KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[Dissident Dan]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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]

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.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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]

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!

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

 

[Evo]

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

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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.

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.

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..

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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?

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Jin314159]

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]

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]

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]

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 sick. I wouldn't even pull out a leg of a spider or put salt on a snail.

 

[Gokul43201]

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]

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]

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]

Unfortunately, a lot of animals are cruelly treated before they are slaughtered for our benefit or whatever. However, I personally don't want to dote on every piece of meat so as long as I don't visit these places, I couldn't care less as long as the food keeps landing on my plate.

 

[Moonbear]

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

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

“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

 

[loseyourname]

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?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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.

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 remember the day when I was young on my grandpa's farm, and watched him kill his pigs and chickens. What he would do is whack them on the head with a shovel or the broad side of a hatchet so they would be knocked unconscious so he could decapitate them without them squirming. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it would just bounce off them. Sometimes he would have to catch the chicken to crack its neck, and sometimes that would just kill them, or sometimes it would render them parallized and seizuring. I never heard my family talk about that as uncruel. That was the way he had done it for years, and the way generations before him too. There's a difference between a feed animal and a domesticated animal. There's also a difference upon culture. For millenia we have killed cows for food. In India, they are religious icons, treated more fairly than humans. 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.

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.

They are intended to live.. period. Death comes to us all, naturally. These chickens are bred for death by humans. That is their sole purpose for life; to be killed by us. In our culture, a domesticated pet is intended to live and die naturally. There are people who keep chickens as pets, yes. And they should not be killed by humans because their purpose for life is to die naturally. These chickens in this chop shop were intended to be killed by humans. If any logic is flawed, it is yours because you are misconstruing my point. The only way these people wronged society it was becuase of their lack of concern for safety and economic prosperity. Bruised chicken meat is no good. Blood everywhere is not safe. But the "torture" was not wrong morally. These chickens should not be given moral or ethic labels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All humans are intended to die as well. It matters how they are killed.

Njorl

 

[Monique]

But the "torture" was not wrong morally.

:insert shocked smily:

Ad Infinitum NAU, how do you justify torture?

 

[Monique]

In India, they are religious icons, treated more fairly than humans. 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.

Cows are honored as living creatures in India, not as gods. There are no temples honoring cows, though the bull has a divine status because of the connection to the god Shiva. Cows are such honored animals in India for the riches it brings people: milk, yoghurt, butter, urine and manure (killing a cow would take away this resource and is disrespectful to the offerings this creature has made).

And do I understand correctly what you just said there is:
"If people at people: it would not matter how they are killed" ?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

And do I understand correctly what you just said there is:
"If people at people: it would not matter how they are killed" ?

If there existed a culture of some creature (whether human, animal, or alien) in some land that bred humans for food purposes, we have no right to say that is wrong! To us, yes it is wrong, but to that culture it is right. In the culture of feed animals, it is right to kill chickens for food. In this culture it is right to kill cows for steak. In Indian culture it is wrong to kill cows for steak. Why are you people not angry at the way a boa kills its prey (by swallowing it whole and live). Why are you not angry at the way a venomous snake kills its prey (by injecting it with venom that kills slowly and painfully, much like torture). I am not an advocate of unnecessary torture, such as this KFC deal. It was unnecessary, yes. But it was not wrong or unlawful. It was merely un-economic. Torture is a primal urge.. yes it needs to be controlled, but there are some people who are immature. 7 year-olds tear the legs off grasshoppers, rip the tails off lizards, and shoot BBs at birds. 7 year-olds doing this are acting on primal urges. They don't know torture, and moral/ethical "humane" ways. It is a part of curiosity. Like I said before, there are times when it is unnecessary. There are times when it is wrong (say to a human or culturally-defined domesticated animal). But the KFC'ers were not wrong.

 

[Monique]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why don't we have laws against pulling the wings off of flies?

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?

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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...)

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.

I say the workers were not wrong. There is no abuse. There is no scandal.

Two words for that last quote: very scary.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Why would you, or anyone, think this an acceptable excuse for anything?

Because it's not an excuse, becuase in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong. Don't you run when frightened with danger? Don't you cover up when you're cold? Don't you feel the need to communicate?

Also, you are a part of an online community commited to wondering. Wondering, being inquisitive, curious about your surroundings.. these are ALL primal urges.

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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Don't you see my point? All this disturbance over this one issue is changing many views on the way we eat meat. People are going to "think more and more about it" and lower their meat intake. In 20 years we will have humanized our feed animals so much that people like me who love love love meat are going to be downcast as murderers and
psychotics. This is ridiculous.

I don't think so. That's just your social programming and, perhaps, genetically-programmed desires speaking.

There's a difference between a feed animal and a domesticated animal.

No, there are not necessarily differences in the animals. The difference exists only in our minds. The same chicken could theoretically be a pet or food. The bird can't be different from him/herself. The difference would be in the minds of the people interacting with them.

You people are asking me if people ate people should it not matter how they are killed, and i say NO it does not. You are obviously "cold-hearted" when you are ignoring the views of Indians. To them, we are murderers, psychos, and hell-bent nutcases.. because we, in OUR culture, eat cows.

I'm not cold-hearted. I don't eat cows. It seems that you do not believe that anything is necessarily right or wrong (funny coincidence: I'm listening to Tools' "Jerk-off"--no offense, I just thought that it was a funny coincidence, for those who know the song). It also seems that you do not have a good idea of our cultural standards, as most people in our culture would not approve of this treatment.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Most people who abuse animals eventually move onto abusing people. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy all tortured and killed animals before (and sometimes after) they abused and killed their human victims. Psychologists consider animal abuse a huge red flag when they see it in a patient. I'm sure it'd be very interesting to take a look at the criminal records and "extracurricular activities" of those guys on the KFC tape...

 

[Monique]

becuase in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong.

Maybe something is wrong with your morals. You say it is morally right to torture, you really think there will be many people on your side?

As I asked you: how do you justify torture? The lion kills, since otherwise it would die. That's a justification for killing. There is no other way for the lion to go about it.

As I pointed out and Elizabeth again, torturing is anti-social behaviour: it shows a lack of empathy. That's why it should be punishable by law.

 

[Hurkyl]

in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong.

If they did nothing morally wrong, then why would you feel the need to justify their behavior as being a primal urge? Even worse, you were making a sort of argument by force, implying that if they weren't allowed to abuse chickens that they'd be abusing humans instead.

 

[Evo]

They were relieving primal urges.

Why would you, or anyone, think this an acceptable excuse for anything?

Because it's not an excuse, becuase in my opinion they did nothing morally wrong. Don't you run when frightened with danger? Don't you cover up when you're cold? Don't you feel the need to communicate?

Also, you are a part of an online community commited to wondering. Wondering, being inquisitive, curious about your surroundings.. these are ALL primal urges.

What on Earth do any of those things have to do with torturing and killing defenseless animals? There are things that NORMAL people do and then there are things that only a degenerate would do.

Just because there have been so many posts against my view, and only one for it, doesn't mean I am wrong. It just means we do not have an accurate statistical number of posts. Go ask everyone in the entire Western culture, then I will be satisfied. Until then, please refrain from telling me I am wrong (objectively), or that the KFCers were wrong. It is merely your opinion.

I think the overwhelming number of responses against your reasoning is an accurate reflection of society as a whole.

The laws against animal cruelty are there because the majority of the populace is against cruelty to animals. What the people in the plant did was illegal, so I can safely say that they were wrong.

 

[Monique]

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Here's additional information though.

Source (above 2 quotes): http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21


Source: http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1459

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Since when is some sham website considered a legitimate "source"?

Oooops, I forgot! If you read it on the internet, it MUST be true...

 

[jimmy p]

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Evo]

Chopnik, did you read the whole thread? It's about torturing animals.

Yes, we kill animals for food. That's not the issue here.

The question is should we people be allowed to cruelly and unnecessarily torture these animals by drop kicking them and stomping on them for enjoyment?

 

[jimmy p]

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

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

If I don't eat meat because animals are being abused then I should socialise with humans because there are murders and rape and robbery and paedophilia going on in the world. I can't stop either from occurring so I'll just let it be.

 

[jimmy p]

Chopnik, did you read the whole thread? It's about torturing animals.

Yes, we kill animals for food. That's not the issue here.

The question is should we people be allowed to cruelly and unnecessarily torture these animals by drop kicking them and stomping on them for enjoyment?

I did read the thread until it got to niggly arguements about how each person had shot themselves in the foot by a certain statement.

Torture occurs in the animal world anyway. A cat can play with a mouse for hours before it gets bored of smacking the mouse and digests it. Killer whales will toss seals in the air and butt them with their nose before they decide to eat them. What makes them different?

 

[quantumdude]

What makes them different?

They are different because they have only a tiny fraction of our intelligence. They do not have our capacity for moral reasoning and reflection, and so they will never escape from their genetic programming. Humans, on the other hand, can and should engage in such reflection.

 

[Evo]

Torture occurs in the animal world anyway. A cat can play with a mouse for hours before it gets bored of smacking the mouse and digests it. Killer whales will toss seals in the air and butt them with their nose before they decide to eat them. What makes them different?

The difference is that as humans we should have the abilty to control ourselves. It's one of the things that sets us apart from cats and whales.

 

[Moonbear]

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Since when is some sham website considered a legitimate "source"?

Oooops, I forgot! If you read it on the internet, it MUST be true...

What makes you think it's a sham website? Seriously, it seemed legit to me, but of course I could be wrong.