KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

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

 

[Moonbear]

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

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

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

There's that cockroach of yours again!

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

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

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

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

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

In friendship,
prad

 

[loseyourname]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In friendship,
prad

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

What a lot of people are led to believe is that the testing actually protects people. Actually, the testing protects the companies from being sued when the drug does something it wasn't supposed to like kill or maim the consumer. Animal models are not as successful as they are made to seem and if you want to investigate this further (since it is off topic here), you can do some of it at
http://www.curedisease.com/index.html

And I contend this is wrong. It is stupid to consider a man unethical if he steps on earthworms.

The real issue is, when it is not necessary to deprive another creature of life, should we do it? The implications of our attitudes towards the weak and the helpless be they humans, chickens or even earthworms is quite profound.

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

Some think that the ALF is a somewhat extreme wing of the AR movement. It is really rather extreme and bizarre to consider this to be a terrorist organization especially considering that there are far, far more dangerous ones around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are indeed right about the first part and this cruelty expose is just one example in a 2 decade history (here's more if you are interested: http://www.peta.org/about/milestones.html). However, if you investigate the latter, you may be surprised to see that one is not just a 'stupid stance' and that the 'extent of support' may need some qualification as would the term 'terrorist'.

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

Ok I won't accuse you of criticizing "PETA without knowing or even wanting to know what that organization is really about". I really wasn't accusing you specifically anyway - I was merely pointing out that the way you were interpreting the PETA statements was considerably different from their actual meaning and intent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In friendship,
prad

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

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

http://www.veganmd.org/talks

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

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

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

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in friendship,
prad


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

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

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

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

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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

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

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

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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

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

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

Go right on ahead. I think you may have missed my point(s).

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

You have been

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

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

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

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

Also,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In friendship,
prad

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

quick response, get back to you later

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JD]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

thank you for your detailed effort as always.
i am rather busy right now, possibly for a few days, but i will try to do justice to what you have written when i get the chance since i believe i can edit this post at anytime.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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

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

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