KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of chickens in slaughterhouses, specifically in relation to a videotape released by an animal rights group showing workers abusing chickens. Participants explore the implications of the footage, the role of organizations like PETA, and the ethics surrounding animal treatment in food production.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over the treatment of chickens as depicted in the videotape, labeling the actions as abuse.
  • Others question the credibility of the footage, suggesting it could be staged by PETA to provoke a reaction against KFC.
  • There is a discussion about whether the abuse is systemic within the company or isolated incidents by a few individuals.
  • Some participants argue that the chickens are bred for food and question the morality of attributing human-like emotions to their treatment.
  • One participant compares the situation to natural predation, suggesting that nature does not adhere to human concepts of humane treatment.
  • Another participant counters that empathy is a human trait and questions the morality of those who dismiss the suffering of animals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the ethical implications of the treatment of chickens and the motivations behind the videotape. There are competing views on whether the actions depicted are representative of a broader issue within the industry or isolated incidents, and whether animal rights organizations are acting ethically in their methods.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the motivations of the workers and the role of supervisors in the slaughterhouse. There are also differing opinions on the nature of animal rights and the ethical considerations of animal treatment in food production.

  • #31
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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?
 
  • #33
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
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...)

Ad Infinitum NAU said:
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.

Ad Infinitum NAU said:
I say the workers were not wrong. There is no abuse. There is no scandal.

Two words for that last quote: very scary.
 
  • #34
Hurkyl said:
Why would you, or anyone, think this an acceptable excuse for anything?


Because it's not an excuse, because 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.


Monique said:
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.
 
  • #35
Moonbear said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
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.
 
  • #37
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...
 
  • #38
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
because 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.
 
  • #39
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.
 
  • #40
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
They were relieving primal urges.
Hurkyl said:
Why would you, or anyone, think this an acceptable excuse for anything?
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
Because it's not an excuse, because 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.

Ad Infinitum NAU said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
I wonder how he thinks about someone having the primal urge to beat his wife.
 
  • #42
Moonbear said:
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
The thing is, they are destined to die for our benefit, but humans don't usually die to feed other animals...
 
  • #44
jimmy p said:
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?
 
  • #45
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?
 
  • #46
Elizabeth1405 said:
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.
 
  • #47
Evo said:
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 arguments 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?
 
  • #48
jimmy p said:
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.
 
  • #49
jimmy p said:
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.
 
  • #50
Elizabeth1405 said:
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.
 
  • #51
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
jimmy p said:
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.
 
  • #53
jimmy p said:
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Dissident Dan said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Monique said:
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.
 
  • #56
Moonbear said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Dissident Dan said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
Moonbear said:
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.

Moonbear said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #60
loseyourname said:
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.