Rather because we have things that all other animals don't. You know what it is.

What, intelligence? Sentience? As if that were the only difference that was important. If you kick that dog over there hard enough, he may not have sentience like humans, but he'll still be sore in the morning.

What we have and other animals don't are the capacity to learn and to adapt. That, and ambition, have brought us to the place we now are in the world.

But sincerely, I still don't think how that makes us any superior. Intelligence isn't what 'it' is all about.
I think it's like comparing a computer to a pen and sey the computer is superior just because it has AI.
Makes no sense. In my opinion. But I can see that many think differently...

how can there be any such thing as a system without any flaws?

furthermore, unless you argue that God exists and is demanding that we eat meat, then the argument that despite the fact that our bodies are capable of existing perfectly happily on just veg we are somehow not meant to is nonsensical.

in any 'nature is wise' translation, if our bodies allow for continued healthy existence under certain conditions, then we should embrace those conditions. vegetarianism is just as viable biologically as a meat and veg diet, and with your previous admissions there's no rational basis from which you can argue otherwise.

there are other compelling reasons why we should just kick KFC the hell out of our lives. 9 a day (in case you didn't know, 5 a day is the CHILDREN'S RDA) of fruit and veg... 7 for women. There's biomass, too. At each stage of the food chain 90% of the energy of the previous stage is lost. Which obviously means veg is WAY more efficient and more to the point, cheaper to live on.

anyway, my point is that our biology does not demand that we eat meat. it's entirely our own choice.

Furthermore, Gnasher, it's very probable that the simple fact that we are discussing the morality of this or indeed morality at all sets us apart from other animals. We are the only species shown to apply or even understand any kind of motivation beyond simple wants and needs.

You keep asking what sets us apart, and in this discussion it couldn't be more obvious. this conversation IS what sets us apart.

Agreed. It's entirely our own choice. So, if we choose to eat meat, we are completely free to do so.

Or not completely free. We, as humans, are bound to the concept of morality.

But morality, being a product 100% out of the human mind, is a totally relative concept. There is no way to include morality in your calculations as an absolute factor. So, as any relative aspect of life, we can only judge morality if we specify a point of view.

In this specific case: from our point of view, as watchers of that movie, is KFC's actions moral? No. Just no.
But, from the point of view of the worker at KFC who must do what he is told to do... if he feels sorry for the chickens, he risks losing his job; and then perhaps putting his entire family in danger. So, are his actions moral? From his point of view, most likely.

If there's anything my few but eventful years of life have taught me, is that in any discussion about morality or ethics, the 'good side' and the 'bad side' will always cancel each other out. There are so many points of view and different aspects that we disconsider when judging morality. Of course you may disagree. But I have had no reasons to believe otherwise yet.
Reaching a conclusion, I can only expect us to include morality as a 0 in our equation.

Of course you can ignore any other point of view but one in your equation. That way, you'll reach an absolute conclusion; I'm sure it's what most vegetarians do.
I, as a personal choice, do not like doing so, for the simple fact that I'll end with a selfish conclusion.

That being, we're back to the same issue up there: eat meat or not, it's entirely our choice.
You may eat meat. You may not eat. Sincerely, I don't care, and I'm sure you have reasons for whichever one you choose. I can't judge any other person's decision.

Alright then, I'm finished here... this debate is over for me, I don't care if I 'lose' it or not. I have already expressed the opinion I wanted to.

you're treating morality unfairly. *shrug*

to argue that morality is meaningless because it is not absolute is absurd. after all, each country has its own laws in regard to driving, for instance. to argue that since these laws are not absolute you can do whatever you want on any road in any country is as ridiculous as your own attempt to sideline human morality for it's subjectivity.

^_^

...

as it is, you've quoted me out of context. the very fact that we possess a morality that can and does give motivations that impede and supersede our own selfish wants and desires is a quintessential human quality, which is my only reason for stating the passage you've quoted. that is what i argue seperates us from animals.

whether your own morality holds true for anyone else is irrelevant if it holds true for you. which of course it necessarily does.

hence, morality is not any kind of zero, and my argument of above is vindicated.




... also, by the way, no-one loses in a real debate. to act as if that's what debate is about is the most obnoxious and counter-productive misapprehension to blight the history of thought.

both parties are meant to learn from a debate, or you turn debate into a meaningless locking of horns. if you're talking about 'losing', you are thinking of us as opposed, which we absolutely should not be. To see the other party in a discussion as your enemy is a common problem, though. tbh, i absolutely hate it. ^_^;

in any case, you're finished here, as you put it. i guess i don't really have much else to add, except just to say thanks for the discussion, bud. i enjoyed it.

^_^

Heh. That's why I quoted 'lose', actually. There is no real lose.

Anyway, yeah, nice discussion ^^

even if i took it a tad too seriously ^_^;;

but yeah, i noticed the quote marks. if i didn't think you thought like i did, i wouldn't have been anywhere near as strongly-spoken about debate/argument as i was.

^___^ so, anyone want chicken?

Yeah, I'll still eat KFC every once in a while. There's nothing morally wrong with it, IMO.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat. NOTHING.

Where are talking about animal treatment. Before it ends up on you plate.

If you can walk up to something.. And shoot it in the brain, heart or what ever. Thats it.. Its a done deal. Enjoy it... Eat it up. Be happy.

But if you have to brake legs, chop beaks off, kick them around, Thats not right.


Let me ask you all something.. Do animals scream?

Then ask your self.. Why do they scream?

1# answer because there in pain.

Hours of pain... Days of pain...

Then ask your self. Why? Why does this pain
have to last?

Death should be quick.

I shutter the idea of being reincarnated. O.O

Ummm..Gnasher. Ix. I don't wanna say you're missing the point. But I think you might be. I seriously doubt many are gonna argue with you about killing something to feed us. And masskilling for mass feeding is perfectly logical.

Ummm. So the point isn't that we're killing them. It's how we're killing them. Like that video showed, chopping off beaks and breaking legs. And then just letting the animals slowly die. Well. They die either way. So it sucks for them. But think about it. If you were someones food would you rather have them just kill you and be done with it, or would you like it if they cut your nose off and broke your legs and waited for you to die?

Yes. It's a part of nature to feed ourselves. That was never in question. Hell I'll probably go get some fast food here in a second (but that doesn't mean I'm a hypocrit Regal)

Is it wrong? Not sure. Is it unethical? Maybe. Ya the lines get scewed. But here's one thing that's perfectly clear to me. If I was in the chicken's position I'd prefer for it to be clean and quick. But. I'm not in a position of power to make that decision. I would just hope the guys who are actually doing it could see it from that point.

Heres some more food for thought.

What if your not in the mood for KFC this week?
What if thousands and millions of us are not in the mood for
KFC this week. Does that mean all those chickens died for no good reason? After a while chickens are not fresh anymore. What happens then? I know people can freeze chicken. But even KFC throws away chickens that are expired.

Now you're just posting an extreme hypothetical. People will eat at KFC every day. People eat almost anywhere every day. The chickens will die for a reason, no matter what. If they're not going to KFC, they could be going to Popeye's, Church's, HEB, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Pete's Basement Dweller, and wherever else. Even if KFC was forced to close down, there would be other places for the chicken to go.

Why can we eat other animals but not eat other humans? It's un-natural to not be able to feast on each other? "You should really try the Jim, hes very tasty. "

That question is dumb. Not even animals eat members of their own species. Not unless they become Donners.

Actually, very few animals eat their own. Like maybe about 100 out of a million or so.

Anyway, to kill them fast or slow, they die either way. But there is no reason to do unnecessary blows to the animal before you kill it.

Sure people eat people... Think about it.. Every time a child picks it nose and eats it.. Or swallows a peace of dead skin, like a toe/finger nail clipping. Your eating a part of you..

Yeah, That ideas is gross. But I thought it was fun to bring it up. LMAO




I don't think its that extreme at all. I'm sure some KFC's have slower days then others depending how far from a city there are. And if the KFC really does plan on feeding 100,000. people and only 25,000 show. Theres going to be a lot of left over chickens.

That's what statistics are for. You gauge how many people come in and then you estimate how much you need. It's simple knowledge.

PETA sucks. they are the one who treat animals badly

As long as they keep selling me KFC Snackers.