Lucien wrote:It doesn't really matter how well the chickens are treated - though they are treated badly - using one in a comedic/disrespectful fashion to promote KFC is awful.
If an advert treated humans this way (say a sweatshop worker danced to promote Nike) it'd be completely evident why that'd be in insanely bad taste, agreed? You think the same approach becomes acceptable when it's aimed towards animals - why?
Animals and humans are different?
Animals and humans are different, but in each case (KFC and the imaginary Nike advert) the companies would be doing the same thing: portraying the misery they create as a bit of fun whilst cruelly
exploiting that which they already exploit - a dancing chicken as the face of slaughtered chickens or a dancing sweatshop worker as the face of miserable workers, the idea is the same. Both adverts would be incredibly dick-ish.
I'm not saying the adverts should be treated exactly the same, but there should be enough crossover so that we deem KFC adverts like this one to be unacceptable.
Karl wrote:Animals aren't sapient. Raising a chicken to eat it isn't 'oppression.'
KFC doesn't raise one chicken. It oppresses millions of chickens (if you dislike 'oppression' use another word that means "controls them and inflicts mass suffering on them"). I'm not concerned how intelligent they are, if they're distressed and aware that's enough.