KFC, don't give in! We need you to stick it to the little man!

Totally not swayed by this, especially because it's from PETA. That's just how it's done. Of course, making sport of the birds and pre-slaughter breaking wings and legs is unnecessary. That doesn't make it wrong to consume chickens.

Chickens are not ''the same as people.'' They don't need the same treatment that we would, and that's one of the big problems with messages like this. These people try to personify the chickens, and make a chicken's death EQUAL with a human's. Wait, who drew that ''line?'' Well, what if someone ELSE wants to draw a different line, and say that it's only evil to eat people, but cows, pigs, and chickens are okay? Doesn't the ''other guy'' count, too?

Chickens have to be kept in a place where they can't pile up onto each other, since they frighten easily, and will kill each other by climbing on top of other chickens. The cramped quarters are for their own good. Their beaks are clipped because chickens are also prone to aggression and cannibalism. This is so they don't all kill each other, as well.

The bone breaking and ''making sport'' of them is not necessary, but think about it...WHO ELSE takes a job killing chickens, but those who can find at least a little enjoyment in it? I'm not saying that part of the slaughter is RIGHT, but it seems this video is using the ''shock factor,'' since they're betting that most people have no clue as to how chickens are raised and slaughtered.

This video is old, too. In a 2003 article, the issue is addressed:

''Bachelder "jumped on the corporate jet and flew to PETA's hometown of Norfolk," PETA's website crowed, acquiescing to five of PETA's eight demands. According to the organization's victory report, among other matters, Bachelder pledged to install cameras in all of KFC's 29 slaughterhouses by the end of next year, with a plan to audit the tapes monthly. KFC also agreed 1) to ensure that its suppliers would add stimulation devices to the perches in the chicken sheds; 2) to move quickly to kill chickens in electric stun baths rather than merely immobilizing them; 3) to implement humane mechanized chicken-gathering systems; and 4) to provide increased space for chicken housing. KFC promised to report back to PETA on a regular basis to verify its compliance.''

The whole thing can be found here: http://www.discovery.org/a/1515

''And so I genuinely felt obliged to call...'' ...you out.

I know, I know, ''it's just a picture, Mike!'' and I should ''chill out.'' But I couldn't help but think that some people accept this without any further thought on the matter. So here we go:



1.) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Before I get too far into that, let me preface with this: God is love. Forced love is no love at all. If God created no possible avenue for humans to choose evil, that would be God, forcing us to do what He wants. If God imposed His will for perfection on us, He would no longer be who He is. ''So you're saying that God has limits?'' I'm saying that God is bound by His love for us, and His intolerance of evil. He allows us to make choices, even if it breaks His heart that we choose our own destruction. God does not force anyone to do anything. This is not an issue of ability; but an issue of God giving us a chance to choose for ourselves.



2.) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is the author suggesting that if God doesn't ''step in,'' and put a stop to all evil, that God, Himself, is evil? I suppose it could appear that way to some. But what if God forced each person to surrender all freewill to Him; and to do exactly as He wishes? He would have a bunch of ''robots.'' He wouldn't really have ''us;'' --that would be God, just taking what He wants. He could have a bunch of robots any time He wants, but what God really wants is us. This is why our ability to choose is so important. Malevolent? No. Heartbroken? Yes.



3.) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

He is both able and willing. ''Then how did evil come to be?'' We are the ones God allowed to choose evil or good. Any evil in the world exists because we chose it. God doesn't force us to do anything.



4.) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him ''God?''

He has given us sovereignty over our own destinies. He will eventually deliver us over to whatever it is that we have chosen for ourselves.



So? That still doesn't prove God exists!

Correct, but it does deconstruct this argument.





And about the comment at the end ''Atheists. Winning since 33 A.D.'' I can appreciate a good joke, and that was clever.

...Except the fact that this was actually the dawn of Christianity. Since Christianity is ''just one more theist religion'' to atheism, the dawn of Christianity is more accurately described as the point in time that atheism began to fail more and more, as time progressed to present day.

To the persecuted carni/omnivores:

I apologise for being so confusing in my previous post. I will clarify with a more organised version:

Given:
X.) As we live on earth, we must eat to survive.
Y.) Anything we eat must die.

Scenario # 1: ''Hierarchy''
ALL lives are valued differently, and some lives are more valuable than others.

What we can conclude:
A.) Cows deserve to live more than plants.
B.) Humans deserve to live more than cows.
1.) Wait, how did I arrive at Conclusion B?! The same way anyone arrived at the conclusion it was less evil to eat plants than cows.
C.) It is not wrong for humans to kill cows for food.
D.) It it less wrong for humans to kill plants for food.

IF Scenario # 1 is wrong to say that some things deserve life over others (Human > cow > soy ), then everything has the same right to live as everything else (human = cow = soy).

Scenario # 2: ''Pervasive Equality''
ALL lives are valued equally and have an equal right to life.

What we can conclude:
A.) It is just as bad to kill a cow or plant for food as it would be to kill a person for food.
B.) Humans still must kill in order to eat.
C.) Rather than killing humans; cows and plants are killed, incurring the same guilt nonetheless.
1.) if you have killed a carrot by eating it, you may as well have killed a cow or a person.
D.) In this scenario, killing a cow or killing a plant deserves no condemation, since all must kill to eat, so all are equally guilty.
1.) if you farm cows for food, you ARE killing more plants than those who eat strictly plants; however, ALL are murderers in the gravest degree.
a.) Mathematically speaking, the cow farmer has caused more death, but how many times must one kill before he is considered a murderer?


Conclusion:
Scenario # 1.: Eating animals is okay. Eating plants is ''more okay.'' Neither action is bad. Eating humans is the most evil thing to eat.

Scenario # 2.: Eating animals is terrible. Eating plants is terrible. In order to survive, we must do terrible things. Eating humans is just as bad as eating anything else. Just...please, don't eat humans, okay?

What cannot be is (human = cow > soy) Either there is total Pervasive Equality, or there is a hierarchy. If some lives are equal to humans, and other lives are not, who gets to make such an arbitrary judgement which determines the morality of everyone else's food?

*here's the reason this post was originally written*
Those who still eat meat are made to feel guilty (by SOME vegetarians/vegans, not all) by means of the ''Pervasive Equality'' idea. If Pervasive Equality is true, then everyone who lives is a murderer, and to point a blood-stained finger and shout through dripping red teeth at your brother or sister they are a murderer is more evil than necessary.
*that was the reason this post was originally written---^*

For the record, I identify with the ''Hierarchy'' idea. I addressed ''Pervasive Equality'' to show, in its entirety, the reasoning being used to condemn omnivores/carnivores for eating animals when, according to some, there is more equality across different life forms than others are aware of.

For example, let's say you draw the line at cows, and say it's wrong to eat cows. That's fine for you, but to push that guilt system on someone who loves hamburger is wrong. You have drawn the line, but what about that other person? What if THEY want to draw a line? Doesn't it matter what they say, every bit as much as what you say? Who wins? Either: (Scenario#1).: lines can be drawn by everyone, or (Scenario#2).: no lines can ever be drawn; otherwise it just gets tainted by one person's personal arbitration. This means that ''Pervasive Equality'' is the only other viable scenario to the ''Hierarchy'' idea (i.e.: ''If they're not all unequal, then they are all equal.'')

This is different from your own personal code of ethics. I won't touch that. This is talking about the institution of a policy on all people (something I wouldn't attempt, but it seems others are more bold than I am.) in Scenario # 1, it's not wrong to eat cows. Stop putting guilt trips on me. In Scenario # 2, how can you condemn me while the blood is still fresh on your hands?

Also, please don't ask me to defend ''Pervasive Equality'' (questions/statements such as ''why don't we eat humans, then?'' and ''well, your cow farms kill more plants than we do.''). It's not my stance. I know that cow farms cause the death of countless plants. I don't care about plants that cows eat. You (though not ALL of you) wanted to condemn me based on ''Pervasive Equality,'' why are you asking me to defend your own position?