KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

You know, meat is not a necessity.

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

 

[Evo]

Nothing is wrong with my morals. I am not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion.

You are saying that it is morally right to torture another living creature as long as you do not consider it worthy. How convenient for you.

now! I understand it is morally wrong to do this sort of thing to another human, or pet animal, but a feed animal is a feed animal. We cannot bother ourselves with its "feelings". That hinders survival.

How does killing without torture hinder survival? Explain that one. Torturing the animal before eating it somehow makes it more nutritious? Or are you saying that unless the animal is tortured before kiling it has no nutritive value?

There is no difference between their action and throwing cucumbers against the walls and ripping them in half.

That is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Evo]

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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

 

[Evo]

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

True, but the point Monique was making was that we don't have to eat meat.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm not sure that we have to eat anything living. I'm sure it's possible to live entirely off of manufactured supplements, though I doubt they exist, since it's much easier to derive the nutrients from living matter.

 

[Moonbear]

Nothing is wrong with my morals. I am not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food. Once you start getting emotional over your food, then survival becomes threatened. Do you see monkeys taking extra special care when they feed on berries or bananas? Tell me of one other living being other than humans that has emotions over its food?? YOU CANT.. All they care about is survival. They don't worry about HOW they treat their prey. Their motives are to kill, whatever way possible.

You are aware that these chickens were not being slaughtered when they were being abused? This wasn't a difference between arguing if it's better to snap their neck or cut their head off or whack them over the head with a club to kill them, this was people tossing LIVE chickens around, stomping on them, and laughing about it. This isn't about getting emotional about your food. I still plan to eat chicken, had it last night, was roasting it while reading these posts, but the point is to not cause unnecessary suffering of the animals. What precisely we define as necessary or unavoidable is something that we may all disagree on, but I don't see how the treatment of those chickens portrayed on that video was in any way necessary. It clearly didn't even kill all the chickens as some were tossed fluttering away (I'm not sure if any were actually killed, or just injured). To say that's okay would be like saying it's okay to beat the crap out of a terminally ill patient because they were going to die soon anyway and the family had requested life support be terminated based on their living will.

The cucumber analogy is ridiculous. Last I checked, cucumbers don't have a nervous system and aren't capable of feeling pain. Even animals in the wild kill their prey swiftly, or as swiftly as they can given their abilities, such as snapping the neck or injecting them with a poison. It would be to a predator's disadvantage to play with their prey prior to killing it, as that would increase the risk of it escaping and them going without a meal that day. The only situations where you see an animal carry back live but stunned prey is when they are teaching their young to hunt, or when they are still young and inefficient hunters.

All social animals have rules, and when those rules are broken, the offenders are punished. Humans are social animals, and one of our rules is you don't play with your food, you kill it swiftly if you plan to eat it, and you don't waste it by killing it before it's ready to be eaten.

 

[Monique]

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals.

But what are those morals based on? Your example is particularly bad since it has NOTHING to do with torture.

I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food.

Ok, so if I decide one day that you are not worthy of emotions, does that mean your emotions seize to exist? Don't serial killers view their victims as lacking emotion?

All these employees did was release a natural urge.

All serial killers do is release a natural urge, since they view their victims as lacking emotion, they don't commit torture either.. according to your logic.

I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed.

I remember you telling a story about your granddad butchering animals in the backyard.

I remember the day when I was young on my grandpa's farm, and watched him kill his pigs and chickens. What he would do is whack them on the head with a shovel or the broad side of a hatchet so they would be knocked unconscious so he could decapitate them without them squirming. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it would just bounce off them. Sometimes he would have to catch the chicken to crack its neck, and sometimes that would just kill them, or sometimes it would render them parallized and seizuring. I never heard my family talk about that as uncruel.

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity!

Just how many vegetarians walk this world? They are perfectly healthy, I'd say they have a better health than the meateaters. Proteins are also in beans/nuts/oils.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you should put "right and wrong" into the same column as "Brain capacity"..

Why not? Moral reasoning is a cognitive function. We can do it, other animals can't. Does that make you uncomfortable?

If anything killer whales know more right and wrongs than we humans.

Oh, now I've heard it all! Move over Socrates, Shamu is the next great moral philosopher! :rofl:

What evidence do you have for this?

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

It probably provided an advantage by being an available energy and nutrient source while we roamed the African savannahs, but today there is no benefit.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

Wrong again. Protein is necessary for human beings, but the "vitamins in meat" (whatever that means) is not. I am a vegan and have not eaten meat in over 10 years. How come I am still alive? Lions are CARNIVORES, as are snakes. They cannot digest plant matter. Human beings can--we are OMNIVORES. Meat is NOT necessary for human beings, and in fact the average vegetarian lives 6 to 10 years longer than the average meat-eater.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

There a bit of a difference to fowl abuse and the Holocaust...she just assumed that because I don't care about abuse to chickens I don't care about the killing of thousands of people because I wasnt there.

I am aware that there are differences btween these two situations. My answer was in response to your comment that "if I don't see it happening, it doesn't matter to me." If you make generalized statements like that you should be prepared for the responses you get. I never said you were in favor of the Holocaust, and I would never presume to imply that about ANYBODY without knowing them. Please read posts more carefully before you make accusations like this. Thank you.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed...My arguements are based on logic. I'm simply looking at the situation as everyone should, from an outside view, kept hidden from any bias..

Perhaps this would explain your lack of empathy for other living things. Perhaps you should see something suffer. If you spend five minutes on the killing floor of a slaughterhouse, and you will see the TRUTH. Go do it--I dare ya.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals. If one day in the future we found pigs were no longer healthy, and that a certain breed of feline could benefit our health and prolong our life if we ate it, I say start farming that breed as a feed animal. That doesn't mean take away peoples pets. By all means, have your pets. But there comes a time when we have to think about survival whether it be culturally defined or not.

My eyes ARE open, thank you very much. I don't care what culture you are from--in my opinion, torturing an animal is unnecessary and WRONG, and I'm guessing a few people out there agree with me. It doesn't matter if you're in Kansas or China. What takes place on factory farms and in slaughterhouses every second of the day is just as horrible as what takes place in the Asian live markets. It's not a cultural judgment, it's a moral judgment.

And what is all this about "survival"? Are you really afraid of starving to death out there in Arizona? Don't you guys have enough food out there? If there were no meat available tomorrow, nobody in the United States would starve to death. Admit it--you eat meat because you like it. It's OK. Stop hiding behind the argument that taking away any form of meat is a threat to the survival of the human race. I'd buy it if you lived in Sudan, but it doesn't fly here.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

And what does PETA consider to be abused or mistreated? What are the other factual inaccuracies - on the page devoted to PETA?

I am a strong supporter of PETA, but I am not a spokesperson for that organization. If I were to guess, I would say "mistreatment" of a dog would include lack of proper food and water, physical abuse, over-work, etc. Just like any other dog.

More innacuracies? To start, the connection between PETA and ALF. PETA is a non-violent organization and they currently do not have any connection to ALF. Yes, there may have been in the past, and there may be sympathizers within their membership rolls. ALF is not part of PETA, as activistcash.com seems to imply. Also, PETA employees throwing red paint on women wearing fur coats never happened. These incidents did NOT involve PETA staff members--they were attributed to others outside the organization, and were not organized or supported in any way by PETA.

 

[loseyourname]

And the rather alarming quotes from PETA leaders suggesting that a human life is no more valuable than the life of a lab rat or even a cockroach? If that philosophy is an accurate assessment of the official beliefs of PETA, then that alone completely discredits them and makes them radical.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Again, I don't speak for PETA, but it's really interesting to me how everyone is so anxious to discredit PETA when they know nothing about them. You asked me for examples of inaccuracies (aka, lies) on activistcash.com, and I gave you three examples (you can research it further if you don't believe me). What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being. That is totally ridiculous. If activistcash states that on their website, that's just one more "inaccuracy" that we can add to their already long, long list.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Even animals in the wild kill their prey swiftly, or as swiftly as they can given their abilities, such as snapping the neck or injecting them with a poison. It would be to a predator's disadvantage to play with their prey prior to killing it, as that would increase the risk of it escaping and them going without a meal that day. All social animals have rules, and when those rules are broken, the offenders are punished. Humans are social animals, and one of our rules is you don't play with your food, you kill it swiftly if you plan to eat it, and you don't waste it by killing it before it's ready to be eaten.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but as the point has been made before, killer whales often play with the seals they are eating, while eating it.. they throw them into the air out of the water, etc. Also, felines (even your common housecat) play with mice for hours until they are bored and either eat it or leave it to die (all the while slicing and dicing it). A lot of animals in the wild don't kill their prey swiftly! Spiders leave their prey wrapped in webs and then inject them with a fluid that dissolves them.. while they remain alive, slowly losing feeling to their bodies. Some snakes have venom that kills very quickly, some have venom that slowly torments the victim. Wouldn't you think if it was "natural" for animals to have rules, that evolution would have made all animals swift killers?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Wrong again. Protein is necessary for human beings, but the "vitamins in meat" (whatever that means) is not. I am a vegan and have not eaten meat in over 10 years. How come I am still alive? Lions are CARNIVORES, as are snakes. They cannot digest plant matter. Human beings can--we are OMNIVORES. Meat is NOT necessary for human beings, and in fact the average vegetarian lives 6 to 10 years longer than the average meat-eater.

you are still alive because you take supplements. artificial supplements. Meat is a natural source for us omnivores to survive. Just because we have developed artificial ways to pump our body doesn't mean meat is no longer a valuable resource. Grizzly bears (among many other species of animal) are also omnivores, eating fish and berries. If it was so unnecessary for omnivores to eat meat, why hasn't evolution, or your god, developed a way around it? Why haven't we all (all animals, humans included)been designed or developed into herbivores, if meat was so unnecessary?

 

[Monique]

Meat was necessary since you have to eat less for the same amount of energy. Now that we cultivate all our products, meat is not a necessity anymore. You also don't need to take supplements as a vegetarian, just eat a balanced diet.

Don't tell me meat eaters eat a balanced diet, that'd be hilarious..

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

My eyes ARE open, thank you very much. I don't care what culture you are from--in my opinion, torturing an animal is unnecessary and WRONG, and I'm guessing a few people out there agree with me. It doesn't matter if you're in Kansas or China. What takes place on factory farms and in slaughterhouses every second of the day is just as horrible as what takes place in the Asian live markets. It's not a cultural judgment, it's a moral judgment.

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

And what is all this about "survival"? Are you really afraid of starving to death out there in Arizona? Don't you guys have enough food out there? If there were no meat available tomorrow, nobody in the United States would starve to death. Admit it--you eat meat because you like it. It's OK. Stop hiding behind the argument that taking away any form of meat is a threat to the survival of the human race. I'd buy it if you lived in Sudan, but it doesn't fly here.

It flies anywhere.. Just because we are prosperous in our food market now doesn't mean we should slack on our priority of survival. The only reason you are here to debate me today is because of the priority of survival. We kept it number one 3000 years ago, and it should remain number one for as long as we exist. That's nature. A bear doesn't limit itself to the number of fish it slices and dices to make itself as fat as possible for the coming winter. It has no feelings about the fish. It just thinks about survival. If anything its better to OVER prioritize survival.



By the way people of the crowd, something just dawned on me while talking about fish. How many people do you know have fish as pets? Whether it be a small goldfish, or an aquarium full of exotic/rare, or large fish?

Then think about how many people you know who fish as a game, luring a fish in with an artificial worm, then snagging it on a hook, reeling it in, tearing the hook out of its mouth, then throwing it in a cooler where it can flop around til it suffocates? (that or being caught in large fishing nets by the thousand and then hang in the air until suffocating)

Fish serve 2 purposes: 1) for a pet 2) for food (and we don't mind its "torture")

I don't see you people being angered over this, and i don't even have to show you a video. I'm sure many of you have fished before. Why is this not "torture"?? ITS NOT! It's how we do it. It's how we've done it. It's how we'll continue to do it. It's the best and fastest way to achieve economic success. You all are angered over this ordeal because a chicken somehow has gained more emotional outlook over its processing. Since it has feathers, which resembles fur, which makes you think of ol scruffy, you humanize it and worry about its "feelings". Why not worry about the feelings of mr. trout?

Some of you might try to reply with "Oh but i do care about how fish are killed"... don't bother. that's ridiculous.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Meat was necessary since you have to eat less for the same amount of energy. Now that we cultivate all our products, meat is not a necessity anymore. You also don't need to take supplements as a vegetarian, just eat a balanced diet.

Don't tell me meat eaters eat a balanced diet, that'd be hilarious..

And i ask again, just because we have developed artificial supplements meat is no longer necessary?

I would consider myself to be the healthiest person I know. I workout, run, don't smoke, don't drink in excess of a party here and there, eat plenty of meat, vegetables, fruits, and i drink maybe one soda a week, if that. I love water. I limit my fatty foods a good deal because I'm too conscious about my body. I enjoy the attention it gets me too much to go a screw it up. So, I would say my diet is perfectly balanced.

By the way, if you were into nutrition at all you would know that a "balanced diet" is different for every single person.

 

[Monique]

Since when are vegetables/beans/nuts artificial supplements??!
Since when did meat become a healthy food? Chicken may be a good source of protein, but red meat is a no no.

but this is a different discussion and does not belong in this thread.

 

[Monique]

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

You are such a fun person, so I guess those terrorists blowing up innocent people and American soldiers are not doing anything wrong either. Do you really not see your logic is flawed?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

You are such a fun person, so I guess those terrorists blowing up innocent people and American soldiers are not doing anything wrong either. Do you really not see your logic is flawed?

No I don't. The terrorists did nothing wrong IN THEIR CULTURE. BUT! BUT! But, the neglected to see and understand OUR culture. They were wrong because they neglected to care that believing in your god is the way this culture does it. The same logic applies to the Chinese. Just because they skin cats alive doesn't mean we should go in and fine them and make arrests. That's how their culture does it, not ours. We would be wrong to go in and shut down their restaurants, just as the "terrorists" were wrong to come in and kill us. they are not wrong for neglecting the moral of human life, because to them it was right. they are wrong for laying their cultural beliefs (and their boxcutters) on our planes.

As a member of a physics community, you should understand the paradoxical situation arising in YOUR arguement.. You say they are wrong for the lack of moral respect they showed. However, to them they did nothing morally wrong. You should be able to understand that morals are relative (based on culture, quite like the relative nature of distance in physics). The only wrong the members of the Taliban committed was that of crossing over into our culture and not understanding our rights and wrongs. The same caution is taken by true historians. When they look back and tell us commoners what happened 3000 years ago, they must ascend their moral bias, in order to take on the moral bias of the time they are studying, so they can accurately tell what happened. Point: morals are culturally defined!

 

[Hurkyl]

They were wrong because they neglected to care that believing in your god is the way this culture does it.

Is this not a moral value, which would necessarily be culturally defined? Aren't you now imposing your moral beliefs on the terrorists?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Is this not a moral value, which would necessarily be culturally defined? Aren't you now imposing your moral beliefs on the terrorists?

No this is not a moral, it is logic/natural. For the best chances of survival, or for the most accurate description of history, or whatever, it is best to not inflict your moral beliefs upon those of others.

 

[Hurkyl]

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

I remain entirely unconvinced; most (all?) morals can easily be argued to have arisen because they are beneficial to the culture that adopts them.

And there's the fact that there are a good number of morals that do benefit a society, in the long run, to "inflict" on others.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

I remain entirely unconvinced; most (all?) morals can easily be argued to have arisen because they are beneficial to the culture that adopts them.

And there's the fact that there are a good number of morals that do benefit a society, in the long run, to "inflict" on others.

You're right that morals are culturally defined (if that's what you're implying by "adopts them"). However they should never be inflicted upon other cultures. I use my "alien" example again. If we found an alien civilization who deep fried cocker spaniels, we have no right to say that is wrong. What morals are you speaking of that "benefit a society, in the long run"? Just because they are good for our culture, doesn't mean they are good for another.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

I can see this is leading into a "moral/culture" discussion. I'm asking the mentor(s) to keep this all in the same thread, since moral issues are the base of the original discussion.



Anyone care to respond to my fish idea?

 

[loseyourname]

Again, I don't speak for PETA, but it's really interesting to me how everyone is so anxious to discredit PETA when they know nothing about them. You asked me for examples of inaccuracies (aka, lies) on activistcash.com, and I gave you three examples (you can research it further if you don't believe me). What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being. That is totally ridiculous. If activistcash states that on their website, that's just one more "inaccuracy" that we can add to their already long, long list.

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

“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).

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?

“Where do you draw the line?”
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help .… He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.”

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

“It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?”
It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose.

Neither do ants or gnats. While it can be mean-spirited to intentionally kill them, nothing has been hurt any more than when the weeds are pulled.

“How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.

Just to end the debate on this issue, PETA proclaims on its own website official support of a terrorist organization, comparing it to the Underground Railroad and French Resistance. So activistcash was accurate there.

“How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?”
There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.

"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?

 

[Moonbear]

Actually, Elizabeth is right, PETA would never say a cockroach was MORE valuable than a human being. They'd say the cockroach was equal.

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. Even pet ownership is considered a necessary evil by them. Basically, their view is that we've bred these animals dependent upon humans for survival, so we have to take care of them. But they'd prefer if we didn't have pets.

While it seems they have uncovered very real abuse at that Pilgrim's Pride location, and that's a good thing to put it to a stop, you'll also notice they are trying to use this against the entire poultry industry. This is what they do. They videotape one incident and try to convince the public that this is the norm rather than the exception.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, Elizabeth is right, PETA would never say a cockroach was MORE valuable than a human being. They'd say the cockroach was equal.

I never said PETA thought cockroaches were more valuable. Here is my original post:

And the rather alarming quotes from PETA leaders suggesting that a human life is no more valuable than the life of a lab rat or even a cockroach? If that philosophy is an accurate assessment of the official beliefs of PETA, then that alone completely discredits them and makes them radical.

I said they believe human life to be no more valuable. I didn't say less valuable.

 

[Moonbear]

I actually wasn't refuting that part of your statement, just the part where you were challenging Elizabeth's statement, which, technically, was correct.

She said:

What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being.

 

[loseyourname]

None of the alarming quotes had anything to do with a cockroach being more valuable than a human. I was challenging her contention that my assessment (and the site's assessment) of PETA was inaccurate.