KFC Cruelty.

[Yamaneko]

I don't get why vegetarians are trying to validate their eating choices/pushing that eating meat is wrong and why non-vegetarians are validating their own eating choices/pushing that vegetarians are dumb. Just eat whatever the hell you want. There are more important things to talk about. Oh yeah, and this thread was about cruelty to chickens, not the advantages or disadvantages of being a vegetarian, so please get back on topic.

[Fire_Emblem776]

KFC bad, Juan Pollo better.

[Dreddz]

Its just natural to eat meat. They don't call us Omivoires for nothing
Thats not the point, its how were killing them thats the problem. I was outraged from the clip not because they were killing chickens, it for how brutally they did it...

[Shiny]

I'm never eating at KFC again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5O6tgk8GTI) I knew that is was out of hand, but not to this extend. ><
Mmmhmm, that's why I get my chicken from somewhere else. I got KFC one day and found something that I was sure was not supposed to be there in it. I never went back again.

[StarlightAngel]

Ew >.< That's horrible.

...but I'm still gonna eat chickens, sorry.

[Dignified Pauper]

Its just natural to eat meat. They don't call us Omivoires for nothing
Thats not the point, its how were killing them thats the problem. I was outraged from the clip not because they were killing chickens, it for how brutally they did it...


death in any way is brutal, so what does it really matter?

[Dreddz]

Its just natural to eat meat. They don't call us Omivoires for nothing
Thats not the point, its how were killing them thats the problem. I was outraged from the clip not because they were killing chickens, it for how brutally they did it...


death in any way is brutal, so what does it really matter?
I wouldnt say all means of death is brutal, if you pleasantly died in your sleep, would you say thats brutal ?
The fact is, the people who are in charge of this cut as many corners as possible.
Although, im sure the workers are the real people to blame, i'd imagine the people who give the orders tell them to be careful, but the heartless workers want the job to be over as quickly as possible, so do a very sleazy job, very sleazy indeed.

[Anaisa]

I didn't say eat all meat and no vegetables. You need both for a balanced diet.No you don't. As illustrated an proven in my previous post.
We don't just have to eat soy beans to get protein or iron. There are plenty of foods we can eat to obtain more than enough protein. The protein found in meat is more plentiful than the protein in a soy bean. But the protein in soy beans is better for you. Quality over quantity. From Wikipedia:
The American Dietetic Association, the largest organization of nutrition professionals, states on its website "Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer." The American Heart Association's website states "Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer.
Vegetarians get all the protein and amino acids they need from eating a normal variety of whole grains (whole wheat bread, oatmeal, brown rice), beans, nuts, and soy (tofu, veggie burgers/hotdogs, edamame, etc). The lower protein intake of vegetarians has been suggested as a possible cause of some of the health benefits above.

Actually, that's a funny thought: I go for approximately 180grams of protein per day. Imagine the amount of beans, nuts, wholegrains, eggs and tofu I'd have to eat to get that :laugh: As you'll see here:
http://www.peakperformance.on.ca/health/1protein_myths.htm (http://www.peakperformance.on.ca/health/1protein_myths.htm) Not that much.

And even if I didn't need that much protein, I'd certainly still make meat a part of my daily diet. Heck, I hunt moose and small game in the fall. Its completely natural for humans to eat meat. Certainly more natural than it is for humans to not eat meat.
It's just natural to eat meat. They don't call us omivoires for nothing Not true:
Facial Muscles
Carnivore Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Herbivore Well-developed
Omnivore Reduced
Human Well-developed

Jaw Type
Carnivore Angle not expanded
Herbivore Expanded angle
Omnivore Angle not expanded
Human Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location
Carnivore On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivore Above the plane of the molars
Omnivore On same plane as molar teeth
Human Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion
Carnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Omnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side
Human No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles
Carnivore Temporalis
Herbivore Masseter and pterygoids
Omnivore Temporalis
Human Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
Carnivore Large
Herbivore Small
Omnivore Large
Human Small

Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore Short and pointed
Herbivore Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Omnivore Short and pointed
Human Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore Long, sharp and curved
Herbivore Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Omnivore Long, sharp and curved
Human Short and blunted

Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Herbivore Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Omnivore Sharp blades and/or flattened
Human Flattened with nodular cusps

Chewing
Carnivore None; swallows food whole
Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary
Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Human Extensive chewing necessary

Saliva
Carnivore No digestive enzymes
Herbivore Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Omnivore No digestive enzymes
Human Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type
Carnivore Simple
Herbivore Simple or multiple chambers
Omnivore Simple
Human Simple

Stomach Acidity
Carnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Omnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Human pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
Carnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivore Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Omnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Human 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore 3 to 6 times body length
Herbivore 10 to more than 12 times body length
Omnivore 4 to 6 times body length
Human 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
Carnivore Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore Long, complex; may be sacculated
Omnivore Simple, short and smooth
Human Long, sacculated

Liver
Carnivore Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivore Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Omnivore Can detoxify vitamin A
Human Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
Carnivore Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore Moderately concentrated urine
Omnivore Extremely concentrated urine
Human Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
Carnivore Sharp claws
Herbivore Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Omnivore Sharp claws
Human Flattened nails



Plus, it does point out that vegetarians in general are slighter. Meat (with exercise) allows you to put on lean muscle. I certainly wouldn't want to be slighter, due to not eating enough of the right things. If you exercise enough (like anyone should) the fat and cholesterol consumed is burned off by your metabolism anyways. And to be more fit you need some amount of muscle, and meat is necessary for that. No it's not necessary for that. A vegetarian can gain as much muscle mass as a meat eater. An there not "slighter" due to eating the wrong things, it's the total opposite. Their not filling themselves with fat like meat eaters do, that's why they are slimmer an healthier. An that's not an opinion, it's scientific fact. As illustrated in my previous post.
Anyways, the point of this whole thread is animal suffering. And if being a vegetarian is your way of thinking a veggie diet has nothing to do with animal suffereing, then think again. See the link below:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

Yeah, this guy is known for bashing, but he does have valid arguments, in the fact that animals still do suffer, from harvesters, and so on.[/ That guy may be a total moron,but at least he appreciates sarcasm, as illustrated by the name of his web page. His arguments aren't valid. Comparing Animals killed during harvest to Animals being murdered for meat. Is like saying murder is ok, because we have accidental death.

That aside, it still completely scientifically natural for humans to kill animals to eat. Hence, they suffer. Its part of the ecosystem, and of all creation. It actually keeps a healthy balance in the food chain, and the earth's ecosystem.No it doesn't:
All modern, intensive farming practices consume large amounts of fossil fuel and water resources and have lead to emissions of harmful gases and chemicals. The habitat for wildlife provided by large industrial monoculture farms is very poor, and modern industrial agriculture is a threat to biodiversity compared with farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rainfed agriculture.

Animals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops According to the USDA growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and a total of 70% of its grain. In tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. The result is that producing animal based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits. This criticism could not be applied to animals that are grazed rather than fed, especially those grazed on land that could not be used for other purposes. However, this type of grazing is becoming less common worldwide, being substituted with intense farming, and in some cases leads to topsoil loss.

According to the WorldWatch Institute "Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off of rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry."

[ljkkjlcm9]

I just ate some KFC, it was good. Honestly people, it's good to have a heart and all, but what do you think happens. We kill things to eat it, it's part of being a carnivore. I mean, can you imagine what other animals do to eachother... it's far worse, trust me.

Plus there are far worse things going on in the world, like people doing that to other people... well similar things, can't do exactly that.

THE JACKEL

[Sylvie]

*shakes head*

Someone should lock this thread... its the same thing over and over.

Guy1: I will neva eva eat meat again!
Guy2: I just had KFC.
Guy3: Your horrible!

or something like that... seriously people, theres a lot better things to talk about than chickens getting their beaks cut off and thrown into cramped boxes.

[Miriel]

or something like that... seriously people, theres a lot better things to talk about than chickens getting their beaks cut off and thrown into cramped boxes.
Uuhg.

I hate when people do that. Yes there are better things to talk about. But there's better things to talk about than Naruto episodes. There's better things to talk about than how to get the Gold Chocobo in FFVII. There's better things to talk about than teenage romance problems. There's better things to talk about than Old Manus.

But you know what? *THIS* thread's topic is about the chickens getting their beaks chopped off. That's what the topic of this thread is, so that's what people will talk about in this thread.

[Sylvie]

I sense sarcasm.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is:

A) Don't go to KFC
or
B) Don't watch the Golden Girls anymore.

[Anaisa]

*shakes head*

Someone should lock this thread... its the same thing over and over.

Guy1: I will neva eva eat meat again!
Guy2: I just had KFC.
Guy3: Your horrible!

or something like that... seriously people, theres a lot better things to talk about than chickens getting their beaks cut off and thrown into cramped boxes.
I've posted in this thread more than anyone else. An you won't find any posts from me that even slightly resemble your guy 1 or guy 2 examples.

[Dreddz]

Why is the finger pointed at KFC, this cruelty goes on with nearly all major meat companies. If someone refuses to eat at KFC because of this, they'd have to not eat at alot of places.....the end result is, unhappy life.

[crazybayman]

For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat 4. :laugh:

Anaisa: If there was anything in there to glorify the vegan way of life, then good for you. I'll stick to my normal meat, vegetables, fruit, grains, and dairy diet, in which I get to indulge in mouthwatering bbq'd lean steak, chicken, fish, etc. That post was a wee bit too long to give me any interest in reading the whole thing.

[teaandmachines]

ok, how about ALL fast food is bad?

[Itsunari 2000]

Chickens are evil, anyway. My twice-removed aunt's cousin, who incidentally lives in Kentucky, lost his right arm to a flock of rabid chickens. Damned critters.

[Madame Adequate]

There's better things to talk about than Old Manus.

Clearly not true.

[Resha]

Yeah, because that's so much worse than smurfing eating the chicken.
Well, I didn't watch the video, but this makes sense to me somewhat. Once people decided to do the whole I'm-going-to-eat-you-fluffy-chicken thing, it would also be pretty weird to ask them to gently sit the chickens down, ask them for their last clucks and then send them peacefully off to heaven. These people want to make a profit and they're going to be pretty ruthless about it. Not that it's right or justifiable -- but there you are.

[Shlup]

Why is the finger pointed at KFC, this cruelty goes on with nearly all major meat companies. If someone refuses to eat at KFC because of this, they'd have to not eat at alot of places.....the end result is, unhappy life.
I'll survive, thanks. :rolleyes2

[Sylvie]

ok, how about ALL fast food is bad?

Not really. It may be bad for you but saying its bad in general is the state of opinion.

[Chaotic Chocobo]

Alright I'm gunna lay out what i think about this whole ordeal.

1) Chickens are chickens. Not humans. We eat them because they are way way lower life forms than us and have no souls.

2) PETA is worse than KFC because they treat people worse than animals and are very radical with their actions. They don't even want people to have pets. PETS! because it "enslaves them". Shoot any animal would be glad to be kept as a pet rather than in the wild. This also means that they don't want blind people to have seeing eye dogs! You tell me all this is sane thinking and I'll show you an idiot by giveing you a mirror.

3) Personally( this is jus my little theory here) I only think PETA only wants to save cute animals. I mean have you ever seen them do a huge campaign against fish abuse? I mean ya catch it with a hook deep in its mouth and then its suffers out of the water and it suffocates to death. But hey its not cute and cuddly. Its just a fish. Also think about it you have little organisms that live on you all over your body. They are still living things yet you dare wash your body and kills thousand of them?? Herasy i say!!:rolleyes2

4) Oh man this one ticks me off the most.....if you or anyone dares put the holocaust and the killing of animals of slauterhouses, or to a more exact point, jews and animals on the same level.....you should be pimp slapped seriously.

[Wuggly Blight]

People clearly arn't listening. This NOT about killing/eating animals. I repeat its NOT. get it? NOT. What it IS about is HOW they die, in abuse and tourcher. I repeat again, its about HOW thet die thats the problem.
Im guessing everyones seen that video where men bat live chickens with planks of woods like a ball?

[GhandiOwnsYou]

First: How in the hell has the post survived this long? it's freaking FRIED CHICKEN people. FRIED CHICKEN.

Secondly: The one argument i've heard over, and over, and over again is that People are no better than animals and we should respect them as such. Then it stands to reason, that people, as animals, should behave as animals. that means that we destroy and consume what we wee fit and what we are able to catch or produce ourselves. check it out, I can both catch, and raise, a chicken. Therefore, as natural law and survival of the fittest dictates, i retain the right to destroy and consume that chicken in whatever manner is most fitting to me. don't rant cruelty either. Ever watch a cat kill a bird? they play with it. ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. up to an hour as i once saw my cat do. they injure a wing an then taunt it while it flaps around. then they'll dismember a leg, get bored and wander off to a feed bowl. ten minutes later they'll come back to the bleeding twitching thing and claw at it some more. Spiders wrap up paralyzed, living flies for hours or days. Gators will bite a goats neck and carry it downstream while it's kicking before finally dragging it under and drowning it. Monkeys will beat the hell out of other monkeys, and walk away like nothing. Cruelty is natural, it's just that we're smarter than them. they use a rock, a river, a web, we build machines. so stuff it, nature is a cruel mother.

Third: Peta is a pile of hypocritical crap. They seek to make humans less than animals, to degrade the natural cycle of survival. They seek to limit humanities natural right to ensure it's own comfort and survival by forcing us to respect other species. this does not happen, anywhere in nature. If an animal tolerates another animals presence, it is due to one of three reasons. A: it is of the same "family" unit. B: The animal is somehow benefitting from the other animals continued presence or survival or C: the animal's presence is in no detriment to the first animal. No Lion is ever going to let a gazelle go out of mercy. PETA however, has stated rather publicly that if human benefit comes at the cost of another animals, they would not support it. rather poignantly: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, September 1989, Vogue Magazine" This is crap as far as the natural order goes. I come first, if i gain from the loss of a member of another species, so be it. If I've got aids, and i can solve it by testing a thousand puppies, i'm sure as hell going to test every puppy i can get my hands on. that's the way nature works.

In 1999, PETA euthanized 1,325 of the 2,103 animals it took. PETA claimed that euthanizing the cats was much kinder than leaving them in the streets. PETA made the statement that a quick painless death is much better than a slow painful one. However, when hunters or farmers talk of quick painless ways of killing animals, PETA calls them barbarians and claim no animal death is justified. Explain to me how my eating chicken is screwed up because i support a machine that kills animals? PETA kills animals. They rescue them from us "barbarians" then kill them gently.


The last point that i will even bother to make in this, is that is we were to simply release all of those poor lil animals tommorow, they would all die, and we would all starve. Nature has no way of supporting that mass of animals. A great way of showing it is by looking at the deer population in Virginia. Deer hunting is an absolute neccessity, because without it, the deer would literally eat themselves to extinction, and destroy the farming industry in the process. If you have a field that supports 100 deer, and 2 deer are there, and they mate. now you have 3 deer. next year, maybe you have five. then 8, 10. 15. 23. 36.50. 75. they're all skin and bones now, but still somehow surviving. some of them are dying naturally, some just being to weak to fight for food. but they're still popping em out. 115. now you're over shot. you have 15 that couldn't survive on a bare minimum diet, everyone else is getting less than that minimum because those 15 aren't simply going to give up. so your herd, already weak, drops off the face of the earth because the land has been over grown for too long, the soil is dry and overstressed, the deer are starved or too weak, back down to a bare minimum bag of bones crew.

this already occurs on a yearly basis in random areas in Virginia, and that's with hunters taking them down as fast as they can pull the pump on their 12 guage. Imagine PETA's vision now. an underfarmed, overstressed landscape, much of which has been turned urban or suburban and is now UNfarmable. Now ban hunting, animal testing, and automated mass poultry, pork and beef farming. yeah, Peta is a bunch of freaking genius, and the whole "animal rights" thing is so appealing.

I am Man. I survive, and i crush what will aid in that goal.

[Shlup]

1) PETA being awful does not justify the torturous lives animals live for the sake of profit.

2) "We're people" does not justify the torturous lives animals live for the sake of profit.

3) Nobody said anything about releasing millions of diseased and invalid chickens into the wild.

4) You don't have to give up eating meat to help the problem. A 10% reduction in meat in the American diet, which is still more servings of meat than is healthy for anyone, would free up enough farm land to feed approximately 60,000,000 more people.

5) Someone needs to explain to me how "they're chickens" makes anything in that video okay. Debeaking is disgusting. Keeping chickens in flocks larger than they can psychologically handle is disgusting. Giving them hormones until they grow too big and too fast to stand so that they spend their lives flapping around on the floor is so wrong.

6) It's unfair to use "the food chain" or "nature" to justify the mass farming and abuse of animals. There's nothing natural about these farming methods. If you want to talk about the food chain, go kill your own damn chicken.

7) Again, PETA has nothing to do with the topic. Whether or not eating meat it okay has nothing to do with the topic. This topic is the extreme life-long abuse of living creatures because people think fried chicken is "yummy."

[Dreddz]

1) PETA being awful does not justify the torturous lives animals live for the sake of profit.

2) "We're people" does not justify the torturous lives animals live for the sake of profit.

5) Someone needs to explain to me how "they're chickens" makes anything in that video okay. Debeaking is disgusting. Keeping chickens in flocks larger than they can psychologically handle is disgusting. Giving them hormones until they grow too big and too fast to stand so that they spend their lives flapping around on the floor is so wrong.

6) It's unfair to use "the food chain" or "nature" to justify the mass farming and abuse of animals. There's nothing natural about these farming methods. If you want to talk about the food chain, go kill your own damn chicken.


QFT

[crazybayman]

16) It's unfair to use "the food chain" or "nature" to justify the mass farming and abuse of animals. There's nothing natural about these farming methods. If you want to talk about the food chain, go kill your own damn chicken.
Actually, I do. I hunt moose, duck, goose and grouse in the fall (autumn). Moose is similar to beef, except leaner, stronger tasting and gameyer. Likewise, grouse is virtually identical to chicken, except a little leaner and the slightest bit gameyer (if "gameyer" is actually a word). And yes, I clean, cook and eat them.

So yes, I sit on top of the food chain. We, as humans, all do, because we consume almost all other forms of life on the planet, while there's nothing that consumes humans as regular parts of their diet.

Of course, that certainly doesn't give people the right to treat chickens, or any other animal so brutally.

[Miriel]

Of course, that certainly doesn't give people the right to treat chickens, or any other animal so brutally.
And that was the main point of Shlup's post. She wasn't saying that humans shouldn't go out and eat other animals. She was saying that using the "food chain" excuse wasn't a valid excuse for literally torturing other animals in the process of making them into consumable products.

[War Angel]

This topic is the extreme life-long abuse of living creatures because people think fried chicken is "yummy."
And the fact many people don't see a problem with that.

[Jojee]

It's sad that I was somehow logged out of the forums and forgot how to spell my name so I had to come into this thread and find a post by me and copy and paste it into the login thing :p :p *dies*

*runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, crashes into a wall* bawk bawk bawk :</>D

*cough* Animal abuse is bad. Have I said that already? *runs away*

[GhandiOwnsYou]

The point is that Mass farming is the "natural" step. you do what fits best for the survival of your species. What fits best, with a population as overgrown as ours is, is to concentrate as much freaking chicken into a square foot as humanely possible. chickens are another animal, one that is beneath us in power and intelligence. in the glorious animal kingdom, that generally makes them food, a tool for our survival. So we will use these tools as efficiently as possible. IE: fast, methodic execution resulting in an easily indetifiable, readily useable product for mass consumpiton, thus feeding the most people with the least amount of work, for the least overhead price.

Actually look at it without crying over the hurt chickens. it IS the next logical step in the continuing survival of mankind.

[NeoCracker]

I always assumed that the next logical step would be orcastrate world war three to reduce the population of large countries like China and India, along with attacks against the largest cities of the US.

[Dignified Pauper]

Can we just cookclose this thread. I'm hungry and am tired of arguing about the worth of chickens as something more important than a farming unit to feed the populace.

[kidney / theif]

Is it so bad to care about an animal?

[Shlup]

Actually, I do. I hunt moose, duck, goose and grouse in the fall (autumn). Moose is similar to beef, except leaner, stronger tasting and gameyer. Likewise, grouse is virtually identical to chicken, except a little leaner and the slightest bit gameyer (if "gameyer" is actually a word). And yes, I clean, cook and eat them.

So yes, I sit on top of the food chain. We, as humans, all do, because we consume almost all other forms of life on the planet, while there's nothing that consumes humans as regular parts of their diet.

Of course, that certainly doesn't give people the right to treat chickens, or any other animal so brutally.
And that's perfectly fine... except to those people who feel it's wrong to eat animals at all, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The point is that Mass farming is the "natural" step. you do what fits best for the survival of your species. What fits best, with a population as overgrown as ours is, is to concentrate as much freaking chicken into a square foot as humanely possible. chickens are another animal, one that is beneath us in power and intelligence. in the glorious animal kingdom, that generally makes them food, a tool for our survival. So we will use these tools as efficiently as possible. IE: fast, methodic execution resulting in an easily indetifiable, readily useable product for mass consumpiton, thus feeding the most people with the least amount of work, for the least overhead price.

Actually look at it without crying over the hurt chickens. it IS the next logical step in the continuing survival of mankind.
That would be lovely if factory farming were feeding more people. It isn't. Animals require more feed themselves than they produce. It takes... 21 or 22 pounds of feed to make one pound of beef. Mass producing animals simply does not feed more people.

So it isn't the next natural step. The next natural step would be to use the farmland used to feed livestock to feed people. The current practices are only in place because (1) people want to eat meat, and don't care how they get it or don't know what it takes to get that meat on their plate and (2) the cheaper the farmer can produce it, the more profit he makes.

I'm sorry, but stuffing 10,000 chickens into a barn where it's hot and stuffy and they recieve no light most of their lives, have to have their beaks cut off to prevent them from pecking each other after going insane from the psychologically unsound conditions, and are fed hormones so that their legs can't support their mass, does not have to do with our survival. It has to do with us thinking meat is yummy, and "yummy" does not justify anything shown in that video.

[KentaRawr!]

Once I heard someone say "de-beaking", I decided not to watch. >_> I'll just go with the crowd and say...

I'm never going to KFC again.

[Yuffie514]

Im just glad chickens havent evolved to exact thier revenge
if there are ostriches, there will be chocobos, xD (which have been known to attack humans)...

[Sylvie]

7) Again, PETA has nothing to do with the topic. Whether or not eating meat it okay has nothing to do with the topic. This topic is the extreme life-long abuse of living creatures because people think fried chicken is "yummy."

Well... Fried chicken IS good... :eep:

[War Angel]

I'm sorry, but stuffing 10,000 chickens into a barn where it's hot and stuffy and they recieve no light most of their lives, have to have their beaks cut off to prevent them from pecking each other after going insane from the psychologically unsound conditions, and are fed hormones so that their legs can't support their mass, does not have to do with our survival. It has to do with us thinking meat is yummy, and "yummy" does not justify anything shown in that video.
Let's leave KFC for a moment, and take a broader look.

Induatrialised farming. It's done everywhere in the world, in order to provide lots of cheap meat.We're not talking fast-food chains - we're talking about 'feeding the world'. We're talking seemingly awful conditions for millions and millions of animals, in order to feed billions of people.

Most of the world's populace can barely afford simple food, let alone meat, let alone meat produced in 'free ranges'. I don't think they've even heard of fancy-ass veggie supplements. Now, what people are suggesting here is that we feel sorry for the chickens (who are indeed treated horribly), and start treating them better. For them, it would only mean a price-rise in meat (in KFC or the local meat-shop, doesn't matter). For countless others who are less fortunate, it would mean that what little meat is on their diet, is also taken away. What little constitution they may possess, will disappear. They will grow weak and unhealthy. This will affect a bit more than the price of life-insurance - it will cause the whole WORLD to go back generations in terms of life expectancy.

So, no, the treatment of various animals in the food industry is not nice. But it's the price we pay, in order to pay less. There's plenty of meat sold in various stores, 'health food' they call it, and among those things is free-range produced meat. Happy chickens and cows, that live their lives happily untill their throats are cut, their bodies cut and stuffed into bags and boxes. Rich folk with an active conscious can buy their meat there. The rest should still have the option of buying cheaply produced meat, with the realisation that all the chickens and cows did not frolick their days away on the green pastures of their homeland.

[Anaisa]

I'm sorry, but stuffing 10,000 chickens into a barn where it's hot and stuffy and they recieve no light most of their lives, have to have their beaks cut off to prevent them from pecking each other after going insane from the psychologically unsound conditions, and are fed hormones so that their legs can't support their mass, does not have to do with our survival. It has to do with us thinking meat is yummy, and "yummy" does not justify anything shown in that video.
Let's leave KFC for a moment, and take a broader look.

Induatrialised farming. It's done everywhere in the world, in order to provide lots of cheap meat.We're not talking fast-food chains - we're talking about 'feeding the world'. We're talking seemingly awful conditions for millions and millions of animals, in order to feed billions of people.

Most of the world's populace can barely afford simple food, let alone meat, let alone meat produced in 'free ranges'. I don't think they've even heard of fancy-ass veggie supplements. Now, what people are suggesting here is that we feel sorry for the chickens (who are indeed treated horribly), and start treating them better. For them, it would only mean a price-rise in meat (in KFC or the local meat-shop, doesn't matter). For countless others who are less fortunate, it would mean that what little meat is on their diet, is also taken away. What little constitution they may possess, will disappear. They will grow weak and unhealthy. This will affect a bit more than the price of life-insurance - it will cause the whole WORLD to go back generations in terms of life expectancy.

So, no, the treatment of various animals in the food industry is not nice. But it's the price we pay, in order to pay less. There's plenty of meat sold in various stores, 'health food' they call it, and among those things is free-range produced meat. Happy chickens and cows, that live their lives happily untill their throats are cut, their bodies cut and stuffed into bags and boxes. Rich folk with an active conscious can buy their meat there. The rest should still have the option of buying cheaply produced meat, with the realisation that all the chickens and cows did not frolick their days away on the green pastures of their homeland.
If we were all vegetarians it would save alot more money and resources than us all eating animals that have been kept and slaughtered as cheaply as possible. An you're very much mistaken in thinking that to be a vegetarian an eat well you need to be rich.

[War Angel]

An you're very much mistaken in thinking that to be a vegetarian an eat well you need to be rich.
Without protein, B12 and iron, the human body collapses. Vegeterians must provide themselves with these ingredients, normally found in meat, through supplements. Those supplements cost money, and a good deal of it too. The poor cannot abolish meat from their diets, as they cannot afford, say, B12 pills.


If we were all vegetarians it would save alot more money and resources than us all eating animals that have been kept and slaughtered as cheaply as possible.
Certainly it would be a lot cheaper. People would be a lot more susceptible to disease, would live less, the natural abortion rates would sky-rocket, etc etc... But that's a third-world existence I wouldn't want to live in.

[Dreddz]

If our taxes would be going towards to safety of animals, and not all going to the same old ( school, police etc ) then this can all be prevented. But alas, when has any goverment cared about anyones safety.

[War Angel]

If our taxes would be going towards to safety of animals, and not all going to the same old ( school, police etc ) then this can all be prevented. But alas, when has any goverment ever been intrested in anyones safety.
Moses fooking Christ, you're actually advocating the promotion of the 'safety' of animals which are about to be BUTCHERED and EATEN, over the betterment of human living conditions?!

Or were you being cynical?...

[Shlup]

Other than the last couple of off posts, War Angel, you clearly missed a big part of my point: Producing more meat does not feed more people. It's an assumption a lot of people make, and on the surface it's logical, but it's just not correct.

Firstly, the amount of resources it takes to produce meat, if used to feed people, would feed a lot more people than the meat itself. Like I said, if the U.S. alone reduced it's meat intake by 10% we could feed 60,000,000 more people. Already people from "rich" countries eat far larger servings of meat than nature intended (steaks at resturants are served in 8, 12, or 16 ounce portions, while a serving of meat is only 3 ounces), so why is it so awful to suggest reducing our intake to fee up some farmland to feed people?

Secondly, factory farming does not make meat cheap. Another assumption that's logical on the surface, but not true. Meat is cheap because meat farms recieve large government subsidies. The methods used to farm increase the output, yes (also increasing the amount of farm land used to feed these animals), but does not lower prices. If not for government subsidies, a McDonald's hamberger would cost at least the $11 or $13 (one of those numbers... I forget exactly) it costs to produce. In essence, we're paying for this meat with our taxes.

So it's very humanitarian for people to believe factor farming sacrifices the wellbeing of animals to feed more people, but it just isn't true.

As for vitamins, the only vitamin in jeopardy from a vegan diet is B12, which is not only found in meat, but also dairy products. Iron, protien... none others are a problem. But that is a vegan diet. No one (except PeTA, but they're crazy bastards anyway) is saying you have to go vegan. No one's saying you have to go vegetarian. Just quit eating an excess of meat!

Again, the assumptions people make about "quick and dirty farming = more cheap food for the hungry" seems logical on the surface, but if you look into it a bit you'll find it's not. One of my favorite resources on the topic is Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. The title is really out there, but it's mostly as an attention-getter and he really isn't as insane as you'd assume from the title; he even advocates meat eating and animal testing under certain circumstances.

[Dreddz]

If our taxes would be going towards to safety of animals, and not all going to the same old ( school, police etc ) then this can all be prevented. But alas, when has any goverment ever been intrested in anyones safety.
Moses fooking Christ, you're actually advocating the promotion of the 'safety' of animals which are about to be BUTCHERED and EATEN, over the betterment of human living conditions?!

Or were you being cynical?...
Whats the problem with our money going towards better conditions for these animals. So what if there going to die, the conditions there in at the moment, im sure they look forward to death. We are practically torturing these animals.
We need to stop being so selfish, everything is for our convenience nowadays. It seems like no one cares about anything apart from themselves. Its people who should be in those farms, its exactly what we deserve. But then again, if you were a man by your word, you wouldnt have a problem being in those conditons, seeing as we'd be doing our part in the food chain.

[Zante]

Is there a way of lessening the suffering of animals without decreasing the amount of meat we can get? If not, then I would say its though luck for the chickens.

[Dreddz]

We dont even need that much meat. We shouldnt even be eating fast food in the first place. Again, were doing this for our pleasure, its not a necessity for our survival.

[Zante]

Yeach, but I like eating meat, and the majority of the human population does too. So though I might not like how those chickens are threatened, if changing it will mean less meat for us, it isn't gonna happen.

[Dreddz]

Yep, thats the kind of bastards we are.

[RPJesus]

I just ate some KFC, it was good. Honestly people, it's good to have a heart and all, but what do you think happens. We kill things to eat it, it's part of being a carnivore. I mean, can you imagine what other animals do to eachother... it's far worse, trust me.

Plus there are far worse things going on in the world, like people doing that to other people... well similar things, can't do exactly that.

We don't stop at chickens. If we don't respect things like chickens, how can we respect people? It's greed, it just keeps going on and up and stuff.



1) Chickens are chickens. Not humans. We eat them because they are way way lower life forms than us and have no souls.
What the hell does that even mean (besides what it obviously means)? That... that's not an argument! Shush, sir! Shush!



4) Oh man this one ticks me off the most.....if you or anyone dares put the holocaust and the killing of animals of slauterhouses, or to a more exact point, jews and animals on the same level.....you should be pimp slapped seriously.
:tongue:
Just because the holocaust is a touchy thing (and very touchy) doesn't mean squat-diddly. It's a fair point. They're so similar. And isn't that disgusting? If it's all so disgusting, you should be disgusted!


And, besides those beautiful words above, I say!: just listen to Shlupquack because she's a genious and we love her.
Any toher argument I could delightfully argue... it's hiding in her posts. :)

[Anaisa]

An you're very much mistaken in thinking that to be a vegetarian an eat well you need to be rich.
Without protein, B12 and iron, the human body collapses. Vegeterians must provide themselves with these ingredients, normally found in meat, through supplements. Those supplements cost money, and a good deal of it too. The poor cannot abolish meat from their diets, as they cannot afford, say, B12 pills. We can get B12, iron, and protein, from other foods. Iron, protein, an B12, are not only present in meat.


Certainly it would be a lot cheaper. People would be a lot more susceptible to disease, would live less, the natural abortion rates would sky-rocket, etc etc... But that's a third-world existence I wouldn't want to live in.You should really read the research I've already posted on the evidence that vegetarians are healthier an less susceptible to disease than meat eaters. Vegetarians also live longer. An vegetarians have a lower risk of miscarriage than meat eaters actually. You should read this:



A report by the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, indicated that vegetarian mothers-to-be are less likely to suffer a vitamin A deficiency than their meat-eating counterparts. This is of particular importance since vitamin A deficiency during pregnancy has been associated with miscarriage. Along the same lines, folic acid deficiencies have been linked to some birth defects. Why are vegetarian mothers less likely to develop such a deficiency? Because their diet is composed of the richest sources of folic acid--whole grains, legumes, and green vegetables.

"…While a [ vitamin B12] fortified food source is fine for the health of the mother, the nutrient will not be readily available to the fetus in this form. Therefore, during pregnancy and while nursing, the mother should be sure to take a B12 supplement equal to 4 mcg (micrograms) a day. During breast feeding, it is the B12 that will make its way into the breast milk and nourish the growing infant. The consumption of a prenatal supplement has become increasingly common among expectant mothers. If the mother is taking a prenatal supplement already, vitamin B12 will likely be included in the formula. It is always a good idea to verify this on the label. Also, be sure that the B12 is derived from plant sources.

" Animal bodies concentrate all of the hormones, chemical pesticides, antibiotics, and sulfa drugs they ingest during their lifetime. When humans eat animals, they ingest these contaminants that have been stored in the animal's fat. Whatever an expectant mother eats, her baby will be exposed to as well.

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

Wow. I found this funny. Why would I care about what happended to the chicken that I am eating. It was bred for food. It has no right to live. Who cares how it dies. So long that it does.

[mooglebunni608]

I'm gonna be sick. Well, everytime I think about the chickens served at fast food places like KFC I feel sick.
Cruel, Cruel people.

Im just glad chickens havent evolved to exact thier revenge
they will soon tho!

[Peegee]

How does the argument change if you use the word sapience (having discernment of things or 'wisdom') instead of sentience (being conscious or aware)?

Take a puppy.

I kick a puppy. Whether the puppy is sapient (it is) or a stupid puppy that is only sentient doesn't change the fact that puppy feels pain and will suffer because I kick it.

Or alternatively, say I burn plants (or forests) because they aren't sapient, at least I doubt they are sapient enough that it matters that I burn them. They are definitely sentient enough to know something is happening to the bark (plants have that ability), and besides, I and you know burning trees is bad for the tree.

Doesn't change anything. I could've replaced the term sentient with 'the good of the lifeform' as the argument that we shouldn't eat anything that hasn't died naturally.

[Shlup]

Wow. I found this funny. Why would I care about what happended to the chicken that I am eating. It was bred for food. It has no right to live. Who cares how it dies. So long that it does.
You had better be trolling or you're just plain sick.

[Fonzie]

I guess his name implies his meanings. I eat my fair share of both food groups so i'm okay with eating the both groups in equal amounts every day :D

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

You had better be trolling or you're just plain sick.
Ok, maybe I was a little bit over the line when I said it had no right to live. It has as much of a right to live as I do. But really, who is to say either I or it have any right to live. Why do any of of have any right to live? Because we are alive is what most people say. I think therefore I am. Screw that. No one has any right to live. But since we all do, we all have the right to die. So who cares when or how the death happens?

[Rengori]

I hope the Buhdists are right about reincarnation so that the CEO of KFC and the yes-men who work for him/her are all reincarnated as chicken.

[Shlup]

You had better be trolling or you're just plain sick.
Ok, maybe I was a little bit over the line when I said it had no right to live. It has as much of a right to live as I do. But really, who is to say either I or it have any right to live. Why do any of of have any right to live? Because we are alive is what most people say. I think therefore I am. Screw that. No one has any right to live. But since we all do, we all have the right to die. So who cares when or how the death happens?
In this case, it isn't so much about the death as it is about the life.

[Roto13]

I once read a book where scientists had genetically engineered a giant mass of chicken that was pretty much just a big feathery mound with various chicken parts growing from it every which way. When they were developed enough, the parts were cut off for food and would eventually grow back. It had a giant beak on top that clucked now and then. They would pour food into it from the top and waste would come out through the bottom. The chicken cruelty of the future!

[Rengori]

I once read a book where scientists had genetically engineered a giant mass of chicken that was pretty much just a big feathery mound with various chicken parts growing from it every which way. When they were developed enough, the parts were cut off for food and would eventually grow back. It had a giant beak on top that clucked now and then. They would pour food into it from the top and waste would come out through the bottom. The chicken cruelty of the future!
What book was this?

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

In this case, it isn't so much about the death as it is about the life.
Alright. Well still, they are on their way to die. Do you really car that much that the nice fat plump juicy chicken you are eating couldn't support itself? I don't. It doesn't affect me in any way.

[Shlup]

What lifeform isn't on it's way to die? Does the reason it's born determine it's worth?

Well, whatever. If someone sees cruelty and makes the moral decision not to care there's not really anything you can do about it. It's like having an abortion debate with someone who does think abortion is murder, but thinks baby murder is okay. (And, no, I'm not saying chicken torture and baby murder are morally equal.)

[War Angel]

You had better be trolling or you're just plain sick.
I think he makes a fair point, if in a bit crude manner.

I think most of us would agree - those animals should be treated better, if only slightly. HOWEVER, should it cost us a lot of money, and should the food industry be severly hurt by it, then it's not worth it. The lives of mindless chicken bred for slaughter are not more important than the well-being of even a single human-being. At least, that's the way I see it. I think it would be really nice if we could ease the final moments of those animals' lives, but I wouldn't extend it to reach far and beyond common sense.

They are living creatures. They should be eaten, and that also means suffering, to an extent. This measure of suffering should not be needlessly increased just because someone wants to make a bit more money. Anything worse than the loss of some money to some mega-corporation, like, say, simple people not being capable of buying meat... then I say, screw the chickens. Humans come first.

[Roto13]

I once read a book where scientists had genetically engineered a giant mass of chicken that was pretty much just a big feathery mound with various chicken parts growing from it every which way. When they were developed enough, the parts were cut off for food and would eventually grow back. It had a giant beak on top that clucked now and then. They would pour food into it from the top and waste would come out through the bottom. The chicken cruelty of the future!
What book was this?
It's called Oryx and Crake, and by how often I mention it to people, you'd think it was the only book I ever read. It's very good.

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

Yeah. What War Angel said is less crude than what I said, and the same, for the most part.

[Shlup]

You had better be trolling or you're just plain sick.
I think he makes a fair point, if in a bit crude manner.

I think most of us would agree - those animals should be treated better, if only slightly. HOWEVER, should it cost us a lot of money, and should the food industry be severly hurt by it, then it's not worth it. The lives of mindless chicken bred for slaughter are not more important than the well-being of even a single human-being. At least, that's the way I see it. I think it would be really nice if we could ease the final moments of those animals' lives, but I wouldn't extend it to reach far and beyond common sense.

They are living creatures. They should be eaten, and that also means suffering, to an extent. This measure of suffering should not be needlessly increased just because someone wants to make a bit more money. Anything worse than the loss of some money to some mega-corporation, like, say, simple people not being capable of buying meat... then I say, screw the chickens. Humans come first.
That's all well and good, but I'm wondering if you even read the post I directed towards you. Like I said in that post, if we do a little research we'll find that the vast majority of animal farming is based on them being "yummy" to people and profitable to farmers, not for the sake of feeding the hungry or satisfying any dietary need for meat.

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

Like I said in that post, if we do a little research we'll find that the vast majority of animal farming is based on them being "yummy" to people and profitable to farmers, not for the sake of feeding the hungry or satisfying any dietary need for meat.
Yeah, but thats the point. They are bred for that, for making money and feeding people with money. They are not about charity. These people are about money. Why would they want to give their good, beefed up animals to someone who cannot pay for them. Again, it is all about the money. No one cares for the less fortunate.

[War Angel]

I'm wondering if you even read the post I directed towards you.
I most certainly did.


we'll find that the vast majority of animal farming is based on them being "yummy" to people and profitable to farmers, not for the sake of feeding the hungry or satisfying any dietary need for meat.
In kFC, certainly. It is a fast-food chain. But what about the entire food industry, world-wide? Not fast-food chains, but all of the slaughter-houses on earth, in both the western and third world. Crippling them might have catastrophic results.

[Shlup]

Thought I should note that I'm totally ignoring IBCrayZ. xP

Anyway, the meat industry in the United States at least (I haven't particularly researched it world-wide) is no different than KFC. This is the way meat is produced in America, and for the purpose of satisfying out want for an excess of meat at the expense of the wellbeing of billions of animals.

And, as I've already mentioned a couple of times, the meat industry is not an efficient means of feeding people. It seems to me that you're choosing to believe the meat industry as a whole serves the purpose of feeding the hungry, though I'm telling you that's not at all what it's doing. Mass farming of meat is cruel to the animals, bad for the environment in several ways, feeds far less people than if we all ate less meat (or none at all, but less is good too) and fed people the food that we're instead feeding to the animals, and the "first world" as a whole eats far more meat than is healthy anyway.

If your justification for factory farming is feeding hungry people than, please, let it go because it just isn't so. If you don't trust me, I'll again recommend reading on Peter Singer, who also lists his sources in his writings.

[KaakoriX]

soooo glad ima vegitarian!!!!!!!!!!!!