KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[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..

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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]

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.

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]

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?

Meat is not a necessity, we are capable of consumming complete proteins (combining rice & beans for example) without eating flesh.

 

[Hurkyl]

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

 

[Evo]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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!

What evidence do you have for this?

 

[Dissident Dan]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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]

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 doesn't 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]

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..

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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 don't 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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?