Beastie Boys Join PETA Against KFC

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dderidex

Platinum Member
Mar 13, 2001
2,732
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mwtgg
American poultry and egg producers using battery cages and crowded floor systems remove one half to two thirds of the birds' beaks to reduce "cannibalistic" pecking. Cannibalism--compulsive picking, not eating--is an abnormal behavior of domestic fowl kept in close, crowded confinement. It results from the abnormal restriction of the normal span of activities of a healthy, ranging fowl.

So they are debeaked to keep them from pecking each other, creating wounds that could get infected and cause sickness, or just flat-out killing the bird?

Those bastards!

Next thing you know, they'll be forcing prisoners to cut their fingernails so they can't scratch each other to death. Teh horror! :roll:

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.

Here's the crazy thing - if you just raise the chickens on, oh, I dunno, a FARM where they can go OUTSIDE instead of a warehouse....guess what? They don't try to peck each other to death! How about that! And if you don't crowd them together in cages with poor sanitation, air circulation, lighting, and feed...you know what's cool? You don't have to pump them full of antibiotics to prevent uncontrollable spread of disease!
 

OulOat

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2002
5,769
0
0
Originally posted by: dderidex
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mwtgg
American poultry and egg producers using battery cages and crowded floor systems remove one half to two thirds of the birds' beaks to reduce "cannibalistic" pecking. Cannibalism--compulsive picking, not eating--is an abnormal behavior of domestic fowl kept in close, crowded confinement. It results from the abnormal restriction of the normal span of activities of a healthy, ranging fowl.

So they are debeaked to keep them from pecking each other, creating wounds that could get infected and cause sickness, or just flat-out killing the bird?

Those bastards!

Next thing you know, they'll be forcing prisoners to cut their fingernails so they can't scratch each other to death. Teh horror! :roll:

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.

Here's the crazy thing - if you just raise the chickens on, oh, I dunno, a FARM where they can go OUTSIDE instead of a warehouse....guess what? They don't try to peck each other to death! How about that! And if you don't crowd them together in cages with poor sanitation, air circulation, lighting, and feed...you know what's cool? You don't have to pump them full of antibiotics to prevent uncontrollable spread of disease!

Ever wonder why the so called "organic" crap is more expensive than standard foodstuff? You like wasting money? You care more about chickens than starving children in Africa?
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: OulOat
Originally posted by: dderidex
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mwtgg
American poultry and egg producers using battery cages and crowded floor systems remove one half to two thirds of the birds' beaks to reduce "cannibalistic" pecking. Cannibalism--compulsive picking, not eating--is an abnormal behavior of domestic fowl kept in close, crowded confinement. It results from the abnormal restriction of the normal span of activities of a healthy, ranging fowl.

So they are debeaked to keep them from pecking each other, creating wounds that could get infected and cause sickness, or just flat-out killing the bird?

Those bastards!

Next thing you know, they'll be forcing prisoners to cut their fingernails so they can't scratch each other to death. Teh horror! :roll:

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.

Here's the crazy thing - if you just raise the chickens on, oh, I dunno, a FARM where they can go OUTSIDE instead of a warehouse....guess what? They don't try to peck each other to death! How about that! And if you don't crowd them together in cages with poor sanitation, air circulation, lighting, and feed...you know what's cool? You don't have to pump them full of antibiotics to prevent uncontrollable spread of disease!

Ever wonder why the so called "organic" crap is more expensive than standard foodstuff? You like wasting money? You care more about chickens than starving children in Africa?
Wow. Ignorant about organic farming much? :roll:

 

dderidex

Platinum Member
Mar 13, 2001
2,732
0
0
Originally posted by: OulOat
Ever wonder why the so called "organic" crap is more expensive than standard foodstuff? You like wasting money? You care more about chickens than starving children in Africa?

A) Because it's raised more humanely

B) Yeah, it's more expensive. So what? It's not wasting money if it's: more healthy for YOU, raised more humanely, and taste better.

C) Who cares about starving children in Africa? Their parents CHOSE to reproduce, don't hold me financially responsible for their poor decision making ability. I'll spend that money on healthier food for myself any day.
 

OulOat

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2002
5,769
0
0
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: OulOat
Originally posted by: dderidex
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mwtgg
American poultry and egg producers using battery cages and crowded floor systems remove one half to two thirds of the birds' beaks to reduce "cannibalistic" pecking. Cannibalism--compulsive picking, not eating--is an abnormal behavior of domestic fowl kept in close, crowded confinement. It results from the abnormal restriction of the normal span of activities of a healthy, ranging fowl.

So they are debeaked to keep them from pecking each other, creating wounds that could get infected and cause sickness, or just flat-out killing the bird?

Those bastards!

Next thing you know, they'll be forcing prisoners to cut their fingernails so they can't scratch each other to death. Teh horror! :roll:

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.

Here's the crazy thing - if you just raise the chickens on, oh, I dunno, a FARM where they can go OUTSIDE instead of a warehouse....guess what? They don't try to peck each other to death! How about that! And if you don't crowd them together in cages with poor sanitation, air circulation, lighting, and feed...you know what's cool? You don't have to pump them full of antibiotics to prevent uncontrollable spread of disease!

Ever wonder why the so called "organic" crap is more expensive than standard foodstuff? You like wasting money? You care more about chickens than starving children in Africa?
Wow. Ignorant about organic farming much? :roll:

Like how they still use pesticides in organic farming? :roll:
 

OulOat

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2002
5,769
0
0
Originally posted by: dderidex
Originally posted by: OulOat
Ever wonder why the so called "organic" crap is more expensive than standard foodstuff? You like wasting money? You care more about chickens than starving children in Africa?

A) Because it's raised more humanely

B) Yeah, it's more expensive. So what? It's not wasting money if it's: more healthy for YOU, raised more humanely, and taste better.

Prove it. Just to start you out. I'm not going to argue with you over taste, since you can deny it all you want. But there is no conclusive evidence organic is better for you.

C) Who cares about starving children in Africa? Their parents CHOSE to reproduce, don't hold me financially responsible for their poor decision making ability. I'll spend that money on healthier food for myself any day.

So you care more about chickens than people. :thumbsup: for you, nice to know where your loyalties lie.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: dderidex

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.
Umm.. no. I'm no animal expert, but I'd be willing to bet that the tip of chicken's beak has little to no feeling, much like a human's fingernails. Unless you can prove otherwise, I think my analogy is rather decent. And if you *do* prove otherwise, I'm still not going to care a *whole* lot, because they are fvcking chickens! I hate people who get thier kicks being cruel to animals, but there appears to be a valid reason for this practice. It not like they are just getting thier jollies from it.

Man is the dominant species here; we have domain over those animals beneath us. Do you expect a lion to euthanize you before attacking you, out of some sense of decency?

Here's the crazy thing - if you just raise the chickens on, oh, I dunno, a FARM where they can go OUTSIDE instead of a warehouse....guess what? They don't try to peck each other to death! How about that! And if you don't crowd them together in cages with poor sanitation, air circulation, lighting, and feed...you know what's cool? You don't have to pump them full of antibiotics to prevent uncontrollable spread of disease!

Here's another crazy thing, people don't like paying $15 for a chicken sandwich, just because the chicken got a lot of fresh air growing up. They also don't want to wait for it to die of natural causes after a long, fulfilling life. They want it fast and they want it cheap. Any many are willing to sacrifice the personal feelings of a bird in order to get it that way. PETA may not. Beastie Boys may not. You may not. But you are still obviously a minority, so you lose.

Now I'm going home to eat dinner, and I assure you, give no futher thought to the life of the creature with the brain the size of a pebble and no capacity for rational thought who was sacrificed to fill my belly.

Cheers! :beer:
 
Aug 26, 2004
14,685
1
76
Originally posted by: dwell
I wish the BBoys would stop being socially conscious and start drinking and taking drugs again. They REALLY suck now that all they do is whine about the world's wrongs.

winnar!
 

SilverTorch

Golden Member
Oct 4, 2000
1,082
0
0
Chicken cruelty thing:

All these horrible stories you hear about chickens being abused (which are true) is the price America pays for having fast food that is cheap as well. It?s a business if you can provide fast food cheaper than a competitor then you will profit, that?s all. The chickens that are raised and then shipped over to these ?processing plants? are not pets, they are bred for a single purpose to be turned into KFC or Popeye?s chicken fingers and such. The beaks are cut off for sanitary purposes as well as increasing the yield of healthy chickens (chickens peck at one another), again to save an average American some money by proving cheaper chicken meat. Its not a pretty job, but someone has to do it, people working in city maintenance have a sh!tty job, you don?t care about how their job is done as long as your toilet flushes at 2 AM.

If you ask me it takes more hardened and cold blooded person to kill a chicken that he has raised him self, and when it comes to do it, the act is probably as horrific (ie. Ever seen a chicken run around with its head cut off, I have .. its not a pretty sight)

PETA / Not eating meat:

I don?t like PETA because they resort to extremist ways of doing things, such methods are used by terrorists around the world. Its about shock value, the more you can shock a person by a single act the longer he or she will listen to you. I despise what they did in front of a McD?s a few years ago, they handed out kids meals to children full of ?fresh? meat and chicken heads, the kids have no clue about PETA or what they are trying convey, they eat what their parents buy them. It was done to get at parents, how discussing is that, using kids to get through to parents, sounds like a school in Chechnya on the first day of class. I would not appose PETA if they didn?t use these kinds of tactics.

Also it is true that almost all nutritional value that you get from meat can be replaced ?green? food, it?s a life style change not because I saw a PETA TV ad or because some celebrity said so, its because I want to make that choice. There are almost no advantages to switching to a vegan life style for me, health is not an issue .. go to Europe and see how people are able to eat red meat almost everyday and still keep healthly, healthier than many Americans that diet.
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: dderidex

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.
Umm.. no. I'm no animal expert, but I'd be willing to bet that the tip of chicken's beak has little to no feeling, much like a human's fingernails. Unless you can prove otherwise, I think my analogy is rather decent. And if you *do* prove otherwise, I'm still not going to care a *whole* lot, because they are fvcking chickens! I hate people who get thier kicks being cruel to animals, but there appears to be a valid reason for this practice. It not like they are just getting thier jollies from it.

Unfortunately... you would lose that bet.

Debeaking ("beak trimming") has been scientifically demonstrated to cause severe pain in the sensitive beak of a bird and lifelong behavioral impairment. Between the horn and bone of the beak is a thin layer of highly sensitive soft tissue. The hot blade used in debeaking cuts through this complex horn, bone, and sensitive tissue causing severe pain and the formation of tumors in the healed beak stump. Behavioral studies show that debeaked chickens are unable to eat, drink, and preen properly, and that they exhibit behavioral disorders associated with chronic pain and depression. The 1991 review published by Dr. Michael C. Appleby on the suffering of hens in battery cages states that "The main injury caused by humans, knowingly rather than accidently, is beak trimming. It is now known to cause pain, in the short term and probably also in the long term, in a way similar to other amputations."

...

Beak amputation of chickens and turkeys is an inhumane substitute for the proper management of these species of birds. Debeaking is not like trimming one's fingernails. It is a serious welfare insult to birds that should be prohibited by law.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: OulOat
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: OulOat
Originally posted by: dderidex
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mwtgg
American poultry and egg producers using battery cages and crowded floor systems remove one half to two thirds of the birds' beaks to reduce "cannibalistic" pecking. Cannibalism--compulsive picking, not eating--is an abnormal behavior of domestic fowl kept in close, crowded confinement. It results from the abnormal restriction of the normal span of activities of a healthy, ranging fowl.

So they are debeaked to keep them from pecking each other, creating wounds that could get infected and cause sickness, or just flat-out killing the bird?

Those bastards!

Next thing you know, they'll be forcing prisoners to cut their fingernails so they can't scratch each other to death. Teh horror! :roll:

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.

Here's the crazy thing - if you just raise the chickens on, oh, I dunno, a FARM where they can go OUTSIDE instead of a warehouse....guess what? They don't try to peck each other to death! How about that! And if you don't crowd them together in cages with poor sanitation, air circulation, lighting, and feed...you know what's cool? You don't have to pump them full of antibiotics to prevent uncontrollable spread of disease!

Ever wonder why the so called "organic" crap is more expensive than standard foodstuff? You like wasting money? You care more about chickens than starving children in Africa?
Wow. Ignorant about organic farming much? :roll:

Like how they still use pesticides in organic farming? :roll:
Can you back that assertion?

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
PETA discredits itself, not just in its extremism, but in the way in unfairly picks on certain high-profile corporations, like KFC for example.

The problem I have with PETA's attacks on KFC (or "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" :roll: ) is that PETA always leaves out of its press releases the crucial fact that KFC does not actually raise a single chicken. An actual PETA-sponsored statement is "KFC tortures chickens" (from Rev. Al Sharpton). This is not true. Instead, KFC uses suppliers to raise the chickens and provide KFC with the meat. Now, PETA does present that, but always with the angle that KFC somehow has the ability to pick and choose its suppliers, or to control its suppliers. That is also not true. Yum! Brands, KFC's parent company, is relative small-fry compared the major suppliers like Tyson and Pilgrims Pride that it depends on for the chickens in order to feed its customers.

So the real question is, why doesn't PETA go after those major suppliers like Tyson and Pilgrims Pride? My opinion is that they don't is because KFC is much more visible to consumers and thus a more attractive target for litigation and a publicity-generating smear campaign.
 

shilala

Lifer
Oct 5, 2004
11,437
1
76
I'm not sure which would look better dead, PETA or the BEastie Boys.
They're both a really bad joke.
 

SilverTorch

Golden Member
Oct 4, 2000
1,082
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
PETA discredits itself, not just in its extremism, but in the way in unfairly picks on certain high-profile corporations, like KFC for example.

The problem I have with PETA's attacks on KFC (or "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" :roll: ) is that PETA always leaves out of its press releases the crucial fact that KFC does not actually raise a single chicken. An actual PETA-sponsored statement is "KFC tortures chickens" (from Rev. Al Sharpton). This is not true. Instead, KFC uses suppliers to raise the chickens and provide KFC with the meat. Now, PETA does present that, but always with the angle that KFC somehow has the ability to pick and choose its suppliers, or to control its suppliers. That is also not true. Yum! Brands, KFC's parent company, is relative small-fry compared the major suppliers like Tyson and Pilgrims Pride that it depends on for the chickens in order to feed its customers.

So the real question is, why doesn't PETA go after those major suppliers like Tyson and Pilgrims Pride? My opinion is that they don't is because KFC is much more visible to consumers and thus a more attractive target for litigation and a publicity-generating smear campaign.

very good point
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,606
4,699
136
Originally posted by: SilverTorch
Originally posted by: Vic
PETA discredits itself, not just in its extremism, but in the way in unfairly picks on certain high-profile corporations, like KFC for example.

The problem I have with PETA's attacks on KFC (or "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" :roll: ) is that PETA always leaves out of its press releases the crucial fact that KFC does not actually raise a single chicken. An actual PETA-sponsored statement is "KFC tortures chickens" (from Rev. Al Sharpton). This is not true. Instead, KFC uses suppliers to raise the chickens and provide KFC with the meat. Now, PETA does present that, but always with the angle that KFC somehow has the ability to pick and choose its suppliers, or to control its suppliers. That is also not true. Yum! Brands, KFC's parent company, is relative small-fry compared the major suppliers like Tyson and Pilgrims Pride that it depends on for the chickens in order to feed its customers.

So the real question is, why doesn't PETA go after those major suppliers like Tyson and Pilgrims Pride? My opinion is that they don't is because KFC is much more visible to consumers and thus a more attractive target for litigation and a publicity-generating smear campaign.

very good point


I'm not so sure.

It doesn't matter that KFC doesn't literally "raise" the birds...It's a contract!

If KFC refused to buy chickens from suppliers using these practices, you can bet a more ethical supplier would step up. = free market.


The same argument was used by Nike, Martha Srewart, etc. when it came to investigations of child labor / sweatshop accusations. "Oh that's not our policy...it's our SUPPLIER's. When they refused (under market pressure, of course) to buy from those suppliers, things got done. Again, free market forces.


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: feralkid
I'm not so sure.

It doesn't matter that KFC doesn't literally "raise" the birds...It's a contract!

If KFC refused to buy chickens from suppliers using these practices, you can bet a more ethical supplier would step up. = free market.


The same argument was used by Nike, Martha Srewart, etc. when it came to investigations of child labor / sweatshop accusations. "Oh that's not our policy...it's our SUPPLIER's. When they refused (under market pressure, of course) to buy from those suppliers, things got done. Again, free market forces.
If KFC refused to buy chickens from major suppliers, it would not have chicken meat to sell to its customers. Unlike clothing, chicken meat is perishable. Sure, another "more ethical" supplier might step up, but not until after KFC went out of business due to a lack of product.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: dderidex

Oh, c'mon, you can't possibly think that's civil, OR a valid analogy.

A closer analogy would be cutting prisoners' fingers off ENTIRELY to prevent them from doing anything.
Umm.. no. I'm no animal expert, but I'd be willing to bet that the tip of chicken's beak has little to no feeling, much like a human's fingernails. Unless you can prove otherwise, I think my analogy is rather decent. And if you *do* prove otherwise, I'm still not going to care a *whole* lot, because they are fvcking chickens! I hate people who get thier kicks being cruel to animals, but there appears to be a valid reason for this practice. It not like they are just getting thier jollies from it.

Unfortunately... you would lose that bet.

Debeaking ("beak trimming") has been scientifically demonstrated to cause severe pain in the sensitive beak of a bird and lifelong behavioral impairment. Between the horn and bone of the beak is a thin layer of highly sensitive soft tissue. The hot blade used in debeaking cuts through this complex horn, bone, and sensitive tissue causing severe pain and the formation of tumors in the healed beak stump. Behavioral studies show that debeaked chickens are unable to eat, drink, and preen properly, and that they exhibit behavioral disorders associated with chronic pain and depression. The 1991 review published by Dr. Michael C. Appleby on the suffering of hens in battery cages states that "The main injury caused by humans, knowingly rather than accidently, is beak trimming. It is now known to cause pain, in the short term and probably also in the long term, in a way similar to other amputations."

...

Beak amputation of chickens and turkeys is an inhumane substitute for the proper management of these species of birds. Debeaking is not like trimming one's fingernails. It is a serious welfare insult to birds that should be prohibited by law.


(pssst.. this isn't 3rd grade anymore. Real "facts" tend to require a source.. a link would be nice. And hopefully you're not going to provide the all-creatures.org site as a valid source.)

An how about the rest of my statement? No comments?
 

rubix

Golden Member
Oct 16, 1999
1,302
2
0
the beastie boys like to attack things in order of most importance. that's why they first spoke out against the troubles in tibet and now they have moved onto the number 2 problem in the world: chickens.

up next: chewing food with your mouth closed and then finally the fred savage career rivival fund.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,606
4,699
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: feralkid
I'm not so sure.

It doesn't matter that KFC doesn't literally "raise" the birds...It's a contract!

If KFC refused to buy chickens from suppliers using these practices, you can bet a more ethical supplier would step up. = free market.


The same argument was used by Nike, Martha Srewart, etc. when it came to investigations of child labor / sweatshop accusations. "Oh that's not our policy...it's our SUPPLIER's. When they refused (under market pressure, of course) to buy from those suppliers, things got done. Again, free market forces.
If KFC refused to buy chickens from major suppliers, it would not have chicken meat to sell to its customers. Unlike clothing, chicken meat is perishable. Sure, another "more ethical" supplier might step up, but not until after KFC went out of business due to a lack of product.





There are plenty of alternative suppliers.

Also, it's not perishable... It's shipped frozen, not fresh.
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

(pssst.. this isn't 3rd grade anymore. Real "facts" tend to require a source.. a link would be nice. And hopefully you're not going to provide the all-creatures.org site as a valid source.)

An how about the rest of my statement? No comments?

Why should I bother refuting the other statements? I really don't care, but are these good enough sources for you?

Breward, J. (1984) "Cutaneous nociceptor [pain receptors] in the chicken beak." Journal of Physiology, London, 346: 56P.

Duncan, Ian et al. (1989) "Behavioral consequences of partial beak amputation (Beak Trimming) in poultry." British Poultry Science, 30: 479-488. The authors conclude that "the behavioral data presented here together with the recent neural data (Breward and Gental, 1985), suggest that the idea of beak trimming being a short-lived discomfort for the bird, may be far from accurate. The short and long-term changes in behavior, particularly the substantial decrease in activities involving the beak and the increase in inactivity particularly in the first week after the operation, suggests that the birds are suffering severe pain."

Appleby, Michael C. (1991) Do Hens Suffer in Battery Cages? A Review of the Scientific Evidence Commissioned by the Ahtene Trust. Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, the University of Edinburgh. 20 pp. On debeaking, see pp. 9-10: "The main injury caused by humans, knowingly rather than accidentally, is beak trimming. It is now known to cause pain, in the short term and probably also in the long term, in a way similar to other amputations."
 

Jynx980

Senior member
Jan 10, 2001
604
0
0
I have said it before: If we knew half of the stuff that happens to our food before we eat it we would all be level 5 vegans;dont eat anything that casts a shadow.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: Jynx980
I have said it before: If we knew half of the stuff that happens to our food before we eat it we would all be level 5 vegans;dont eat anything that casts a shadow.

Meh, if I absolutely had to, I'd do it myself. I've prepared chickens before (from alive to being on my plate) and it really wasn't that bad. Kinda weird seeing the chicken take off like that, but oh well. I'd probably have to live on a farm though to support my love of meat.