KFC Abuse Scandal

n animal rights group involved in a long legal dispute with Kentucky Fried Chicken about the treatment of the 700 million chickens it buys each year is to release a videotape today showing slaughterhouse workers for one supplier jumping up and down on live chickens, drop-kicking them like footballs and slamming them into walls, apparently for fun.

Advertisement


After officials of the KFC Corporation saw the videotape yesterday, they said they would seek dismissal of the workers, inspect the slaughterhouse more often and end their relationship if the cruelty was repeated. The company that owns the slaughterhouse, the Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, the country's second-largest poultry processor, said it was "appalled" by the tape.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/business/20chicken.html
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
I saw that tape too. I have a lot of issues with PETA and the way they operate, one of them is that they've been known to stage such things...send in their own people to abuse the animals so they can capture it on tape and then blame the company, but I don't know in this case. The other issue I have is that they were obviously there with a videotape, so whey did they allow it to continue happening? How about instead of taping someone drop-kicking a chicken to create a big news story, they drop-kick the person abusing the chickens? From the footage I saw, I couldn't have possibly stood by and just watched and let it happen while taping it, I'd have had to step in and put a stop to it.

But, yes, the people in that video were clearly abusing the chickens...no doubt about it! What I don't know is whether this is an isolated incident, a couple of *insert expletive* who should be brought up on animal cruelty charges and perhaps were doing this behind the backs of supervisors, or was this being done with the knowledge of supervisors which makes it more a systemic problem in the company? And if someone finds out it was PETA staging the whole thing, I hope they prosecute every single member of that organization for animal cruelty!
 

Evo

Mentor
22,860
2,331
I have to agree with moonbear. If it was a PETA member staging this, they should be prosecuted. I don't care what their motives are.

I find it hard to believe that in a processing plant that employees have the freedom to do such things. If they do, then all involved should be punished to the full extent of the law.

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

The thing is that stopping them from abusing the chickens, if even possible by a lone investigator when there were many people there, would stop a single instance of those chickens being hurt, when there is an industry that routinely abuses over 9 billion. The point was to expose the KFC supplier, so they had to document everything that goes on without interfering.

I have seen many videos from people working in the factories, transporting chickens, and working in the slaughterhouses with similar abuses. This one is the worst that I've seen, but slamming the chickens is common. They will very violently throw the chickens into the cages on the trucks that take them to the slaughterhouse.

What I don't know is whether this is an isolated incident, a couple of *insert expletive* who should be brought up on animal cruelty charges and perhaps were doing this behind the backs of supervisors, or was this being done with the knowledge of supervisors which makes it more a systemic problem in the company?
If you read the entire article, you will find the following:

On April 6, one day he filmed, workers made a game of throwing chickens against a wall; 114 were thrown in seven minutes. A supervisor walking past the pile of birds on the floor said, "Hold your fire," and, once out of the way, told the crew to "carry on."

On another day, he said, the supervisor told the crew to kill correctly because inspectors were visiting.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
You may remember the mink farmer that I met who hates mink? He described much of the same kinds of activities on the mink farms.
 
Why is this such a big deal?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Monique

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
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? My dad says its an "inhumane death".. the chickens are not human!
:eek: :mad:

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

Evo

Mentor
22,860
2,331
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
Their purpose in life, from the time they are developed (whether tubed or natural) up to the moment the sharpened metal meets their neck, is to die. They are bred for food, for death, and for nothing else. If we sit here and develop emotions over feed-chickens, we are in the wrong. Who cares if their necks were broken, beaks ripped off, wings torn, or thrown against a wall?
It is not their "natural" purpose in life. It is the desire of the owners that they be killed for profit. This does not mean that they should be tortured. Some people keep chickens for pets. Many chickens are raised for laying eggs.

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

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

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

I have always liked the following quote "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
--Leonardo Da Vinci
 
Last edited:
Evo said:
It is not their "natural" purpose in life. It is the desire of the owners that they be killed for profit. This does not mean that they should be tortured. Some people keep people for pets. Many chickens are raised for laying eggs.
I'm not advocating we change to this way of processing. I'm merely stating that this release of primal urge upon objects should not be punished. These chickens are bred for food. I know it is not their natural life, but for the last thousands of years they have been on this planet under the purpose of food. Your statement about people keeping people for pets is irrelevant. You must have missed my comment about domesticated animals. Animals raised for pets are raised for pets... not food. Yes, chickens are raised for eggs too. But what happens when they are beyond the age specifications they are sent to the chop shop.

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

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

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

Evo said:
I have always liked the following quote "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
--Leonardo Da Vinci
Isn't it ironic that at the peak of religious times (the times of jesus, etc) there were no discussions about how animals were killed, or that they were even killed at all for food. And now, in an age that has become more technological and "sensitive", and less dominated by religion, the issue springs up.

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

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Dissident Dan said:
When has PETA ever staged anything? People seem to immediately hate groups like PETA because they don't like their message, so they resort to slander and libel. How, exactly, could that many PETA members go into a chicken factory and do all the things done without being caught? Do you really think that people who care much more about animals than the typical person could do these horrendous acts?
They are extremists. Those "classic" photos they put in all their brochures of monkeys being "tortured" in research labs were all staged by PETA. They had one of their members apply for a job in a research facility as an animal care tech, and when the lab head left for a vacation or trip and left that person in charge of the animals, they staged all those photos. Of course the initial story of abuse made front page headlines, the later retraction after years of litigation to clear the researcher's name was a few lines in the "corrections" of the papers. It only required a few people get a job in one chicken factory, and with a job that requires unskilled labor, that's not a hard thing to do.

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

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

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

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
Isn't it ironic that at the peak of religious times (the times of jesus, etc) there were no discussions about how animals were killed, or that they were even killed at all for food. And now, in an age that has become more technological and "sensitive", and less dominated by religion, the issue springs up.
That's not true. I'm sure there are people here who know far more about religion than I do, but there are very specific rules about the slaughter of animals for food in religions such as Judaism (they are very particular about how an animal must be slaughtered for meat to be considered Kosher).

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

Evo

Mentor
22,860
2,331
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
Yes, we do. And I believe they should be upheld. For domesticated animals.
I disagree, all animals have the right to be treated ethically. It doesn't matter if ultimately it will be killed for food, torturing the animal and inflicting unecessary pain is wrong.
If one of these workers went to some farm where a guy had a pet chicken that he was raising as a domesticated animal and killed it, THEN he should be punished. But for an object that is about to die, he should be reprimanded for his lack of responsibility, not for his lack of emotion.
It's an animal, it feels pain, it is not an object.

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

Let me ask you, before you knew about this, back at the last time you chomped down on a nice thick leg of chicken, did you think about how that animal was killed? Or did you revel with your pals about how tender the meat was, or how thankful you were to have that meal?
Yes, actually, I do think about it. I would hope they would not be cruelly tortured. I rarely eat meat anymore because I do think more and more about it.
 
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
What is the big deal about this situation? I've just debated with my dad for over 2 hours about this.. I really don't understand the problem. These chickens were intended to die, and they died. Should it matter how they were killed? My dad says its an "inhumane death".. the chickens are not human! Their purpose in life, from the time they are developed (whether tubed or natural) up to the moment the sharpened metal meets their neck, is to die. They are bred for food, for death, and for nothing else. If we sit here and develop emotions over feed-chickens, we are in the wrong. Who cares if their necks were broken, beaks ripped off, wings torn, or thrown against a wall?
It doesn't matter what arbitrary purpose some people assign to them, they still have feelings and thus deserve to be treated humanely. They do not suffer less because someone intends to slaughter them. What humans ate humans and humans were raised for food? Would the fact that they had the purpose of becoming dinner mean that how they are treated is of no concern?
 
Moonbear said:
They are extremists. Those "classic" photos they put in all their brochures of monkeys being "tortured" in research labs were all staged by PETA...Of course the initial story of abuse made front page headlines, the later retraction after years of litigation to clear the researcher's name was a few lines in the "corrections" of the papers.
Do you have any documentation for this?

The other reason it wouldn't make sense that a producer would allow such behavior is that it would hurt the profits (sadly, this is often a greater motivator of humane treatment of animals than anything else for some people). It would hurt profits in a number of ways: 1) if those chickens are not yet ready for slaughter, they will lose the meat from any that die as a result of the abuse AND those that don't die will be extremely stressed and won't gain weight the way a healthy chicken would, 2) if those chickens are destined for slaughter, breaking their bones, as would have had to happen with the way they were stomped on and flung around, would reduce their value...bruised meat is considered poor quality, and 3) those employees are obviously spending time NOT doing whatever their assigned job is, which again reduces profits.
Factory farming economics expect that many animals to die. For them, it is cheaper to neglect and abuse animals and let some die than to provide adequate care and have more survive until slaughter. I'll give you that the employees obviously wasted time...but that happens in any industry. People always try to slack off.
 
J

Jin314159

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

Jin314159

Ad Infinitum NAU said:
Some may call me cold hearted. I am far from it. I have several dogs, a cat, and even birds, which I humanize (give human traits to). I love them, and would be horrified to see this happen to them. BUT, they are not intended for death. They are intended for a life of domestication, not food.
You're not cold-hearted at all. Furthermore, we have to draw the line somewhere. We can't mourn for every cockroach we accidentally step on. Some people draw the line when it comes to poultry intended for consumption.

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

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
8
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
What is the big deal about this situation? I've just debated with my dad for over 2 hours about this.. I really don't understand the problem. These chickens were intended to die, and they died. Should it matter how they were killed?
All humans are intended to die as well. It matters how they are killed.

Njorl
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
8
Evo said:
I have always liked the following quote "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
--Leonardo Da Vinci
Leonardo Da Vinci worked for the Borgias. It is quite likely that those he associated with already looked upon the murder of animals as they did the murder of men. For those of you not up on your renaissance history, the Borgias were not vegetarians.

Njorl
 

Monique

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
I'm not advocating we change to this way of processing. I'm merely stating that this release of primal urge upon objects should not be punished.
The people performing these acts obviously don't have respect for life, you think they will respect a human? Do you know what many serial killers had as a hobby when growing up? Ofcourse such cruel and anti-social behaviour should be punished.

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

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

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Ad Infinitum Nau :
You seem to have attracted a fair bunch of moral rebuttals, so I won't add to them. Your argument also seems to have several logical errors.

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

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

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

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

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

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Jin314159 said:
You're not cold-hearted at all. Furthermore, we have to draw the line somewhere. We can't mourn for every cockroach we accidentally step on. Some people draw the line when it comes to poultry intended for consumption.

And for those non-vegetarians complaining about this "scandal," you're all hypocrites.
This argument is weak, because the treatment of the chickens is not "accidental" !

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

Monique

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
Jin314159 said:
And for those non-vegetarians complaining about this "scandal," you're all hypocrites.
It would be hypocrite if these non-veggies were against sacrificing animals. The case is, that objections are raised about the WAY these chickens are brought to their death.
 

jimmy p

Gold Member
347
30
Unfortunately, a lot of animals are cruelly treated before they are slaughtered for our benefit or whatever. However, I personally dont want to dote on every piece of meat so as long as I dont visit these places, I couldnt care less as long as the food keeps landing on my plate.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Dissident Dan said:
Do you have any documentation for this?
Fair enough...
I have information from two different sources here. One is from the Foundation for Biomedical Research. I'll understand if you're skeptical of that source since they are clearly in opposition to PETA's policies. The other is from a consumer advocacy website whose mission is to inform people of non-profit organizations that abuse their not-for-profit status, so is neutral regarding the causes but takes sides regarding how the organization spends money and whether donations are actually used for the purposes donors think it's being used. It's important to also note that in recent years, PETA has toned down what is done in the name of the organization PETA, but instead, channels funds to shadier organizations, such as ALF, which, as you'll see below, is considered a terrorist organization by the FBI. I believe Alex Pacheco was the one who staged the photos of "abuse" of the monkeys, but those would be old news stories, so not something I could provide sources for.

Here's additional information though.

Alex Pacheco
co-founder of PETA

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

"Bruce Friedrich
PETA campaign coordinator
"It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow." 9
9.Speech at the Animal Rights 2001 conference. July 3, 2001. Quoted in a guest column by Richard Berman in USA Today, November 1, 2001.
Source: http://www.fbresearch.org/education/opponents.htm [Broken]

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

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

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

PETA is not an animal welfare organization.
PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,300 cats and dogs in 1999 alone, preferring to spend its money on cheap publicity stunts and criminal defense, rather than finding the animals suitable homes.
Source (above 2 quotes): http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 [Broken]

“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause,” says Alex Pacheco, co-founder and former chairman of PETA. Pacheco launched his “direct action” career with the whale ship-sinking Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the late 1970s. He now serves on its board of directors. Rumored to be a “commander” of the Animal Liberation Front -- a criminal group listed as a domestic terrorist organization by the FBI -- Pacheco has been subpoenaed in connection to ALF activities.
Source: http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1459 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
When Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh decided to refrain from eating meat during his last meal, PETA’s Bruce Friedrich told reporters: “Mr. McVeigh’s decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries, including Albert Schweitzer, Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein.”
And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks.
Are you kidding me? Who the hell in their right mind would think these kinds of things?
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top