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

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lagamorph » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:15 pm

mic wrote:Also, aren't some animals suspected of sapience, such as primates and dolphins?

When's the last time you saw Monkey/Ape/Dolphin meat for sale in Tesco?

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
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 5:15 pm

We don't eat or farm dolphins or primates so that point is irrelevant.

A dolphin being sepiant doesn't mean we can't enjoyable a slice of cow.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Moggy » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:29 pm

Lagamorph wrote:
mic wrote:Also, aren't some animals suspected of sapience, such as primates and dolphins?

When's the last time you saw Monkey/Ape/Dolphin meat for sale in Tesco?


After the horse meat scandal, probably today. ;)

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 5:30 pm

Errkal wrote:We don't eat or farm dolphins or primates so that point is irrelevant.

A dolphin being sepiant doesn't mean we can't enjoyable a slice of cow.


Well, according to Karl, it doesn't matter if we kill them (as long as we have a productive reason, such as tuna fishing or destroying forests for paper).

User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by BID0 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:24 pm

mic wrote:
Errkal wrote:We don't eat or farm dolphins or primates so that point is irrelevant.

A dolphin being sepiant doesn't mean we can't enjoyable a slice of cow.


Well, according to Karl, it doesn't matter if we kill them (as long as we have a productive reason, such as tuna fishing or destroying forests for paper).

and many monkeys die for cattle farming, and also palm oil which is used in so many products on supermarket shelves.



Here are Primark's production policies for their clothing ranges: https://www.primark.com/en/our-ethics/f ... -questions

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 6:26 pm

Rocsteady wrote:I think that's a bit of an abdication of responsibility[...]

That's fine, I'm sure plenty of people do. I don't personally think I'm obliged to research the manufacturing process behind every product I buy (and I would argue lamb meat is a product like any other, and slaughter is a manufacturing process like any other). I generally just lean towards the view that if it's openly sold on the high street then in most cases it's tough to say someone's evil for popping in and buying it. I'm sure I would die of guilt if I truly understood the moral impact my decadent Western lifestyle was having worldwide, but dying of guilt doesn't seem very productive to me, so I try to focus on more practically useful methods of exerting moral influence in the world (i.e. voting anyone-but-Tory!).

Maybe that's not very sophisticated. But we all have our bugbears, me included: I get a little annoyed at people who drive when they could easily take some equivalent public transport. I'm not sure I can necessarily justify that it's 'morally wrong,' but it irritates me, whereas plenty of others think that's fine and understandable. (I get along perfectly well without a car and have never felt particularly inconvenienced -- and I'm doing my bit for a greener Earth don't you know!!! ...Just kidding...) I think the take-away is that even people who are educated and in theory care to some degree about their personal impact will express that in different ways.

mic wrote:
Karl wrote:...as you ignored in my last post, there is already a theoretically-best diet plan...

Ignored a post from you? Never. However, there's nothing immoral about the vegan diet, so what is to be gained from subsisting entirely on that vile protein shake-looking alternative to actually eating?

Isn't it the case that your impact on e.g. the environment is clearly measured along a gradient? It's not "meat bad, plants good"; some crops will have more impact than others. I'm telling you there's a horrible sludge out there that is optimal. They've thought about carbon footprints and calories per square mile and how many field mice are run over by tractors and come up with the absolute most-moral way to ingest nutrients. You should be drinking that sludge for the good of the planet!

OK, OK, they don't actually claim to be the most moral choice of food. But it's easy to see that they might well be - producing a complete sustenance option from a very limited range of plants - so if you indulge me for a second and assume they are, aren't you a bad person for putting the pleasure you get out of eating a variety of actual plants above those concerns?

I don't think you are, but I don't think I'm bad for eating meat either.

mic wrote:
Karl wrote:...sentient = torture bad; sapient = killing bad. Why? Because sentience implies you can feel pain, and I don't want anything that can feel pain to feel it unnecessarily. But sapience is the threshold for having a true, introspective understanding of your life and desires and what the effect of death would be on them. That gives your continued life an inherent worth that simply isn't there in nonsapient beings.

Your evaluation, while undoubtably scientific, seems disingenuous. How about, sentient and sapient = torture and killing bad?

Why is sapience the benchmark of inherent worth, as opposed to intelligence or depth of feeling? Is all of this your personal opinion - what you tell yourself to justify your animal testing - or did some science council make the determination?

All of our moral choices are ultimately based on our own rationales for believing certain actions are good or bad. I've just tried to present my view, which I think is simple, self-consistent and intuitive, being based on what respective species are actually able to experience and in some sense 'expect' morally.

There's no hidden agenda: I'm clever enough that I could go and work in a different industry if animal testing bothered me, so I have no motive to lie to myself. ;)

mic wrote:Also, aren't some animals suspected of sapience, such as primates and dolphins?

It might one day be shown that some of our primate cousins are capable of the same higher, abstract thought that we are. I strongly suspect they aren't, and current studies (where they even exist) are so inconclusive as to be not worth talking about -- but if the body of evidence builds and eventually it seems likely to be true, then I would go beyond animal rights and support some analogue of human rights for those species.

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Rocsteady » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:26 pm

Karl wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:I think that's a bit of an abdication of responsibility[...]

That's fine, I'm sure plenty of people do. I don't personally think I'm obliged to research the manufacturing process behind every product I buy (and I would argue lamb meat is a product like any other, and slaughter is a manufacturing process like any other). I generally just lean towards the view that if it's openly sold on the high street then in most cases it's tough to say someone's evil for popping in and buying it. I'm sure I would die of guilt if I truly understood the moral impact my decadent Western lifestyle was having worldwide, but dying of guilt doesn't seem very productive to me, so I try to focus on more practically useful methods of exerting moral influence in the world (i.e. voting anyone-but-Tory!).

Maybe that's not very sophisticated. But we all have our bugbears, me included: I get a little annoyed at people who drive when they could easily take some equivalent public transport. I'm not sure I can necessarily justify that it's 'morally wrong,' but it irritates me, whereas plenty of others think that's fine and understandable. (I get along perfectly well without a car and have never felt particularly inconvenienced -- and I'm doing my bit for a greener Earth don't you know!!! ...Just kidding...) I think the take-away is that even people who are educated and in theory care to some degree about their personal impact will express that in different ways.

Fair enough, nice thoughtful response. To my bit anyway, just on my phone and cba deleting the rest.

Last edited by Karl on Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Did it for you since it was a long quote. :-) - Karl
Image
User avatar
Corazon de Leon
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Deadpool / sntaa

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Corazon de Leon » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:19 pm

Karl wrote:By the way, as you ignored in my last post, there is already a theoretically-best diet plan. It's called Soylent (there are other brands). You are an evil monster for not drinking Soylent three times a day.


Given that Soylent is made of people, I'd argue that you're the monster.

Image Image
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 8:25 pm

Karl, as distasteful as it may be, you do realise that the same arguments regarding lack of sapience were made by Europeans to justify slavery and the extermination of indigenous populations worldwide? Do you consider yourself to be guilty of speciesism?

Further, considering (also, distastefully) that some humans also lack sapience (such as those with severe intellectual impairment, or babies, for example) can sapience be your only criteria when deciding upon the right to life?

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 8:29 pm

BID0 wrote:...Here are Primark's production policies for their clothing ranges: https://www.primark.com/en/our-ethics/f ... -questions


A very interesting read - thank you. Karl, it looks like you're off the hook (except for having bad taste ;) ).

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 10:25 pm

mic wrote:Karl, as distasteful as it may be, you do realise that the same arguments regarding lack of sapience were made by Europeans to justify slavery and the extermination of indigenous populations worldwide?

I don't think 'indigenous populations' are comparable to livestock.

mic wrote:Do you consider yourself to be guilty of speciesism?

No, and I think it's a ridiculous concept. Animals aren't equal to us so I don't think it's appropriate to apply the language of egalitarianism to their 'plight'.

mic wrote:Further, considering (also, distastefully) that some humans also lack sapience (such as those with severe intellectual impairment, or babies, for example) can sapience be your only criteria when deciding upon the right to life?

I think a special exception has to be made for babies, being living things that are still developing their sapience. Moving past that, it must be said that even very intellectually disadvantaged humans are leagues ahead of our closest competition in the animal kingdom. Ultimately, in the extreme case of a person being irreparably brain-dead - or having slid into a profound dementia to which there is no cure, or so on - I think euthanasia of the remaining body can be appropriate on the grounds of that person's sapience having ended. In cases like that I feel it should ideally be down to surviving family to decide on the best course of action. I recognise this is subject to ongoing debate though.

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Skarjo » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:40 am

Whilst we're playing the game of 'You wouldn't download a dolphin', can we ask the flip side?

Where do people arguing for sliding-scale-sapience draw the line for, say, insects? Do you similarly oppose gassing hornets nests? Flypaper? Mosquito spray?

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

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Errkal » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:46 am

Skarjo wrote:Whilst we're playing the game of 'You wouldn't download a dolphin', can we ask the flip side?

Where do people arguing for sliding-scale-sapience draw the line for, say, insects? Do you similarly oppose gassing hornets nests? Flypaper? Mosquito spray?

That's a good question, would also be interested about views on Honey as it requires the bees to be smoked and stuff to make them sleep to then take the honey.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Preezy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:05 pm

You can't stop selling honey, think of all the bee unemployment.


Edit: also Karl is killing it with his arguments, great read!

Image
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 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:00 pm

He's far to clever for the likes of me. It must be lovely having such consistent views :x .

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Karl » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:13 pm

mic wrote:He's far to clever for the likes of me. It must be lovely having such consistent views :x .


:lol: :oops: Not at all. I enjoyed our discussion. I liked that you were able to produce a lot of examples of situations that didn't sit right with your gut -- you've clearly done a lot of thinking about these issues! I try to divorce my moral reasoning from how its logical conclusions make me feel - Fade thinks this makes me a robot ;) - so it was interesting to work through the problems you set to see if everything remained self-consistent and justifiable. To be honest I might get cold feet about eating a cat IRL but it's always good to think about whether something 'gross' is necessarily 'wrong' -- those counter-intuitive examples are always interesting to examine.

I felt you got a bit hung up about this horse sex stuff though. :P

User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lucien » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:34 pm

Skarjo wrote:Whilst we're playing the game of 'You wouldn't download a dolphin', can we ask the flip side?

Where do people arguing for sliding-scale-sapience draw the line for, say, insects? Do you similarly oppose gassing hornets nests? Flypaper? Mosquito spray?


I'm not sure who that's for. Karl's been the only person interested in sapience when it comes to the treatment of animals and he wouldn't be against killing insects on those grounds.

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 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:52 pm

Skarjo wrote:Whilst we're playing the game of 'You wouldn't download a dolphin', can we ask the flip side?

Where do people arguing for sliding-scale-sapience draw the line for, say, insects? Do you similarly oppose gassing hornets nests? Flypaper? Mosquito spray?


I don't think insects feel pain and they certainly are not sentient. Also, all spiders larger than a 5 pence piece must die - screw the ecology.

However, I do have (hypocritical!) qualms about killing some smaller animals such as rodents, which are often considered pests - I was aghast when a Canadian friend admitted to obsessively exterminating squirrels and rabbits, though I wouldn't bat an eyelid about poisoning rats... how's that for inconsistency?

This thread has made me realize that my views might possibly be needlessly sentimental. Only today, one of my two cats scratched me - should I 'exterminate' them both?

Edit - and eat them?

User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lagamorph » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:13 pm

Image

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
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 21, 2017 9:19 pm

Tee hee! :lol:



Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abcd, Albear, Benzin, Bing [Bot], Denster, Frank, Kanbei, lex-man, Mafro, Monkey Man, more heat than light, Rightey, Samuel_1, smurphy, Tineash, Yahoo [Bot], Yoshimi and 60 guests