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

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Fade
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: San Junipero

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Fade » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:29 pm

Skarjo wrote:
Fade wrote:
Karl wrote:I like animals and I would eat any species that isn't endangered. I like horses and I ate horse last week. I don't think I'm crazy. You're just repeating "no you actually don't like them" -- what do you expect from this? Is it for me to change my thoughts & feelings? :?

If I caught and "humanely" killed and ate a stray cat, I don't think most people would believe me if I told them I loved cats. Why is it different when somebody else kills it for you? Genuinely curious.


Well, you deliberately picked a meat that is not generally considered part of western cuisine, but objectively there's little to no reason why we can't be said to like animals and also eat them. If we look at any of the animals that do frequently appear in the overlap between the animals we usually keep as pets and those we keep as food (rabbits, fish, horse etc) then I don't see any real conflict.

Someone does not somehow hate rabbits because they had a rabbit stew.

No, but they do care more about their appetite than that rabbits life. That was kind of my original point. I said that I didn't like people who said they were animal lovers and then didn't care about the well being of animals. That's where this whole argument came from.

Of course they can still think rabbits are cute etc.

Image
User avatar
Fade
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: San Junipero

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Fade » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:46 pm

Karl wrote:
Fade wrote:.


Err? I'm happy to be in touch with my emotions, I just recognise that "it makes me feel bad :( " isn't a relevant argument in this discussion.

I love my cat but I don't connect with him in the same way that I do my mother, close friends, or partner. Because he's a cat.

I think the reason we can't understand each other is because you see animals as objects

When I say animal lover, I interpret that to mean someone who cares about the happiness and well being of animals, and treats them with respect.

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

So I think we'll just agree to disagree.

Image
User avatar
Lucien
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Lucien » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:14 pm

mic wrote:I just read this whole thread and, worryingly, the question that stands out in my mind is this - why is bestiality illegal? If it's a matter of consent, surely they'd rather be shagged than eaten?


You need to think of the history of it. There's never been a need to have sex with an animal, but there has been a need to eat... well, anything you could really, until very recently; the science of how to be healthy without animal products wasn't there either. Also, in the UK we've had a Christian history, so laws were formed around that.

User avatar
EberKneesUp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by EberKneesUp » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:16 pm

Fade wrote:When I say animal lover, I interpret that to mean someone who cares about the happiness and well being of animals, and treats them with respect.

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

Are you saying car lovers don't care about the wellbeing of their cars or treat them with respect? :|

User avatar
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:38 pm

I mean, OK. I don't really see animals as 'objects' - it's more-wrong to kick a cat than a car - but I don't see them as 'people' either. I don't think there's any good reason when you think about what a cat is to treat it like a person. I am happy to agree to disagree on that though as I don't think either of us will change the other's mind.

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Skarjo » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:00 am

mic wrote:I just read this whole thread and, worryingly, the question that stands out in my mind is this - why is bestiality illegal? If it's a matter of consent, surely they'd rather be shagged than eaten?

Also, is it legal to kill and eat pets?


The party don't start 'til mic walks in.

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

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Jenuall » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:28 pm

One subset of vegetarianism that has always confused me is those people who won't eat meat but will happily eat fish. Surely if they are abstaining from meat because they do not agree with the way the treatment of animals then how exactly is wrenching a fish from its natural habitat and leaving it to suffocate to death supposed to be acceptable?

ImageImage
User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by BID0 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:21 pm

Jenuall wrote:One subset of vegetarianism that has always confused me is those people who won't eat meat but will happily eat fish. Surely if they are abstaining from meat because they do not agree with the way the treatment of animals then how exactly is wrenching a fish from its natural habitat and leaving it to suffocate to death supposed to be acceptable?

Pescetarianism? They probably pick that diet for health reasons or the environment rather than for the animals. Fish is considered healthier than other meats and some people are lactose intolerant, and while fishing is damaging to the planet it's probably better than other forms of meat farming.

You could ask the same question about vegetarianism. I don't think many do that primarily for the animals either, but for health and environmental reasons.

User avatar
EberKneesUp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by EberKneesUp » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:38 pm

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

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
User avatar
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:

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
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » 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
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » 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
EberKneesUp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...
by EberKneesUp » 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

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Dan, Snowcannon, Yahoo [Bot] and 46 guests