardless of their technological level) kept the priority of survival at the top.

Elizabeth1405

Aug1-04, 05:58 PM

I disagree about your survival point. Just because we have all these grocery stores, etc, doesn't mean we should 'put off' or lower our priority for survival. The only reason we are here, like i said, is because our ancestors (regardless of their technological level) kept the priority of survival at the top.

I was going to respond to this, but I'm kinda thinking it's not worth bothering anymore..... I think we've gone as far as we can with this one.

physicsisphirst

Aug2-04, 12:27 AM

Go right on ahead. I think you may have missed my point(s).
I think the real problem is that it is you who have missed the points the others have been making, because you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You have been

1) logically contradictory as Monique, Gokul and Elizabeth have all pointed out

2) factually incorrect regarding this nonsense about needing to eat meat or taking supplements, for example

3) morally inappropriate because if you base your morals in such a relativism as to make them dependent on cultures, yet posture that
a) there is no universal morality or
b) there is no common ground between cultures
then you create an anything goes environment so morality and ethics might as well cease to exist

4) demonstrating grotesque specieism in your attitude towards what you call 'feed animals', which is a purely convenience-fulfilling subjective term that doesn't take into account that they are animals first and hence deserve to be granted at least those dignities that certainly most humans are able to empathize with

Also,

5) your survival rationale wreaks of ridiculous religiosity in that it suggests that we maintain this priority at the top like our ancestors by subjugating other species supposedly the way you think our ancestors did - as if bashing chickens around helps us to stay on red alert

6) you are, finally, claiming that we as the dominant species have no obligations towards other species and then contradict this idea by saying we should regulate just ourselves, which is precisely what all the others have been telling you all along. That is, in fact, what the KFC officials are insisting on - that the specific members of our dominant species known as chicken-slaughterhouse-workers sapiens are regulated so that acts of barbarism and brutality cease to occur - demonstrating obligation

Point #5 happens to be more important than it appears, because the picture you seem to be encouraging for humans is one of irresponsibility, cruelty, violence and destruction. Following this approach, which some humans have done over centuries, there will be little left of the planet or its inhabitants and Sauron can gleefully eye the demise brought about without the slightest assistance from his Orcs!

This sort of thing can happen when we think we are being logical and don't look at the sensibility of even the axioms we start with. Perhaps you intend well, but it would really help if you try to see that your initial premises (for example, 'they are only feed animals undeserving of consideration') can irrepairably skew all subsequent deductions.

Anyway, instead of just attempting to play devil's advocate for the hell of it, how about making an attempt to understand what the others have been saying? If you are going to hold an opinion, surely it is wise to make it a worthwhile one. Since you have already said "I'm not saying I'm more right" follow through on this and you might find that the others are.

You have asked in the other thread that people 'reserve judgements' and not let what has happened in this thread affect their interactions with you. However, if you argue on and on ad nauseum with contradictions, inaccuracies, dogma and axiomatic suicides, then it should come as no surprise that people may be inspired to just ignore you. This is not necessary. Your stamina is admirable and I have no doubt that you wish to contribute meaningfully, but please be aware that you cannot bludgeon your way through the perspectives of others. Please, please on the forums, remember that

"we are fortunate to have the companionship of good people and should feel grateful if some of them find value in what we write"

In friendship,
prad

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug2-04, 09:32 PM

I think the real problem is that it is you who have missed the points the others have been making, because you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Anyway, instead of just attempting to play devil's advocate for the hell of it, how about making an attempt to understand what the others have been saying? If you are going to hold an opinion, surely it is wise to make it a worthwhile one. Since you have already said "I'm not saying I'm more right" follow through on this and you might find that the others are.

I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I skimmed and will only reply to these few comments and will get back to the others later.

I have not missed the points of others including yourself. It is much easier to be-in-agreement/see-the-view of the majority than to see/hold the view of the minority. I understand what you all are saying. I feel the same as you people do, only for different animals/circumstances. If this had happened to a group of Beagles at some animal shelter, then I'd be all in agreement with you. I'm not arguing for the sake of argument because I really beleive in what I'm saying. I'm just also trying to get you all to see that there is another side to this, that has a deep root in every aspect of our society. It's not just about bashing chickens. As you have witnessed in this post, it is about moral values, cultural understanding, sociological development, health, psychological understanding, as well as a multitude of side-topics. The only reason I keep posting is because through all I've said, no one has bothered to see all angles to the issue. You say it is me, but if you step outside the box, you will see it is everyone who disagrees with me. I'm still not trying to get you all to agree with me. I'm just asking you to take a look and see that there is some validity worth taking a look at on the other side. Since it is such a touchy, touchy topic it's really hard to step back and analyze it. it's very easy to go with your first emotional instinct and label these actions as wrong. But you have to see that there is so much more to this than just behaviour.

This is a topic just like religion, which we will discuss none of here. I'm an athiest because I truly believe, for my life, that is right. Of course, that is a, pardon the irony, major minority. But i'm not an athiest for the hell of it. Whatever I believe, I believe in firmly because I give it tremendous thought and try to shed all my bias when thinking about it. If you read my post clearly, you would have seen this comment: "I'm merely adopting a 'sort of' devil's advocate approach to my arguments".. taking careful consideration in the phrase in single quotes. Ok now I have time..

#1... Where have I been logically contradictory?

#2... I have NOT been factually incorrect about eating meat. I've said that eating meat is necessary for survival, and it is. Like I said, if eating meat was not necessary, then why are there carnivores and omnivores among scuh an advanced world?? No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour. By that, I mean if you look in nature at omnivorous creatures, never will you see that creature purposely avoid meat. Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans! Maybe there is one animal that does it, but only because it has no other alternative. It cannot find meat.

#3... Please don't call my views morally inappropriate. I've studied enough history/sociology (besides having a bit of common sense) to know that cultures have different scales of morality. Thus since they have these varying scales, you will see that morals are dependent upon the culture you are viewing. Morals and ethics need not cease to exist, since they work very well for the cultures in question.

#4... comments like this are what I've been talking about all along. Despite these last 144 posts, you are still unaware of the fact that there remains another side to this issue. If the issue was totally one-sided, then there would be no doubt, within anyone's mind, about anything regarding it. But since there is such an abundance of posts shows that there is more than one side. Also, the sides are not RIGHT and WRONG. The sides are just sides that deserve worthy attention and appropriate, non-biased, understanding.
There are/have been cultures in this world that have had ritualistic torturing of humans and animals. Where did those civilizations lead? to you. To me. To everyone. but if you can have the gall to look back and say that culture was wrong (based on your cultural bias today), then I'm awfully sorry for you because you are missing out on being educated the right way: open-minded, unbiased views on the happenings of the world.

#5... I never once said bashing chickens was necessary for survival, did I? I said eating meat was, and for that see #2. Also, I never said we should keep the ways of our ancestors in our processing of animal meat. All I said was that we, like our ancestors, need to keep our priority of survival at the top of our list. Meaning we should keep eating meat, keep raising feed animals, etc. if we neglect survival now, it may (or possibly may not, but I'd rather plan for the worst) have consequences down the road.

#6.. you misunderstood my point of "self-regulation". by that I don't mean take (emotional) care of the animals we eat, for that wouldn't be self regulation. I meant we should just regulate ourselves, meaning make sure we are surviving. In this issue, we should regulate the workers for their neglect on our economy. Yes, they should be punished, as I have said ALL along. BUT, they should be punished because they potentially harmed the food industry by damaging the would-have-been meat for chicken tenders. but now, since they bruised the meat, the chicken carcasses are of no value to the industry.

You said, "Point #5 happens to be more important than it appears, because the picture you seem to be encouraging for humans is one of irresponsibility, cruelty, violence and destruction. "
AGAIN, I'm not encouraging this behaviour because it caould have had, or did have consequences on our economy/food industry. I'm just trying to show that there is (yet again) another side to the moral issue. As i answered monique, a man should be punished for beating his wife, a child should be reprimanded for putting a bottle rocket up fee-fee's anal cavity, a serial killer should be shot on the firing range. But careful consideration should be taken with harm is done with feed animals. Yes there was an economic loss. But was there really a moral one? That's the question I've been asking, and defending.

I'm not trying to bludgeon my way into people's perspectives. But like i said before, it seems that people just really aren't listening. It may be that people may never be able to see another side of certain topics. After all, when discussing athiesm to a Catholic, you are shunned, and the topic is never to be talked about again.

Dissident Dan

Aug3-04, 10:50 AM

#2... I have NOT been factually incorrect about eating meat. I've said that eating meat is necessary for survival, and it is. Like I said, if eating meat was not necessary, then why are there carnivores and omnivores among scuh an advanced world?? No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour. By that, I mean if you look in nature at omnivorous creatures, never will you see that creature purposely avoid meat. Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans! Maybe there is one animal that does it, but only because it has no other alternative. It cannot find meat.

You just contradicted yourself. If people can be healthy not eating meat, then it is not necessary for survival.

Our whole way of life is unnatural (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that). How many other creatures do you know of that use air conditioning or type on computers? How many do you know of that take antiobiotics from a doctor when they get infections? How many do you know of that keep other animals in cages for food?

I don't think that being vegetarian is unnatural. There are many people who, if they had to kill the animals that they eat, would not, and would therefore be vegetarian (except, perhaps, if someone else fed them already-slaughtered meat).

I also don't think that being "natural" or not has any bearing on being correct or ethical. I also think that calling things "unnatural" is risky business because A) No one knows our entire evolutionary history and B) Nature is not static.

Aug3-04, 10:52 AM

You just contradicted yourself. If people can be healthy not eating meat, then it is not necessary for survival.

Our whole way of life is unnatural (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that). How many other creatures do you know of that use air conditioning or type on computers? How many do you know of that take antiobiotics from a doctor when they get infections? How many do you know of that keep other animals in cages for food?

I don't think that being vegetarian is unnatural. There are many people who, if they had to kill the animals that they eat, would not, and would therefore be vegetarian (except, perhaps, if someone else fed them already-slaughtered meat).

I also don't think that being "natural" or not has any bearing on being correct or ethical. I also think that calling things "unnatural" is risky business because A) No one knows our entire evolutionary history and B) Nature is not static.

I fail to see how we can be anything other than natural - that we are within nature is inescapable.

physicsisphirst

Aug3-04, 02:11 PM

I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I skimmed and will only reply to these few comments and will get back to the others later.
thank you for your detailed effort as always.
i am rather busy right now, possibly for a few days, but i will try to do justice to what you have written when i get the chance since i believe i can edit this post at anytime.

in friendship,
prad

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug3-04, 03:47 PM

You just contradicted yourself. If people can be healthy not eating meat, then it is not necessary for survival.

No where do I see that I have contradicted myself. I never said you cannot survive without meat, or by being a vegan/vegetarian. I never said you cannot be healthy by not eating meat. All I said was "eating meat is necessary for survival". Obviously it is, or we'd all be, through evolution, selection, or what have you, vegetarians.

Again I assert the fact that people need to read carefully, for points are often missed through haste and quickness-to-disagree.

chroot

Aug3-04, 04:00 PM

People eat meat because they like the taste. There is no evidence that it is required for survival. In fact, I know many vegans, and they seem to survive just fine. So do their little vegan children.

I eat meat, but I honestly feel a little guilty about it sometimes. There really is no redeeming reason to eat meat other than the taste. There are environmental, ethical, and health reasons against eating meat; the only positive is that it tastes good. I have read (and will find a substantiated source if anyone wants one) that we have the agricultural capacity to give every man, woman and child on earth 5,000 calories a day. We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

And Ad Infinitum, that's a really stupid argument: meat must be necessary for survival because some people still eat meat? :rofl:

- Warren

Hurkyl

Aug3-04, 04:18 PM

and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry

That's a ridiculously oversimplified statement, and you know it. :tongue2:

Monique

Aug3-04, 04:57 PM

And Ad Infinitum, that's a really stupid argument: meat must be necessary for survival because some people still eat meat? :rofl:

- Warren
Didn't you know? Licorice is necessary for survival too :rolleyes: :rofl:

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug3-04, 06:03 PM

People eat meat because they like the taste. There is no evidence that it is required for survival. In fact, I know many vegans, and they seem to survive just fine. So do their little vegan children.

Thanks for being yet another person to miss the point within my posts. I'm not saying you CANNOT survive WITHOUT meat. I'm just saying that it has got to be necessary for survival somewhere, including some humans. Now, PLEASE let there be someone out there that reads this... I'll quote from a post I have made previously (at least twice).. """"Like I said, if eating meat was not necessary, then why are there carnivores and omnivores among such an advanced world?? No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour. By that, I mean if you look in nature at omnivorous creatures, never will you see that creature purposely avoid meat. Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans! Maybe there is one animal that does it, but only because it has no other alternative. It cannot find meat. """" Again, I ask you: If meat was unnecessary and there are "so many" alternatives, then why is nature abundant with species that are carnivorous and omnivorous?

And Ad Infinitum, that's a really stupid argument: meat must be necessary for survival because some people still eat meat? :rofl:

- Warren

I love the fact that people downcast my opinions so quickly, and are so eager to call them stupid. It's rather interesting.

In case you didn't catch it in my previous post(s), and also missed it in the previous paragraph of this post, I'll ask again.. If meat was unnecessary for survival, why do we, among all the other omnivores and carnivores of the world, still eat it? It's not just a "really stupid argument". Think about it. No, seriously.. think about it. After all this world has endured, after all the changes in technology we've made, why are we still eating meat, why are there so many species that still eat meat, why are there no carnivores-turned-vegans out in the wild? Last time I checked, hyenas were still tearing into water buffalo carcasses, not gathering around a pile of gardenburgers.

One reason we still continue to eat meat (even though there's an alternative out there just as equally healthy) is because of the economy. Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed, how much pollution (aesthetic/land value) would be created, if we stopped eating meat. Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy, all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats. Then, if this culture decided to quit eating meat, and animal products, we would probably shud down shop altogether and end our animal-food trades with other countries, thus leading to a world-wide economic problem. This is where the culture thing comes in. We would be wrong to affect other cultures' economies just because we changed our moral standards on the values of meat and animal products.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug3-04, 06:40 PM

and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry
That's a ridiculously oversimplified statement, and you know it. :tongue2:

What about the scenario I mentioned in the last post.. ending the meat market/animal-eating industry would cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs, lose their families, go hungry, become poor, homeless, etc. Not to mention, as i said previously, harming the economies of the countries we trade food(animal) with. And I'm sure you may be thinking "well why don't they just switch to the vegan lifestyle too therefore we can resume trading". And to that I'll reply with what I've said before: you would be wrong to do that.

chroot

Aug3-04, 06:42 PM

I'm just saying that it has got to be necessary for survival somewhere, including some humans.
Please name this mythical human.
why are there carnivores and omnivores among such an advanced world??
Because meat is tasty.
No one has answered me yet. Yes, people DO survive and are healthy by not eating meat, but they have to resort to unnatural behaviour.
By what logic do you assert that the decision to eat meat is "natural," and the decision to not eat meat is "unnatural?"
Show me an omnivore that is a vegan, other than humans!
Perhaps you're confused, but a dictionary might help. An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies. An animal is an herbivore if it eats only veggies. My friend Cindy is an herbivore. You seem to be caught in some circular logic: "some people eat meat, so humans must be omnivores. Since humans are omnivores, people must eat meat." If you really believe this logic, I pity you and any sadly ill-equipped little offspring you'll ever trick a woman into bearing for you.
Again, I ask you: If meat was unnecessary and there are "so many" alternatives, then why is nature abundant with species that are carnivorous and omnivorous?
If you're asserting "if it's good enough for animals, why isn't it good enough for us?" then you're an idiot. There's really no point in bringing lions and tigers into this discussion. Sure, lions and tigers eat meat, but they don't really have the gray matter to sit around pondering ethical questions. I'll turn the question around: if meat were necessary, why are there "so many" vegan people?
I love the fact that people downcast my opinions so quickly, and are so eager to call them stupid. It's rather interesting.
They are, in fact, stupid, as many people have pointed out. No one likes being stupid, but that doesn't make them any smarter.
In case you didn't catch it in my previous post(s), and also missed it in the previous paragraph of this post, I'll ask again.. If meat was unnecessary for survival, why do we, among all the other omnivores and carnivores of the world, still eat it?
Because it's tasty.
It's not just a "really stupid argument". Think about it. No, seriously.. think about it. After all this world has endured, after all the changes in technology we've made, why are we still eating meat
Because it's tasty.
why are there so many species that still eat meat, why are there no carnivores-turned-vegans out in the wild? Last time I checked, hyenas were still tearing into water buffalo carcasses, not gathering around a pile of gardenburgers.
Do I hear an echo in here?
Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed, how much pollution (aesthetic/land value) would be created, if we stopped eating meat.
Since when has soybean farming produced more pollution than cattle farming? Do you have any clue how uninformed you are? :rofl:
Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy
The greasy McD's employee could just as easily serve greasy soyburgers.
all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats.
The people who raise cattle could just as easy farm soybeans.
Then, if this culture decided to quit eating meat, and animal products, we would probably shud down shop altogether and end our animal-food trades with other countries, thus leading to a world-wide economic problem.
And all such food and goods would be easily replaced with other products derived from plant sources. We have plant ice cream. We have plant artificial chicken. We have plant hamburgers. We have plant plastics, and plant seat coverings, and plant-any-goddamn-thing-you-want.
This is where the culture thing comes in. We would be wrong to affect other cultures' economies just because we changed our moral standards on the values of meat and animal products.
In 2001, the US exported about $2.5 billion worth of beef and imported about about the same amount. In contrast, the computer gaming industry is good for about $30 billion worldwide, about $10 billion of it in the US.

You're totally right -- if we stopped eating beef, the entire economy would certainly collapse!

- Warren

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug3-04, 07:27 PM

Please name this mythical human.
I know several people that (psychologically) need meat to survive. They love it. There's no reason not to.

Because meat is tasty.

You sit there and call me an idiot for my opinions, but you say that the reason nature includes carnivores and omnivores is that meat is tasty?? The only reason nature has allowed this to continue is because of taste?? That's ridiculous. if that were the case, then all animals would be sweet-potato-ores. I've seen many animals including my dog, my horse, etc eat sweet potatoes and love them because of their sweetness, their taste. But I still see my dog chowing down on rib bones and chasing the occasional mouse or rabbit.

By what logic do you assert that the decision to eat meat is "natural," and the decision to not eat meat is "unnatural?"

The logic of.. logic. Take a look at nature.. Show me the carnivore that decides to not eat meat and change its diet. Show me the omnivore that decided to become herbivore/vegetarian/vegan. That's what im saying about it being 'unnatural'. You don't see, in nature, omnivores making decisions about changing their diets.

Perhaps you're confused, but a dictionary might help. An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies. An animal is an herbivore if it eats only veggies. My friend Cindy is an herbivore. You seem to be caught in some circular logic: "some people eat meat, so humans must be omnivores. Since humans are omnivores, people must eat meat." If you really believe this logic, I pity you and any sadly ill-equipped little offspring you'll ever trick a woman into bearing for you.

I'm not confused at all. Humans are biologically omnivores. If we weren't we wouldn't need the teeth necessary for gnawing into meat.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks. This forum is for discussion of a particular topic and the opinions thereof. NOT for discussion about your pity for my beliefs, my potential children, or any other personal factor. If you disagree with me so much that you have to resort to attacking my personal life, then maybe you should reserve your posts for private messages. Thank you.

If you're asserting "if it's good enough for animals, why isn't it good enough for us?" then you're an idiot. There's really no point in bringing lions and tigers into this discussion. Sure, lions and tigers eat meat, but they don't really have the gray matter to sit around pondering ethical questions. I'll turn the question around: if meat were necessary, why are there "so many" vegan people?

Again, since this post is covering a topic of which many opinions are possible, do not call me an idiot for mine. If I were posting about how I think there is no such thing as gravity, or humans have 17 eyeballs, or bananas are really made out of helium zeppelins, then I would not mind being called an idiot. You, along with your companions, seem to think I am saying "you cannot survive being a vegan" .. for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. ALL i AM saying is that meat is necessary for survival. Whether it be for humans with a psychological disorder, or carnivorous lions, meat is necessary for survival. if humans did not ever need meat to survive, then why are we omnivores (quoting from you: "An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies.")?

They are, in fact, stupid, as many people have pointed out. No one likes being stupid, but that doesn't make them any smarter.

Again, echo echo echo. Do not call me stupid for having an opinion. I'm an athiest, but I do not call believers stupid. If you go around insulting people just for having a different opinion than you, then you are no better than a racist who vows all blacks are stupid becuase their pigment is different.

Since when has soybean farming produced more pollution than cattle farming? Do you have any clue how uninformed you are? :rofl:

Did i say soybean farming? Thank you very much for inserting your own words into mine. By pollution, I meant the vitamin factories that would have to be erected, the millions of gallons of oil that would be used to make the bottles for supplements. Yes there are ways to not have to take supplements, but you know as well as I do that the majority of Americans do not stick to strict diets. Instead, they take the easy route. Bottled meals are huge. Not to mention the time and land value depreciation needed to convert many many many acres of farmland into soybean-ready fields. you can't just go anywhere and expect soybeans to grow. There's only certain areas capable of growing soybeans, whereas cattle can pretty much be grown anywhere, including desertland in Arizona.

In 2001, the US exported about $2.5 billion worth of beef and imported about about the same amount. In contrast, the computer gaming industry is good for about $30 billion worldwide, about $10 billion of it in the US.

You're totally right -- if we stopped eating beef, the entire economy would certainly collapse!

- Warren

Once again, i never said anything about the ENTIRE economy collapsing.. read again: """Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed ... if we stopped eating meat. Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy, all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats."""

no these farmers can't equally as well just grow soybeans. Like I said, soy doesn't grow everywhere. Also, I'd like to see you talk to the execs at McD's, BK, etc about changing their ingredients to full soy, no animal products.. Then watch as they laugh at you. These people made it big because of meat. Most casinos here in Vegas pull in a good amount of revenue due to their famous steaks, shrimp, etc buffets. Not to mention the elegant steak joints all around the country. Tony Roma's to name one. Most fast food joints and sit downers made it big because of meat. KFC, Taco Bell, McD's, Subway, Applebees, Carl's Jr., Arby's, Long john Silvers, etc etc etc.

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug3-04, 07:44 PM

In 2001, the US exported about $2.5 billion worth of beef and imported about about the same amount. In contrast, the computer gaming industry is good for about $30 billion worldwide, about $10 billion of it in the US.

Besides, that statistic is for beef only. Don't forget chicken, pork, fish, and even goat.

Also, when I mentioned all the restaurants, I forgot about companies like Slim Jim, beef jerky makers, all the companies like Jimmy Dean... grocery stores also earn money through meat sales. The list goes on and on.. including sports events, and even fundraisers.. not to mention the quality time i was able to have with family members around a good old fashioned (culture-tradition) BBQ.. without meat, I would have missed out on those times. Yes, you are thinking "well you could have equally joined around for a soy burger". But that was not our tradition. That isn't/wasn't the tradition of millions of families throughout history.

chroot

Aug3-04, 08:03 PM

I know several people that (psychologically) need meat to survive.
And what would happen to these people if meat were not available? Would they implode? Explode? Catch fire?
You sit there and call me an idiot for my opinions, but you say that the reason nature includes carnivores and omnivores is that meat is tasty??
No, I said the reason humans eat meat is because it's tasty. There's no other reason to eat it. Unlike the lions and tigers of which you are so fond, we have the ability to produce non-animal foods that satisfy all our nutritional needs.
The only reason nature has allowed this to continue is because of taste?? That's ridiculous. if that were the case, then all animals would be sweet-potato-ores. I've seen many animals including my dog, my horse, etc eat sweet potatoes and love them because of their sweetness, their taste. But I still see my dog chowing down on rib bones and chasing the occasional mouse or rabbit.
Once again, why are we bringing lower animals into this discussion? They don't have technology or ethics. Who cares what your dog does? My dog has been known to occasionally eat his own poop.
Show me the omnivore that decided to become herbivore/vegetarian/vegan.
Cindy. Steve. Paul. David. Frank.
That's what im saying about it being 'unnatural'. You don't see, in nature, omnivores making decisions about changing their diets.
You also don't see, in nature, gazelles drinking double lattes at Starbucks and using laptop computers. You don't see monkey building houses out of wood and stone either, so I suppose we should stop those unnatural practices at once!
I'm not confused at all. Humans are biologically omnivores. If we weren't we wouldn't need the teeth necessary for gnawing into meat.
And we're biologically diggers, too, since we have those pretty fingernails. Why aren't you out digging for termites?
Also, please refrain from personal attacks. This forum is for discussion of a particular topic and the opinions thereof. NOT for discussion about your pity for my beliefs, my potential children, or any other personal factor. If you disagree with me so much that you have to resort to attacking my personal life, then maybe you should reserve your posts for private messages. Thank you.
Part of my responsibility to this forum is deal with people who do not argue coherently, because such people only cause harm in our community -- they start flame wars and other internet detritus. You are one such person.
You, along with your companions, seem to think I am saying "you cannot survive being a vegan" .. for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. ALL i AM saying is that meat is necessary for survival.
Wait..... hold on there, Einstein... let me get this straight. You're not saying that people can't survive being vegan..... you're just saying you have to eat meat to survive.

OH! Now I get it. :rofl:
Whether it be for humans with a psychological disorder, or carnivorous lions, meat is necessary for survival.
Some people are addicted to cocaine. I suppose that means we cannot try to rid the world of cocaine, because it would be tough on those poor cocaine addicts eh? We could deal with any "meat addiction" in the same way we routinely deal with any other addiction. Addictions don't kill people. People don't go *poof* and disappear when they no longer have any snort. Besides, this argument is very specious: show me a case study of one person who is psychologically addicted to meat.
if humans did not ever need meat to survive, then why are we omnivores (quoting from you: "An animal is an omnivore if it eats both meat and veggies.")?
Some of us are not omnivores, by definition. Some of us do not eat meat, and thus are herbivores. We are perhaps the first species with the sentience to make such a decision consciously. Why should we not use that sentience?
Do not call me stupid for having an opinion.
Your opinion is not logically sound, and you continue to defend it with increasingly bizarre extrema. Thus, you are stupid. Exempli gratia:
By pollution, I meant the vitamin factories that would have to be erected, the millions of gallons of oil that would be used to make the bottles for supplements.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: This is the single most retarded argument I have ever heard in my entire life, Ad Infinitum! You have absolutely taken the Stupid Cake today. Wow! All those VITAMIN FACTORIES?!?! All those PLASTIC BOTTLES?!?!?!

43% of Americans have used a prescription drug within the last 30 days (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drugs.htm). Last I checked, these drugs are made in similar factories, and the bottles are almost universally dispensed in plastic. Boy, you're right, if everyone had to take a pill every day, that'd change everything! We'd be up to our ears in used plastic bottles! :rofl: :rofl:

EVEN IF, in the extreme case, every man, woman, and child had to take a vitamin supplement, and these vitamins came in disposable 30-day supply bottles each weighing about 10 grams, we'd be throwing away roughly 40,000 tons of plastic bottles yearly. Compare this to the approximately 229 million tons of garbage we throw away annually (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm). That's right, wow, those plastic bottles would amount to approximately two hundredths of one percent of what Americans currently throw away annually. That'd certainly choke the system!

(Let's not even mention the fact that these bottles could be quite easily recycled. I've never seen a hyena recycle a plastic bottle, so why should we?)
Yes there are ways to not have to take supplements, but you know as well as I do that the majority of Americans do not stick to strict diets.
Actually, none of the vegans I know take supplements. They simply know how to eat properly. :rofl:
you can't just go anywhere and expect soybeans to grow. There's only certain areas capable of growing soybeans, whereas cattle can pretty much be grown anywhere, including desertland in Arizona.
Excuse me? Cattle can be grown in places where vegetables cannot? :rofl:

It takes an estimated 4.8 pounds of grain, 390 gallons of water, and .25 gallons of gasoline to produce a pound of beef. (http://www.factoryfarm.org/topics/cattle/)

Somehow this mythical desert location has to have a LOT of water and a LOT of food laying around. Kinda weird for a desert, isn't it?

Let's face it: cows are not efficient. You have to put 4.8 pounds of grain into a cow to get 1 pound of beef back. Obviously it would be a better use of our agricultural resources to just eat that grain directly, wouldn't it?

Why don't you understand that raising cattle uses far more resources than it returns?
Once again, i never said anything about the ENTIRE economy collapsing.. read again: """Think about how many jobs that would be lost, how many families destroyed ... if we stopped eating meat. Jobs that range from McDonald's drive-thru boy, all the way up to farmer Joe who owns 100 acres of beautiful farming land he uses to grow beef cattle, milk cattle, chickens, pigs, and even goats."""
And of course we should continue to eat meat, despite the environmental, ethical, and health effects -- because we need to make sure that poor teenager doesn't have to take a job at a juice bar or a bookstore.
no these farmers can't equally as well just grow soybeans.
Any location that can be used to raise cattle can be used to farm some vegetable. That's the plain fact. Cattle are actually given some of the most desirable land, because they are much less hardy than vegetation is. You seem to have this entirely backwards. I suggest an education.
Also, I'd like to see you talk to the execs at McD's, BK, etc about changing their ingredients to full soy, no animal products.. Then watch as they laugh at you. These people made it big because of meat. Most casinos here in Vegas pull in a good amount of revenue due to their famous steaks, shrimp, etc buffets. Not to mention the elegant steak joints all around the country. Tony Roma's to name one. Most fast food joints and sit downers made it big because of meat. KFC, Taco Bell, McD's, Subway, Applebees, Carl's Jr., Arby's, Long john Silvers, etc etc etc.
And thus we shouldn't eat meat, because it's our moral obligation to supprt McD's, Taco Bell, and Vegas casinos? Do you realize how ludicrous this argument is?

- Warren

chroot

Aug3-04, 08:05 PM

not to mention the quality time i was able to have with family members around a good old fashioned (culture-tradition) BBQ.. without meat, I would have missed out on those times. Yes, you are thinking "well you could have equally joined around for a soy burger". But that was not our tradition. That isn't/wasn't the tradition of millions of families throughout history.
Certainly, it wasn't the family time that was important, it was the slab of dead pork you ate. Familial love just wouldn't be the same without dead animal carcass!

- Warren

Ad Infinitum NAU

Aug3-04, 10:21 PM

Any location that can be used to raise cattle can be used to farm some vegetable. That's the plain fact. Cattle are actually given some of the most desirable land, because they are much less hardy than vegetation is. You seem to have this entirely backwards. I suggest an education

I have an education.. thank you. The "plain fact" is that you don't know much about farming. There are many many many places to raise cattle where no vegetable can grow. You seem to be forgetting how advanced transportation is these days. We've got plenty of tractor trailers that are capable of hauling hay, grains, and oats to companies that make their earnings selling feed to cattle farmers in rough locations, such as Arizona deserts. Cattle can be raised anywhere that a diesel can travel. However vegetables like soy, corn, alfalfa, etc require specific land and soil conditions to thrive.

Part of my responsibility to this forum is deal with people who do not argue coherently, because such people only cause harm in our community -- they start flame wars and other internet detritus. You are one such person.

I will get back to your other nonsense later, but for now I would like to address this issue. Just because my viewpoint differs from yours does not mean I am incoherent. If you would read my post "It seems I've made a name for myself" you would see that I am not "such a person" causing flame wars and other "internet detritus". If anything, you are the one that is starting personal attacks and name-calling. I have never once received any warnings in all the time I've been a part of this community (going on 3 years total now) and I'm sure Greg could attest to that (before this name I was 'HyperspaceNAU'). I've always been careful and deliberate with my posts, especially on topics as touchy as religion and this'n here. There are many people in disagreement with me, yes. BUT, none have resorted to the words and phrases that you have. As an administrator I would have expected more courtesy and kinder thought from your posts. If you are so unable to see the harm in your own posts, how am I supposed to take your viewpoints seriously. (meaning how am I able to know you are trying to look at this as objectively as possible). it would really surprise me if there wasn't anyone in agreement with me on this. I understand this topic has the capability of starting huge massive "flame wars", but i think most would agree with me that I have been as careful as i can not to start such wars, by allowing everyone to voice their opinion, not calling anyone or their opinions stupid, idiotic, or wrong. if I have caused as much harm as you say I have, then the nicer thing to do would have been to ask me politely to end the topic, or leave the forums, not personally attack someone who's never had a problem. It's poor administration like this that make me not want to be a part of such a wonderful atmosphere as these forums. Good day.

Aug4-04, 02:22 AM

Speaking of flames, I think that flame grilled chicken wings would be good at this juncture. Hmmmmmmm.....

Though obviously not from KFC.

physicsisphirst

Aug21-04, 02:41 PM

That's a ridiculously oversimplified statement, and you know it. :tongue2:

warren's statement

We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

is neither ridiculous nor oversimplified.

a large percent of the pop don't get to eat (much less eat meat). one of the reasons for this is that in their efforts to remain affluent, certain segments of society would rather get things cheaply for themselves even at the expense of suffering elsewhere.

some people starve not just because other people eat too much, but because they find it cheaper to throw resources away rather than redistribute them.

in friendship,
prad

Hurkyl

Aug21-04, 03:05 PM

a large percent of the pop don't get to eat (much less eat meat). one of the reasons for this is that in their efforts to remain affluent, certain segments of society would rather get things cheaply for themselves even at the expense of suffering elsewhere.

some people starve not just because other people eat too much, but because they find it cheaper to throw resources away rather than redistribute them.

This is ridiculously oversimplified as well. You make it sound as if we could simply package up some food, send it to Somalia, and then everybody would eat for that month. You neglect the local government (or lack thereof) that lies between our food packages and the populace.

physicsisphirst

Aug21-04, 03:42 PM

This is ridiculously oversimplified as well. You make it sound as if we could simply package up some food, send it to Somalia, and then everybody would eat for that month. You neglect the local government (or lack thereof) that lies between our food packages and the populace.

the issue isn't a matter of bureaucratic logistics, nor am i saying that sending food would solve the starvation problem. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on those specifics.

The issue at hand has to do with the criticism of Warren's statement:

We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

For instance, we can also argue in a ridiculously simplified fashion that your food packages would not feed the hungry in Somalia because they get contaminated, or stolen, or eaten by someone else, or spontaneously combust, or crushed by some large object from space, but these fantastic possibilities do not change the fact that there is food to feed the hungry in Somalia (or wherever) that is being used up on cattle so that certain people can eat meat.

Now before you comment again on how ridiculously oversimplified, the above (admittedly) ridiculously oversimplified arguments really are, please consider that one of the reasons things don't get done is that we stop at the obstacles, rather than figure out how to implement the solutions.

Warren's statement essentially does claim and quite accurately that diverting our efforts away from sprouting meat, can produce more food for the pop. This really cannot be argued to the contrary since it is simply a matter of joules. For instance, if one were really interested in feeding the hungry of the world, what makes more sense - feed them grain or feed them meat? Furthermore, when you look at the destruction caused to the environment (often in the vicinity of the starving) as well as who the meat is going to go to, it is not hard to see that his statement is completely valid.

To argue that there exist a variety of other problems causing the starvation of the poor, is irrelevant to the validity of Warren's point.

in friendship,
prad

Hurkyl

Aug21-04, 05:59 PM

Warren's statement essentially does claim and quite accurately that diverting our efforts away from sprouting meat, can produce more food for the pop.

Warren's post does claim that we could produce more food if we didn't spend effort producing meat.

The statement under discussion:

We put a large portion of that capacity into raising animals instead (because they're so tasty) and let the majority of the world's poor go hungry.

does not. By juxtaposition, this statement insinuates that, if we did not put a large portion of that capacity into raising anamals, the majority of the world's poor would not go hungry.

That is to what I object.

To the contrary, Chroot's post suggests we have enough agricultural capacity to overfeed everybody on earth by a good amount! There is plenty of food to spare on meat production.

And this isn't just theory; even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.

Dissident Dan

Aug21-04, 06:37 PM

I have an education.. thank you. The "plain fact" is that you don't know much about farming. There are many many many places to raise cattle where no vegetable can grow. You seem to be forgetting how advanced transportation is these days. We've got plenty of tractor trailers that are capable of hauling hay, grains, and oats to companies that make their earnings selling feed to cattle farmers in rough locations, such as Arizona deserts. Cattle can be raised anywhere that a diesel can travel. However vegetables like soy, corn, alfalfa, etc require specific land and soil conditions to thrive.

....which means that not only are they using the land their bodies are walking on, but also the land used to grow the plants transported there, which negates your argument.

Anyway, this thread is about chickens, which are raised indoors, mainly on the East Coast, it seems.

physicsisphirst

Aug22-04, 01:09 AM

To the contrary, Chroot's post suggests we have enough agricultural capacity to overfeed everybody on earth by a good amount!
if you argue that, i can't disagree too much since a lot of grain is thrown away. however, that is a different line of reasoning than what you originally took in that you claimed his statement was a simplification.

even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.
the first part is true, but the second may not be. if you reduce meat production, you most certainly can increase food production (though this can admittedly be done without reducing meat production).

however, the real point of his statement boils down to

1) efficient use of resources. meat production really isn't efficient (never mind the environmental hazards). furthermore, using the grain to feed animals the way that it is done really isn't taking a long range view. you may claim that right now we have the ability to grow grain enough to feed all these animals and all the people, but this rate of production isn't particularly sustainable which is why new ground is regularly cleared. so warren's statement is still valid in the longer perspective.

2) general affluence, in that some seem to think that it is just fine to get whatever we can out of the earth for ourselves right now because it suits our fancy, without any consideration to what is happening to others. if a small part of the pop takes as much as it can - and meat production takes a lot - then there will be less to go around for the rest. the solution when you are using more than your fair share may not be to increase production, but to reduce consumption.

i do not find warren's statement to be 'ridiculously oversimplified' at all. rather the real oversimplification is in interpreting it as if we reduce meat production, then we will feed the hungry of the world - which isn't what it is really saying (or even insinuating, imo).

if we look at the implications of his statement as it relates to resources, affluence and our attitudes, it is actually rather profound.

in friendship,
prad

Hurkyl

Aug22-04, 01:07 PM

If you argue that, i can't disagree too much since a lot of grain is thrown away. however, that is a different line of reasoning than what you originally took in that you claimed his statement was a simplification.

I never wanted to bother arguing whether his statement was right or wrong: I was merely trying to point out that there was an important issue being ignored.

I changed my tack because I thought this would be more clear if I produced a counterargument.

even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.
the first part is true, but the second may not be. if you reduce meat production, you most certainly can increase food production (though this can admittedly be done without reducing meat production).

Why would you say the second may not be true when you agree with it in the next sentence?

1) ...
2) ...

Now try arguing those points again, but this time considering that, even though the US produces meat, we still:
(a) Overfeed our people.
(b) Have significant agricultural exports.
(c) Leave farmland idle.

Your points are certainly valid in a world where every last square inch is being used to produce food, none goes to waste, and we still can't keep up with demand. However, that world is not reality.

I do not find warren's statement to be 'ridiculously oversimplified' at all...

Let me get this straight. Do you argue:

"Warren does not suggest that if we did not use grains to produce meat, then more people would be fed."

physicsisphirst

Aug22-04, 05:50 PM

I never wanted to bother arguing whether his statement was right or wrong: I was merely trying to point out that there was an important issue being ignored.
fair enough, but i think that happened because of the misinterpretation of the warren's idea to if we reduce meat production, then we will feed the hungry of the world.

now having said this i acknowledge that i may be misinterpreting what he is saying too and that this is exactly what he means. however, i think the gist of his statement is something to the effect as i have argued above and can perhaps be more simply stated as something like if we reduce meat production, then we increase our capacity for food production and therefore have a better shot at feeding the hungry of the world.

(i believe this also answers your last question.)

Why would you say the second may not be true when you agree with it in the next sentence? [specifically] even now we don't use our full agricultural capacity. We don't have to reduce meat production in order to increase food production.
you are correct. i didn't phrase that very well (i was probably thinking of the nature of food production increase). the idea of course was to have been that while you can increase food production in other ways, reduction of meat production will make a major contribution to the cause by not using up this capacity. sorry for the confusion.

Now try arguing those points again, but this time considering that, even though the US produces meat, we still:
(a) Overfeed our people.
(b) Have significant agricultural exports.
(c) Leave farmland idle.
i did argue in light of these points above. what we have is a lot of wastage admittedly, but that does not justify misusing our resources. even if we eliminated all wastage, got the idle farmland going again and got the excess food to the starving of the world, it still doesn't change the reality that we are dumping enormous resources into producing a form of food that doesn't give us an efficient bang for the buck. the wastage is not only the stuff that gets 'thrown away' through overfeeding or dumping (through exports or otherwise). a lot more is wasted in the production of these billions of carcasses.

Your points are certainly valid in a world where every last square inch is being used to produce food, none goes to waste, and we still can't keep up with demand. However, that world is not reality.
i do not not think we need to wait for that extreme. for instance, one of the reasons that every square inch of farmland isn't going to be utilized is that we have already used up the watertable in parts of the US. there is more involved here than saying we can produce, therefore we shall!

anyway, i think we have strayed somewhat off topic (i admit it was my fault since i questioned your statement originally) and DD may be understandably upset with us. if my answers are sufficient for you, i suggest we get back to the topic of the thread. otherwise, if you want to continue (eg elaboration on the water table or consumption of resources), we probably ought to do so in the Should we eat meat thread.

in friendship,
prad