KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[Dissident Dan]

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.

If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.

 

[Moonbear]

If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.

Morals are such a tricky thing to try to argue over. Many would find it immoral to not "inflict" their own sense of morals on others who they view as behaving against those morals. That's going to be tough to reconcile with someone whose morals dictate that they should not inflict their morals on others. This is why wars start over different opinions of morality. Morals are pretty much just another name for your own personal beliefs, which are shaped by your experiences.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.

I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures. And I'm also saying that once a culture imposes their morals onto us, such as the 'terrorists' did, then the situation should be treated logically. As moonbear said morals are a tricky subject to argue over.. so maybe we shouldn't go there. But my opinion is that , in your words, it is 'inhumane' and does not benefit any culture if morals are imposed.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

...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.

comments? rebuttals?

 

[Evo]

They're not taking live fish and jumping up and down on them, tearing their fins off, or kicking them.

The thread is about intentional abuse to animals.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

They're not taking live fish and jumping up and down on them, tearing their fins off, or kicking them.

The thread is about intentional abuse to animals.

I understand that, but I'm asking yall why you don't see that as abuse, since it too is intentional. Fishermen, when fishing, are intending to lure a fish in, hook it, de-hook it, and throw it in a cooler. no, they are not jumping on them, tearing their fins off (though sometimes tearing their "lips" off) or kicking them. But, they are snagging them with a hook that prevents the fish from coming loose, ripping it right back out, and suffocating the fish to death. It would be the same as pulling a worm across the dirt intending to catch a chicken, only when the chicken caught the worm, a very powerful cinch caught around its beak. then, to get his line back, the chickenman would have to rip the cinch off the chicken's beak, soemtimes ripping the beak off as well. Then he/she would proceed to wrap a plastic bag around the chicken's head, suffocating it to death. THAT, I'm sure, you would most definitely label as abuse.. so why not so with the fish?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures.

Well, that's not a moral of our culture. In fact, I don't know of any culture that, to my knowledge, has that moral. So which culture's morals are you imposing on ours?

-----------------------------------------

The treatment of fish is also horrible. I do not condone that, either. However, people are not consistent in their views, so they will condone fishing because it's more mainstream than beating chickens.

There's also the argument that animal abuse such as that uncovered in the Pilgrim's Pride facility leads to abusing humans. This argument is corroborated by empirical evidence. Fishing has not been shown to lead to abusing humans.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

im tired

Well, that's not a moral of our culture. In fact, I don't know of any culture that, to my knowledge, has that moral. So which culture's morals are you imposing on ours?

It's not a moral. It's logic. Its logic that should be used. You find it in nature, but humans have somehow lost it.

The treatment of fish is also horrible. I do not condone that, either. However, people are not consistent in their views, so they will condone fishing because it's more mainstream than beating chickens.

There's also the argument that animal abuse such as that uncovered in the Pilgrim's Pride facility leads to abusing humans. This argument is corroborated by empirical evidence. Fishing has not been shown to lead to abusing humans.

That argument only exists because people look for that certain thing when analyzing a serial killer. I doubt many serial killers have been investigated about how often the fished.. but I'm sure there is some statistician who could find the correlation that fishing leads to serial killers (if that was the mainstream excuse for serial killer behaviour). There are many people who have "tortured" living beings who have not become serial killers. I have talked to many people at college who tell of stories from when they were younger, of how they would do this and that to a cat, rabbit, squirrel, lizard, pigeon, etc. But out of alllll those people, how many would i say are able to become serial killers? none. most of them are deeply religious. I think the correlation between 'torture' of animals and serial killing is bogus. yes, serial killers tortured animals in the past, but that doesn't mean that's what led them to killing humans. it's like the whole bowling for columbine thing.. just because there's evidence that darren and whats-his-face went bowling the morning of the shooting doesn't mean the act of bowling is what started the behaviour. If it was there, it was there all along. The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour. It was there. If anything the "torture" vented their urges and kept them from killing humans sooner. It is a psychological disorder that was there from the beginning, from something done to the person, or just the way the brain is organized. People who investigate serial killers look for anything that might be the "cause" of the behaviour. And yes, 9 out of 10 times there is an animal abuse. But I bet you could poll 1000 people in america and ask them if anytime in their life they have tortured an animal and i would say that 90% have. But that doesn't mean there are 900 serial killers on the loose.

 

[Moonbear]

It's not a moral. It's logic. Its logic that should be used. You find it in nature, but humans have somehow lost it.

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

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

Though, I'm suddenly thinking of a strange contradiction here...if animal rights groups believe that humans are no better than animals, then wouldn't that mean we shouldn't be expected to behave any better than them either? Do we then not have morality above that of the animals, such that we are under no obligation to act against our instincts to protect them? Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

Though, I'm suddenly thinking of a strange contradiction here...if animal rights groups believe that humans are no better than animals, then wouldn't that mean we shouldn't be expected to behave any better than them either? Do we then not have morality above that of the animals, such that we are under no obligation to act against our instincts to protect them? Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?

Actually, I do not believe that humans are the only animals who act in moral ways or who have sense of morality. An experiment has been done in which macaque monkeys would not take food from a dispenser when they knew that taking the food would cause another macaque electric shock. The correlation was even stronger in the monkeys that had been shocked themselves.

Anyway, I would not say that we are "better". I do not believe that classification of "better", in general, is a meaningful classification. I only believe in things being better in ability to achieve specific goals. What we do have is the highest level of intelligence. Because we have that, I'd hope that we employ it in making more ethical decisions.

 

[Monique]

I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures. And I'm also saying that once a culture imposes their morals onto us, such as the 'terrorists' did, then the situation should be treated logically.

Another real-life example: President Bush freeing a country of a vicious dictator. Apparently Bush had no right to inflict his morality of having people live in freedom upon another culture.. where would this world be if everyone lived in their own little word and absolutely did not care about what goes on outside of it?

About your fish example: morals are based on the balance of receiving benefit and inflicting damage. I already gave the example before of lab-animals, we can only use them because there are strict rules that tell us that:
*The research must serve an important goal
*There is no suitable alternative to reach that goal
*Not more animals are used than required
The same rules apply when it comes to the use of human embryo's, with a further restriction that the research must be aborted 14 days after fertilization (that's when the notochord, the placenta starts developing). You can think the same way about the fishery.

 

[Monique]

About the serial killers "The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour", the lack of empathy for living beings is a traitmark of serial killers.

Just the other week I watched an interview with 'America's most dangerous man', he used to work for the maffia and murdered all the people who couldn't bring up the money. He was ice-hard. He'd tell the stories of killing these people (the count was around 100-150) without showing any emotion towards them. One time, he said, a man was crying for his life, begging to god to safe him. Well, the killer gave him 30 min to pray, if there were a god, he'd be saved. This was the biggest mistake he ever made, he said, and telling this story really bothered him: obviously he allowed the man to have emotions.

Anyway, so at the end he starts telling about his family: wife and kids, and suddenly almost breaks down in tears. Where is emotions were completely lacking when talking about his victims, his emotions overwhelms him when realizing his wife has a serial-killer as a husband and he felt horrible for her to live with that fact. I was seriously surprised by those emotions.

I wondered: how about all the families of the men you killed, did he ever think about the damage he did to them?

Anyway, you saying:

I'm merely stating that this release of primal urge upon objects should not be punished. [and] I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food.

made me think of that man, and the logic that must've been in his mind.

You never answered my question whether a man beating his wife, to release a primal urge, should be left unpunished. Or in certain countries where it is ok for a man to mutilate his wife if she's suspected to have glanced at another man.

Isn't it our duty to go into those countries and better the situation, give humanitarian help? Ever heard of amnesty international?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm fairly borderline on eating meat. I probably always will because it tastes good, but who knows.

My thought is a quote from a beautiful mind I believe. It was something like to achieve the best result you must choose the option best for yourself and the group.

If we didn't work on a race level as humans and consider the group every living thing then I assume the theory would still apply. Chickens can't possible provide enough positive over negative contributions to society to make up for what we gain by using them as food. Or can they? I don't know much on their benefits aside from the use of food. While the pleasure of the chicken counts towards a certain amount, is it really worth as much as a contributing human. A person who contributes more as a whole should get more, and therefore their self-enjoyment should be worth more, shouldn't it?

I'm just looking for a calm discussion on this.

On another note: Is natural selection generally deemed wrong? If so, why? I've been thinking lately that it might be the most general-populace sufficient path for society to trend on. But something tells me I'm not getting all the information.

~Thanks for reading my post.

 

[Be Happy!]

Ccf

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

The CCF-(Center for Consumer Freedom) is an organization not dedicated to consumer freedom, but to the freedom of industry to do as they want...they are funded by the tobacco, restaurant and other food supply industries to put down any organization that stops their companies from making money...this is a smear campaign.

I seen many debates on TV with CEO of the CCF and the president of PETA...and I have to say the PETA person completely out shone the CCF guy-- her agenda to me seemed pure and for the betterment of the world...imho.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

About the serial killers "The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour", the lack of empathy for living beings is a traitmark of serial killers.

Yes, but also for many other poeple as well, like i said before.

Just the other week I watched an interview with 'America's most dangerous man', he used to work for the maffia and murdered all the people who couldn't bring up the money. He was ice-hard. He'd tell the stories of killing these people (the count was around 100-150) without showing any emotion towards them. One time, he said, a man was crying for his life, begging to god to safe him. Well, the killer gave him 30 min to pray, if there were a god, he'd be saved. This was the biggest mistake he ever made, he said, and telling this story really bothered him: obviously he allowed the man to have emotions.

Anyway, so at the end he starts telling about his family: wife and kids, and suddenly almost breaks down in tears. Where is emotions were completely lacking when talking about his victims, his emotions overwhelms him when realizing his wife has a serial-killer as a husband and he felt horrible for her to live with that fact. I was seriously surprised by those emotions.

I wondered: how about all the families of the men you killed, did he ever think about the damage he did to them?

What about the people in the penal system who put to death 100 prisoners a year? How are they somehow more justified than the mafia man? What of the families of the people sent to death by the judicial system? You seem not to be worried about that too much. Just the serial killer's victims. maybe the guy who injects the poison or throws the switch abused a few animals in his day. Does that not make him a serial killer, by your standards? he kills people. Shows no emotion. abused animals in his life. OOP! must be a serial killer. He should be sent to jail and put on death row. Then the person who executes him will go through the same process, then sooner or later the world will be left with no one, all because your criteria for a serial killer includes the abuse of animals.

You never answered my question whether a man beating his wife, to release a primal urge, should be left unpunished. Or in certain countries where it is ok for a man to mutilate his wife if she's suspected to have glanced at another man. Isn't it our duty to go into those countries and better the situation, give humanitarian help? Ever heard of amnesty international?

The man should be punished, in this culture, because the abuse of another human being who does not deserve it ( IN THE WESTERN CULTURE) is not right. therefore he should be punished. In those other countries, where wife-mutilation takes place, we have no moral justification to help them, unless they ask us to help them whereby their culture must agree to shed their bias and adopt our morals. The thing in Iraq.. I've never heard any evidence of the people there asking us to come in and help them. If they did, then the action was justified. If not, then it was wrong of us to go in there and change that culture.

About your fish example: morals are based on the balance of receiving benefit and inflicting damage...
...*The research must serve an important goal
*There is no suitable alternative to reach that goal
*Not more animals are used than required
The same rules apply when it comes to the use of human embryo's, with a further restriction that the research must be aborted 14 days after fertilization (that's when the notochord, the placenta starts developing). You can think the same way about the fishery.

First of all, the goal of catching fish does not mean anything for survival. We catch fish for the sport. We suffocate them for the fun of it. Does this not constitute as torture, according to your book? Also, many times there's no limit to how many fish you catch or not. If there is, it is because there's a balance to keep the population of fish at in order to allow for further seasons of fishing.. not because we "care" about their "emotions".


By the way.. all this talk and I never once asked: How do you know the chickens even have emotions? yes they felt pain, but the feeling of pain is nothing more than a nervous system reflex. Love, sadness, happiness, joy, sorrow, etc are all emotions unfelt and unaffected by the nervous system. They are brought on by the mind, as well as certain chemical balances in the brain. Obviously chickens do not have the same brain structure as we do, so how do you know they too feel "sorrow, suffering, torture". Just because there is pain (reflexes of the nervous system) does not
mean there is emotional value. I mean this can be seen with my fish example again. To fish, some people use an earthworm on their hook. This includes such glorious actions as threading the hook through the worm's body. Worms obviously have nervous systems, thus they have the reflex of pain. But are you willing to go as far as to say they are "suffering"? Are you going to now give earthworms human traits?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

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

 

[Moonbear]

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

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

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

There's that cockroach of yours again!

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

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

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

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

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

In friendship,
prad

 

[loseyourname]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In friendship,
prad

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In friendship,
prad

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

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

http://www.veganmd.org/talks

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

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

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

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth1405]

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

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