KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
KjGarly
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: TheArbiter
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by KjGarly » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:54 pm

Knoyleo wrote:It's OK to eat fish, 'cause they don't have any feelings.


My fish get proper excited when they see me or my daughter, waggling their tails like dogs :slol:

Honest :shifty:

Image Image
Gemini73
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Gemini73 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:44 pm

Finally caught the advert last night, ( I don't watch a great deal of tele).

The chicken says Muthafucka. :lol:

“But I don't want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here".
User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by mic » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:47 pm

Fade wrote:...When you say animal lover, it seems like you mean it in the same way somebody would say they love cars...


When I say animal lover, I mean something completely different... ;)

I appreciate that having sex with animals has not historically been necessary in the same way as eating them, but on what modern basis can it be considered less morally acceptable?

I certainly wouldn't have thought bestiality to be worse than child sexual abuse (and thereby worthy of greater punishment, as pointed out by KjGarly, above). Eating a human child would be worse than sexually abusing it, so why should this logic be inverted for animals? Is it lack of sapience?

User avatar
Karl
Seyana!
Seyana!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Karl » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:58 pm

mic wrote:I appreciate that having sex with animals has not historically been necessary in the same way as eating them, but on what modern basis can it be considered less morally acceptable? [...] Eating a human child would be worse than sexually abusing it, so why should this logic be inverted for animals? Is it lack of sapience?


OK, I'll reply a second time, but the answers are still obvious.

Why is it fine to kill an animal but not screw it? You can kill an animal humanely, and doing so can serve a purpose society has broadly agreed is useful. You can't screw an animal humanely, and nothing useful comes of the interaction.

Why is it fine to kill an animal but not a child? Because animals are not sapient, but children are.

User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by mic » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:25 pm

Well, I guess I'm really gonna go out on a limb and suggest that, yes, it IS possible to humanely have sex with an animal, as in cause a minimum of pain or discomfort. Copulation involving a male animal and female human would certainly even be pleasurable for the animal, for example. It would serve a purpose in the same way that eating bacon serves a purpose - because it gratifies.

With respect, my question wasn't "why is it fine to kill an animal but not a child?" Rather, it was "if it's worse to eat a child than abuse it, why is it worse to abuse an animal than eat it?" Apologies if you feel that the answer remains the same, but I'm not sure it does.

User avatar
Karl
Seyana!
Seyana!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Karl » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:43 pm

Re: bestiality, if you could somehow demonstrate objectively that an animal wasn't at all distressed or damaged - including 'psychologically', though that word is misleading as an animal's 'psyche' is more limited than a person's - while copulating with a person then it might cease to be a moral issue. But you definitely can't, so it definitely doesn't. EDIT: You kind of brushed past this but I also didn't say "useful" on its own, I said "society recognises as useful". Good luck convincing society as a whole that the "gratification" of the interaction is a useful outcome.

The fact that you see eating meat as morally comparable to performing depraved acts on an animal is your own problem to work through. I hope you realise how far beyond the realm of reasonable argument and conversation you are.

Re: comparison between children and animals, yes, the answer to your question comes back to sapience. An animal's life has little inherent value (beyond what we endow it sentimentally in the case of pets) and that's due to its nonsapience.

Morally, sapience means you shouldn't kill or enslave it, and sentience means you shouldn't torture it. A child is sentient and sapient, so you can't kick it or put it down. A dog is sentient but not sapient, so you still can't kick it but you can put it down. A car is neither, so you can kick it or destroy it or whatever you want.

User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by mic » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:02 am



Karl wrote:...The fact that you see eating meat as morally comparable to performing depraved acts on an animal is your own problem to work through. I hope you realise how far beyond the realm of reasonable argument and conversation you are...


:lol: Beyond reasonable argument and conversation? Well, while I can admit that I don't actually see eating meat as morally comparable to sex with animals, I do feel that there is a very interesting double standard.

Have you carnivores never experienced even a moment of compassion for the animal your meat came from? It doesn't stop me, because meat tastes good. But that doesn't mean I don't feel bad about it when it occurs to me, which it often does. Especially when I eat a well-done steak. A guilty pleasure, then.

I wasn't offended by the ad, but I do take some small exception to the way in which society almost glosses over the slaughter of animals, so that people don't think about what they are eating or where it comes from, which is exemplified in the ad - 'of course fried chicken comes from chickens, but those chickens are having the time of their lives and they want to feed you!'

As mentioned before, vegetarian meat products are getting closer to the real thing (I've had more than a few meat eaters tell me that my Linda macartny sausage rolls are better than the real thing), so I have high hopes for a near future where all (or most) meat and diary products are entirely synthesised - especially steak!

Would everyone else be happy with that? Or must you taste blood when rending flesh with teeth?

User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Knoyleo » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:11 am

mic wrote:Have you carnivores never experienced even a moment of compassion for the animal your meat came from? It doesn't stop me, because meat tastes good. But that doesn't mean I don't feel bad about it when it occurs to me, which it often does. Especially when I eat a well-done steak. A guilty pleasure, then.

That cow literally died for nothing.

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Skarjo » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:12 am

Knoyleo wrote:
mic wrote:Have you carnivores never experienced even a moment of compassion for the animal your meat came from? It doesn't stop me, because meat tastes good. But that doesn't mean I don't feel bad about it when it occurs to me, which it often does. Especially when I eat a well-done steak. A guilty pleasure, then.

That cow literally died for nothing.


The true monsters among us are ever more obvious.

Blue Eyes wrote:No wonder I'm eating my balls instead of sweets.

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by mic » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:14 am

Skarjo wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:
mic wrote:Have you carnivores never experienced even a moment of compassion for the animal your meat came from? It doesn't stop me, because meat tastes good. But that doesn't mean I don't feel bad about it when it occurs to me, which it often does. Especially when I eat a well-done steak. A guilty pleasure, then.

That cow literally died for nothing.


The true monsters among us are ever more obvious.


"... they said, picking bits of fatty, raw meat from their teeth, the blood dripping from their mouths..."

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Preezy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:26 am

It's not blood, it's myoglobin.

Image
User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Jenuall » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:50 am

mic wrote:I wasn't offended by the ad, but I do take some small exception to the way in which society almost glosses over the slaughter of animals, so that people don't think about what they are eating or where it comes from, which is exemplified in the ad - 'of course fried chicken comes from chickens, but those chickens are having the time of their lives and they want to feed you!'


I guess that's a big part of the discussion right there - do Chickens actually want anything? Sure they need things, they have biological requirements for their continued existence, but I don't think you can attribute anything like human emotions of desire, hope, fulfillment, regret etc. to something like a chicken.

Would it even be possible to ascertain whether the life of a wild chicken was objectively any better than that of a suitably cared for farm chicken? It would have a reasonable chance of living longer I guess, but beyond that? It's not like you can bash out a Leuven Scale for chickens.

ImageImage
User avatar
Pancake
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Pancake » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:48 pm

Have you read any recent scientific papers on animal behaviour and cognition? What makes you think a chicken is incapable of wanting something?

I'm curious because it's a common assumption that a lot of people make without ever researching the topic, myself included, so where does the assumption come from?

I'm going to do some reading.

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Jenuall » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:10 pm

I didn't say a chicken was incapable of wanting something, I just posed the question. I'm interested in researching more myself.

ImageImage
User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by BID0 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:12 pm

I've recently seen a few videos of animals that before being killed console each other, like people would in a similar situation. I try to avoid those kind of things because people instantly switch off when that kind of thing is shared, I do myself too, it wasn't ever the reason for me changing my diet. It's pretty well known that dogs and other house pets can sense things before they're about to happen like changes in the weather while we as human beings are completely oblivious to.

I can't imagine anyone here being interested but as Pancake mentioned there are quite a few scientific studies online that you should be able to find, whether it's on monkeys, goldfish or cows. Similarly I would think the videos could easily be found with a google search (sorry I've only ever seen them randomly on twitter so can not link to them)

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Preezy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:30 pm

Have you ever watched a chicken? They don't want anything. Death is probably a welcome change from being a chicken.

Image
User avatar
Albear
Moderator
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Albear » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:55 pm

Preezy wrote:Have you ever watched a chicken? They don't want anything. Death is probably a welcome change from being a chicken.



User avatar
Fade
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: San Junipero

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Fade » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:29 am

Why is there talk about Bestiality in a KFC thread, internet forums :lol:

Humans are strawberry floating weird though, like, we glorify violence and murders all the time (Think of all of the famous murderers in pop culture) but the minute someone comits a sex crime they are human scum. Can you imagine if there was a show about a serial rapist? Yet there are tons of shows and films that glorify murder as something that's cool or interesting.

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Preezy » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:43 am

We'll whilst murder isn't cool, it definitely is an interesting thing to study.

Image
User avatar
Karl
Seyana!
Seyana!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Karl » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:11 pm

Lucien wrote:
mic wrote:I appreciate that having sex with animals has not historically been necessary in the same way as eating them, but on what modern basis can it be considered less morally acceptable?


The place to start with this: a person who knows they don't need animal products and can live well without them, but they choose to buy them at the supermarket anyway. How can that person criticise someone who wants to have sex with horse, use a lion in a circus, or chain a bear to a pole and teach it to dance?


Farming isn't inherently abusive to the animals involved. (It might be implemented poorly, but that's between the farm and the government.) Your other examples are.

This is the third time I've had to post this and I think it's telling that it keeps coming up: vegan culture seems to revolve around considering non-vegans directly responsible (they aren't) for torture (it shouldn't be) and murder (it isn't) and rape (it isn't) and comparing those people to actual abusers of animals (they aren't).


Return to “Stuff”