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

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

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.

Image
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
Contact:

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.

Image
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
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lucien » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:48 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?


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?

The first point someone could argue is even though they feel animal products aren't necessary, they eat them because their ancestors did and they feel most comfortable with it in regards to their health, or how it might affect their offspring. Veganism doesn't have a long, analysed history. As generations go on that defence will probably get less credible.

Another thing someone could say is even though the products aren't necessary, they're consuming them for some other important reason. Maybe they think they're reducing overall harm/death, or they're religious and certain texts advise them on what's correct, etc.

--

While there's likely an underclass of people who don't give any value to animal suffering (so they would vote for pig shagging if they had the urge) I think most people do care to an extent and the situation will continue to improve. I expect people in the UK will seek more ethical diets in future (relative to their outlook and opportunities).

It's much less likely, imo, that society will be increasingly ok with hurting animals in other ways because they've passed a point of not being able to eat them, yet do, i.e. the situation goes backwards.

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
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
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).

User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lagamorph » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:31 pm

I really hope the new £10 and £20 notes use even more animal products than the new £5. It'll be hilarious.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lucien » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:40 pm

Karl wrote:
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.


Farming is abusive. You could argue the other examples are moreso, though, and that could factor into mic's "why not other abuse?" question. He specifically mentioned bestiality which very well could be less abusive than some farming -- all pretty irrelevant anyway as the majority of people don't want to sex cows.

Karl wrote: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).


If someone buys a hamburger they are directly responsible for the killing of an animal and a lot of its suffering; if they get regular milk they're directly responsible for forced impregnation. Saying the government is responsible here is an abdication of responsibility. Many vegans may consider eating a burger as being similar to other acts that are far worse and totally unnecessary - I agree they shouldn't.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Karl » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:54 pm

I don't consider farming when implemented well abusive; I don't consider it my responsibility to create or enforce livestock welfare regulations.

User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Errkal » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:13 pm

Karl wrote:I don't consider farming when implemented well abusive; I don't consider it my responsibility to create or enforce livestock welfare regulations.

This as a consumer you influence it by buying responsibly and buying higher welfare etc. Which encourages better practices etc. but it is the governments jobs to set the standards

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 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:14 pm

I don't think anyone here (edit - except Lucien! :-) ) is accusing non-vegans of direct responsibility, but rather a species of hypocrisy when they claim to love animals. Witness the furore surrounding the gorilla shot in the zoo (should've shot the boy's parents instead!) or the various 'hunters' photographed with their prey (cowards! use the internet to destroy their lives!). Should not such righteous indignation require veganism? Why is it okay to kill (and eat) some animals but not kill others for their fur, or for sport?

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the hypocrisy (which I evidently share), but seem, during the course of this thread, to have developed a problem with the denial of there being any issue at all, since this suggests self-deception at best, or wilful ignorance at worst.

User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lucien » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:25 pm

Karl wrote:I don't consider farming when implemented well abusive; I don't consider it my responsibility to create or enforce livestock welfare regulations.


We can disagree on your first thought. On your second, it's not that you're responsible for livestock welfare regulations, but if you, say, buy an egg from a caged hen you'd be responsible for the immediate effects of that purchase. The government can set rules on any issue, but that doesn't mean individuals aren't responsible for their own choices.

Last edited by Lucien on Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Karl » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:26 pm

@Mic: I think it's OK to kill animals for fur as long as the animals are well-treated, but real fur is so economically worthless that places (such as Austria) that tried to apply welfare regulations to the fur industry effectively banned the practice -- it's too expensive to meet basic welfare standards on a fur farm. That's why I wouldn't buy fur, not because I think fur is inherently wrong.

It's OK to kill any non-endangered animal as long as the action (a) has some defined, productive purpose and (b) is done as humanely as possible. "I like doing it" (or "I want to jizz in a horse") usually meets neither criteria and certainly doesn't meet the first.

EDIT: @Lucien: I don't think you can transfer the responsibility of a chicken's welfare - which is down to the farm and the government - onto some poor sod that just wants to eat an egg. Going to a supermarket and buying a cheap egg isn't an immoral act and shouldn't be framed as one. If you want battery farming to be banned then take it up with the legislature. [That was a poor choice of words as obviously conventional battery farming was already ended in this country, but you know what I mean: cramped conditions and all that.]

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 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:35 pm

How is 'bacon, mmmm' any more productive than hanging a hunting trophy on your wall? I would suggest that the former does far more harm right across the board.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Karl » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:55 pm

mic wrote:How is 'bacon, mmmm' any more productive than hanging a hunting trophy on your wall? I would suggest that the former does far more harm right across the board.


Because you're applying an inconsistent criterion: an unreasonably harsh threshold to an act that provides a person with sustenance, and an unreasonably loose threshold to an act that boils down to boasting about shooting something.

There's already an initiative (and product) for consuming the most environmentally-friendly and healthy possible nutrient sludge. It's literally insane to suggest that anyone that doesn't drink the amusingly-named Soylent for their three meals a day is morally deficient.

Ultimately the immorality in trophy hunting, for me, isn't the big immorality of 'murder': it's the little immorality of wasting something that could have been useful to another person or (a helpful part of the admittedly abstract concept of 'the ecosystem'). It's not about the animal - I really, genuinely don't care about the death of nonsapient beings I have no connection to - it's about resource management. People who go trophy-hunting aren't supervillains, they're just wasteful braggarts -- still enough to deserve a bit of derision on the Internet. (Not enough to deserve having their lives destroyed, if that's happened.)

User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lucien » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:07 pm

Karl wrote:EDIT: @Lucien: I don't think you can transfer the responsibility of a chicken's welfare - which is down to the farm and the government - onto some poor sod that just wants to eat an egg.


The farm and the government set the standards, sure, but do you believe consumers aren't responsible for anything that happens? i.e. if you eat lamb tonight is the government the direct cause of that?


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andretmzt, Dowbocop, Finish.Last, floydfreak, Garth, Google [Bot], Hime, Lagamorph, lex-man, Lime, Memento Mori, Monkey Man, Moz, Neo Cortex, Poser, PuppetBoy, Rich, Snowcannon, Starbreaker, Thrupneybithead, Tineash and 63 guests