-
-
Last edited by MCMLXXXVI; Jul 18th, 2013 at 03:24 AM.
-
Last edited by MCMLXXXVI; Jul 18th, 2013 at 03:24 AM.
When the Police marksmen get there and assure the guy with the gun "No-ones going to die today" Hope everyone remains calm and not to twitchy on their trigger fingers and the guy threatening the chicken gets the psychiatric care that he needs!
In Leedsveg-land, such problems are easily resolvable. I'd talk to the gun-person so that they realised that violence to animals is wrong. They'd then feel so ashamed at what they'd try do, that they'd 'turn vegan', go away and set up a centre for rescued animals with the chicken as the first resident. Oh, and they'd be really effective at persuading people not to go into KFCs but to go vegan. Perfect solution (except for KFC).
Far fetched? Only as much as the original scenario.
lv
I try hard to not allow other people to influence my decisions. Therefore I would not eat the KFC and I would not feel responsible for the death of the other chicken either. The alive chicken is effectively dead in that this person has no respect for its interests whatsoever... and that is the root of the problem.
By eating the KFC you do not raise awareness or make that person at least consider your thoughts as avvalid moral and rational option.
No, I don't see the decisions as connected. It's my decision to not eat KFC, it's their decision to kill the chicken.
Whose to say they wouldn't kill it anyway? Why trust some lunatic with a gun?
-
Last edited by MCMLXXXVI; Jul 18th, 2013 at 03:25 AM.
I'd do what I ALWAYS do in these hostage situations, (I'm a negotiator by trade) ....................use my excellent negotiating skills and resolve the issue without anyone getting hurt. The chicken would be freed, the gunman would be carted off to prison and no one would have to eat the poor already dead chicken.
This kind of scenario happens to me nearly everyday so I'm very efficient at dealing with it now.
I like Sandra, she keeps making me giggle. Daft little lady - Frosty
Veganism is about respecting the rights of non humans not about stopping animal killing.
(Most) Vegans don't go into slaughter houses and stop animal killing, they don't go into shelters to stop companion animals being "euthanised", they don't go into farmers houses to stop them killing their animals, they don't get into fights with fishermen etc...
Veganism is a personal decision about YOURSELF and only YOURSELF.
I respect the personhood of the KFC chicken and therefore do not eat it (just like I would not eat a human corpse). The fact that there is a nutter with a gun trying to negotiate with me is totally inconsequencial to my decision.
PS. Plus I agree with risker... No-one talked about the "absolute morality of not eating animal products", we just talked about the decisions not being connected in any way...
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
Hi Sandra
As the chicken would survive with your and my actions, maybe we could have a celebratory glass of wine or two in that virtual bar over the road?
leedsveg:smile:
lol
I'll see you there Leedsveg! xxx
I like Sandra, she keeps making me giggle. Daft little lady - Frosty
Nicely dealt with so far people, plenty of intelligent responses.
I was left wondering how many children fear menaces if they don't eat what they are told to eat.
Although this scenario type has been discussed many times on this forum, I'm not sure that those threads are still available, so just in case MCMLXXXVI is trying to get to grips with the 'nominal causality' of "supply and demand"...
If there is no alternative to swallowing flesh then there is no alternative. Before people can take the vegan alternative, they must be aware that such a thing is possible. When vegan possibilities have been developed into available alternatives, then people will be able to demonstrate their feelings and considerations.
The logistical management skills of individuals will be factors in the implementation of slaughter mitigation, but the creation and demonstration of vegan existence is perhaps more effective than fighting over doomed bodies. Terminate the doom.
Problematic is waking someone whom pretends to sleep.
How would the chicken cross the road?
I kissed a duck - and I liked it
Oh dear, we've found another of those "if you were on a desert island and the only thing to eat was a steak..." stories.
I didn't read all of the other responses, but the answer is clear-cut for me.
The person threatening the live chicken is 100% responsible for their own actions. They cannot argue with any credibility that someone else's actions determined the fate of the chicken THEY killed. If they used the knife, they were responsible, no excuses. IMO, the same reasoning applies in legal cases involving so-called 'provocation'. It's unfortunate that some people have no capacity for reflection or reason, but what can you do?
This scenario reminds me of a scene in the movie 'No country for old men'...Carla Jones refuses to play the game of a psychopath, stating that the choice to kill her or not by the flip of a coin toss, has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with his will.
If a vegan ate the Kentucky Fried Cruelty chicken in an attempt to save the live one, I wouldn't have a problem with that as it's already dead (and presumably paid for). That wouldn't change anything. The would-be killer would either spare the chicken, or kill it. Regardless of their stated reasons for acting, their choice has nothing to do with the actions of a by-stander. So, the odds are the same in either case.
fiver.
Heh, after reading this thread the other day and thinking "what a silly question, no one I know is going to ask me that", and then today at work one of my workmates asked me pretty much this exact question!! Except he substituted a chicken for a cow :P
I think a more real world question may be something like...
You are a Traveller in a part of the World that doesn't get many visitors, the locals are very friendly and hospitable they invite you for meal, You discover they have killed an animal for it! It may cause great offence to them that you don't eat the food they give you.. How do you handle it?
You don't eat the animal, and explain why.How do you handle it?
This way, you'll contribute to prevent something similar to happen in the future - because these people will now know that they can't expect that all visitors think and feel the same about eating dead animals as they do.
Maybe those who killed or prepared the animals won't understand you, at least not right away - but by not eating that animal, you've changed that society a little bit - eg. the kids may remember, if they don't feel like killing or eating animals, that there are others out there who feel the same way.
Some people live in very isolated areas, and maybe the only way to give them or their children a little glimpse of alternative lifestyles, respect for animals, and an understanding for the the need to accept different thinking humans is to politely say no thanks to eating a dead animal.
That must be better than to give them a perfect example of hypocrisy ("I'm actually against eating meat, but I'll do it for you" - which only would give them the feeling that there may not really be a good reason to take your viewpoints seriously, since you appear to not even take them seriously your self.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
Possibly of interest, possibly not ...
This 'causing of offence' problem was one encountered by buddhist monks when buddhism first kicked off. Problem manifested in two forms; First, as Mr Pixie already covered, was the causing of offence, by refusal, to those who offered the monks non-veggie food out of genuine kindness and good will. Second was that those seeking quarrel with the monks would deliberately offer them non-veg and then kick seven bells out of the monks when they, as they were bound to, refused it.
The buddha countered this by making the 'three exceptions' rule: Namely that in the wandering season when the monks (prohibited from carrying food or money to buy food) when the monks were alms dependant they could accept meat on the conditions that: 1. They had not seen the animal being killed. 2. They had not heard the animal being killed. 3. They had no reason to believe that the animal had been killed on the monks behalf.
The additional caveat was added that, in order to stop quarrel being intentionaly picked, it wasn't just meat that the monks had to accept. They had accept and eat anything at all that was put in their bowls: Rotten food, spit, puke whatever ...
Bit about that which may be relevant to the topic in hand: These exceptions may have stopped a little bit of offence being caused and prevented many monks having the bejasus kicked out of them a few thousand year ago, BUT!
The upshot is that by selective misinterpretation and application of these exceptions a few thousand years worth of buddhists have used them as an excuse for NOT being vegetarian and buddhists for thousand of years to come will probably use them as an excuse for not being vegetarian also.
M'musing on the subject is that the suffering prevented by making exceptions to strict vegetarian principles is as a gnats-piss into all the oceans of the world compared to the amount of suffering it has perpetuated.
All done in the best possible taste ...
I'd rather not eat the chicken.... err or probably talk to the man and try to stop him from killing the chicken and talk him out of it.
Carrot!
In this way, many many people claim that eating [or buying] meat does not make them responsible for the death of animals slaughtered for market.
The subject has many faces. Sometimes the solution need not be rigorously comprehensive, but need only transport individuals from constraining contexts.
One could argue that the slaughterwoman is only responsible for the killings until she refuses to slaughter animals... after which she is just not the same person.
The original scenario is less ridiculous when the man with the long distance hammer is internalised within the mind of the sufferer. That is, when we identify with such reasons as they pass through our minds.
How about showing gratitude and respect, whilst reverently burying the food [or performing whichever rights are appropriate for that culture]... flowers on the grave, the works. One should perhaps respectfully avoid cannibals as a special exception?
Problematic is waking someone whom pretends to sleep.
I like Sandra, she keeps making me giggle. Daft little lady - Frosty
Mostly men I suppose...possibly because the women know that the men will do it for them. I was just trying to balance up my wording; I should use "slaughterperson" I suppose.
I googled "how many slaughter women" and found a "Slaughter women" dating site... on closer inspection, I think the page had been generated as a link by some kind of web robot which inserts whichever adjective you use, in order to point you to their customer's site.
Problematic is waking someone whom pretends to sleep.
You're right Whalespace that mostly men would do it...............but I have to say that if men didn't, I don't think there would be many women up for the job.
That dating site sounds a barrel of laughs!
I like Sandra, she keeps making me giggle. Daft little lady - Frosty
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men." ~Alice Walker.
Slaughterhouse workers are 100% responsible for the deaths of the animals they kill. Consumers of meat are aiding and abetting the workers' actions (they are accessories). A person who refuses to be coerced by the threats of an armed assailant does no comparable thing."The person threatening the live chicken is 100% responsible for their own actions. They cannot argue with any credibility that someone else's actions determined the fate of the chicken THEY killed. If they used the knife, they were responsible, no excuses.
...
In this way, many many people claim that eating [or buying] meat does not make them responsible for the death of animals slaughtered for market."
Would just explain that I'm not eating the KFC regardless of the threatened action. The person making the threat is going to do what they are going to do whether you eat it or not.
How about this...
You go to a restaurant for dinner with 10 omni friends. Before they order their meals, they offer you a deal. All 10 of them agree to eat a vegan meal IF you yourself order a steak. What do you do?
^ I think you could easily reword that to say that 10 of your "friends" threaten to eat meat if you don't eat a steak.
I won't be blackmailed on my ethics.
I'd get new friends
"If you don't have a song to sing you're okay, you know how to get along humming" Waltz (better than fine) - Fiona Apple
It's weird to think about. If you choose to be vegan purely for health reasons, then obviously this has no meaning. But if you look at it from an ethical stand point... Obviously 1 steak has less of an impact than 10. I'm still unsure as to what I'd do...
It's a heartless thing to do to someone. Make a joke out of something they take so seriously... But still, do you look at being vegan as personally not being responsible for animal suffering, or do you look at it as more than that?
You can't be vegan purely for health reasons. Veganism is a "way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment."
In which case they wouldn't have a problem with the friends eating the steak?
"If you don't have a song to sing you're okay, you know how to get along humming" Waltz (better than fine) - Fiona Apple
I wouldn't think so It was essentially the same question that was originally posted. Would you eat chicken if it meant saving the life of a live chicken? And would you eat a steak, which meant 10 omnis would eat a vegan meal, knowing that somewhere down the line it's doing more good than you could do on your own?
By the time you're sitting in the restaurant, the meat is already in the freezer/pantry: the animals turned into either one or ten steaks are already dead."Obviously 1 steak has less of an impact than 10. I'm still unsure as to what I'd do..."
It could be argued that the restaurant's sales figures will be affected by your buying one steak, instead of your friends buying ten. If the decreased demand were a trend (unlikely), they might obtain less meat the following week which would filter back to the slaughterhouse/farmers and perhaps reduce the number of animals killed.
Tom Regan crushes this (utilitarian) way of thinking in Chapter 6 of his book, The Case For Animal Rights - which incidentally, every vegan should read.
Well no matter how small the action is, it should have at least some effect somewhere down the line, right? If every omni on the planet suddenly decides to only eat meat once a week, the farms aren't going to continue producing the same amount of meat. So the 9 steaks that wouldn't have been eaten, would mean less meat being purchased next week. Of course it wouldn't be a huge difference. It wouldn't even mean the difference in one less animal being bred and slaughtered. But if you add that on to you being vegan, and vegetarians in the community, together you would think you could save at least a few animals over the course of the year.
I don't know how you could calculate it, but does anyone know a rough estimate of how many animals are killed just to feed a single omnivore for a year?
Ah, the attempt to separate the utilitarians from the deontologists! Do you do what has the best consequences or do you follow rules no matter what the consequences?
I consider myself a utilitarian, but I think that there are some rules which will effectively need to be followed all the time for the sake of having the best consequences come about. For instance, the consequences of sacrificing anyone's rights are too great, from the perspective of the one who's rights are being violated to the psychological effect on the rights violator. So, for me, rights and certain rules come with utilitarianism, and any attempt to dismiss them reveals flawed reasoning.
So, in this particular instance, what would I do?
For one thing, we need to recognize that the chicken you'd be eating is already dead, and cannot be harmed anymore. That's what decides it for me. I'd eat the chicken. I wouldn't trust the nut with the gun, but I'd cooperate in the hopes that he would follow through with his promise not to harm the live chicken.
For me, eating meat is not in itself wrong: it's the violation of the rights of the individual animal that is wrong. The suffering, the killing, the exploitation, etc. - that's what makes it wrong, and what makes supporting it financially or encouraging it in other ways wrong.
I have more thoughts on the matter that I could elaborate on, but I've already done too much procrastinating on projects I have due tomorrow! Must wrap things up here...
If the "Consumers" are only 'swallowing' the flesh, then they would only be "aiding and abetting" if space was very tight, and the slaughterer's progress was impeded by slipping on twitching foetuses, and the like. Were the "Consumers" to negotiate the skin, organs, and muscle tissue to be acquired and provided by some organisation... then they would certainly be conspirators. I did not use the term "money" in the previous sentence, because people confuse that term, then get lost in something else. The 'negotiation' is a more useful subject for scrutiny.
Negotiation can commence between people, or between as few as two potential outcomes in the mind of a single person.
Missions to negotiate reduction of flesh use [or animal abuse], with those people whom do not care about animal consciousness or welfare, engage in continual negotiation...and result in enabling the abusers in all of the deals that are made... since they will only settle in their own interests.
A logical outcome to be sought would be that of proving that veganism is in the interests of the affore mentioned abusers.
Alternatively exist missions to generate sensibility of animal consciousness and their ability to suffer, probably combined with remedies to delusional states.
Permission is currency, persuasion is a force.
Problematic is waking someone whom pretends to sleep.
@whalespace - When I wrote 'Consumers of meat' I was referring to those who pay for and use goods and services. Not those who simply eat or drink!
Perhaps a better analogy for the latter (those 'swallowing the flesh') would be people who allow themselves to benefit from the perpetration of a crime, as in knowingly receiving stolen goods.
"Receiving stolen goods" fits the bill;... maybe perverting the course of justice?
Being disgusting isn't a crime in Britain... I'm not familiar with oscenity laws.
Problematic is waking someone whom pretends to sleep.
Be surprised, because none of my friends would make weird statements like that- they all respect me and me being vegan, even if they still don't quite understand it, and would never do this.
But, say they did, I'd ask why they want me to eat a steak so much. To feel better about themselves?
I might even get so offended as to get up and walk out. Getting 10 people to eat vegan for one meal is not really going to change anything and it would be pointless to sit around with disrespectful people trying to be smartasses when there are 100s of better things I could be doing with my time.
Bookmarks