KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[Dissident Dan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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]

The thing is, they are destined to die for our benefit, but humans don't usually die to feed other animals...

 

[Elizabeth1405]

The thing is, they are destined to die for our benefit, but humans don't usually die to feed other animals...

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

 

[Evo]

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?

 

[jimmy p]

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

Probably not but I don't really care. As long as I don't see it happening it doesn't matter to me.

If I don't 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 can't stop either from occurring so I'll just let it be.

 

[jimmy p]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Monique]

Probably not but I don't really care. As long as I don't see it happening it doesn't 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 occurring 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]

As long as I don't see it happening it doesn't matter to me.

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

 

[Moonbear]

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]

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]

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]

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

Come on, Dan. Did you even read what they said about MADD? None of it is factually inaccurate, and in fact, it is constructive criticism. The page devoted to PETA may be one-sided, but is it true? If it is, then there are great problems with the organization that should be addressed, not simply dismissed because you think any criticism is part of a smear-campaign. Don't tell me the info you are constantly posting about Bush and the war in Iraq are not part of a smear-campaign. Don't try to tell me you don't leave out everything good and post only the bad.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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 occurring 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.

I avoid the big fast food chains as much as I can. I didnt watch the Nicolas Berg video. It was stupid to advertise the terrorists in the first place but that is a different story.

Basically a lot of things go on behind the backs of legislation and the Government and if I cared about little thing that broke the rules then I wouldn't have time to think about anything else. I work for one of the most crooked lines of business there is. The gambling industry

 

[Dissident Dan]

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]

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]

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.

... That was me...

However she just assumed that because I don't care about abuse to chickens I don't care about the killing of thousands of people because I wasnt there.

 

[loseyourname]

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]

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. I am 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]

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]

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..