Would you eat an inhumane slaughtered chicken?

Would you eat an inhumane slaughtered chicken?


  • Total voters
    31

puffypoo

Crossing the Road
Oct 3, 2015
2,521
17,044
887
Massachusetts
Nuh-uh. At chicken 'rights' I draw the line. Since we are trying to 'educate' people here and 'spread the word' after all...

Welfare, sure. Living things deserve to be treated well. All of them. Welfare deals with quality of life... Food, housing, water, treatment for injury or disease, gentle handling, painless death, etc. Animal welfare supposes a quality of life.

Animal 'rights' is a different beast. Rights supposed inalienable rights as desired and established as autonomous creatures. Animal rights is often in antithesis to animal welfare.

Right suggests an inalienable autonomy that animals do not have, nor should they. You cannot own something with rights. Even children in their limited understanding have rights as assigned and defended by the state.
You cannot own a dog if the dog has rights. You cannot eat a chicken that has rights. Animal rights is in antithesis to all animal ownership. Even the biggest supporters and advocated for animal rights acknowledge this. Groups like PETA who support animal rights openly make their mission statement clear:
"We believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed." - PETA
(Please note that these organizations often believe this so strongly that they often advocate for the death of animals before ownership and act on these beliefs.)

This is not acceptable. Ownership of animals is a two-way street. Both parties benefit, ultimately. Animals often gain a genetic diversity, a secure population and a quality of life unattainable in the wild. Humans gain the benefits that the animals bring - food, companionship, work, etc.
To suggest that animals cannot be owned is to suggest that they must be wild. To suggest that all animals be wild is to suggest that every prey be mercilessly taken down by predators and begun to be eaten while they are still alive. To suggest that all animals be wild is to suggest that injuries go untreated and result in a long painful death. To be wild is to starve in the winter, glut yourself in the summer, live in fear of predation or where your next meal comes from. Life in the wild is unkind and uncertain and the ONLY option for animals with rights.

Indeed, giving 'rights' to dogs, cows, domestic chickens and more is to ultimately subject those species to genocide. To be unowned is death for many of those animals. They literally evolved exclusively to live with us and under our care.

So since you're busy 'educating' people, you may want to consider WHAT you are trying to educate people ON.
Quality of life for domestic animals?
Or some misguided agenda that says a farm life is more cruel for a cow than death itself?

Cause one of those is going to fly on a website full of pet and livestock owners, who enjoy and love and have a mutual benefit with their animals, much better than the other. :T
(Not that we didn't totally see this sort of moralistic posturing hashtag coming from this post.)
:goodpost::goodpost:
I 100% believe in animal welfare. No animal deserves cruel treatment. But animal rights is not what it sounds like a lot of the time.
 

BuffOrpington567

Songster
Aug 31, 2018
432
428
137
UK
Nuh-uh. At chicken 'rights' I draw the line. Since we are trying to 'educate' people here and 'spread the word' after all...

Welfare, sure. Living things deserve to be treated well. All of them. Welfare deals with quality of life... Food, housing, water, treatment for injury or disease, gentle handling, painless death, etc. Animal welfare supposes a quality of life.

Animal 'rights' is a different beast. Rights supposed inalienable rights as desired and established as autonomous creatures. Animal rights is often in antithesis to animal welfare.

Right suggests an inalienable autonomy that animals do not have, nor should they. You cannot own something with rights. Even children in their limited understanding have rights as assigned and defended by the state.
You cannot own a dog if the dog has rights. You cannot eat a chicken that has rights. Animal rights is in antithesis to all animal ownership. Even the biggest supporters and advocated for animal rights acknowledge this. Groups like PETA who support animal rights openly make their mission statement clear:
"We believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed." - PETA
(Please note that these organizations often believe this so strongly that they often advocate for the death of animals before ownership and act on these beliefs.)

This is not acceptable. Ownership of animals is a two-way street. Both parties benefit, ultimately. Animals often gain a genetic diversity, a secure population and a quality of life unattainable in the wild. Humans gain the benefits that the animals bring - food, companionship, work, etc.
To suggest that animals cannot be owned is to suggest that they must be wild. To suggest that all animals be wild is to suggest that every prey be mercilessly taken down by predators and begun to be eaten while they are still alive. To suggest that all animals be wild is to suggest that injuries go untreated and result in a long painful death. To be wild is to starve in the winter, glut yourself in the summer, live in fear of predation or where your next meal comes from. Life in the wild is unkind and uncertain and the ONLY option for animals with rights.

Indeed, giving 'rights' to dogs, cows, domestic chickens and more is to ultimately subject those species to genocide. To be unowned is death for many of those animals. They literally evolved exclusively to live with us and under our care.

So since you're busy 'educating' people, you may want to consider WHAT you are trying to educate people ON.
Quality of life for domestic animals?
Or some misguided agenda that says a farm life is more cruel for a cow than death itself?

Cause one of those is going to fly on a website full of pet and livestock owners, who enjoy and love and have a mutual benefit with their animals, much better than the other. :T
(Not that we didn't totally see this sort of moralistic posturing hashtag coming from this post.)
#chickenwelfare then
 

BuffOrpington567

Songster
Aug 31, 2018
432
428
137
UK
This is very wrong
It disgust me how they think its acceptable that they can slit its throat and leave it for a few minutes letting it bleed wast still alive and make the other chickens watch as well.
 

ChocolateMouse

Crowing
6 Years
Jul 29, 2013
2,758
5,702
387
Cleveland OH
Why is that?
Probably because your post seems to be trying to educate people about something most users of this site are educated about already. But also you seem to be misinformed and/or under-educated about the processes yourself. Indeed, you admit you don't even quite know what you're advocating for as you say it. Which, admittedly, has a lot of us concerned and suspicious. (This is a site that attracts a lot of deliberately inflammatory topics about animal rights. We greet these topics with as much respect as they earn.)

You're also on a website with people who have house chickens and people who have confined livestock where we've learned the lesson that how animals get treated isn't 100% black and white anywhere. House chicken people can allow their 'pets' suffer lengthy deaths from diseases, and even ground up male chicks in a woodchipper and early-butchered laying hens ultimately serve a purpose in life, feeding dogs or going into your canned soups, etc. A woodchipper would assuredly cause instant 100% brain death as well. Is that so bad?

Even that second video that you show saying "this is wrong"...

That bird is dead in seconds. Chickens bleed out FAST. My biggest problem with that video is not the kill, where the bird doesn't even react to the cut, but the rest of the conditions. The crowded cage, the unsanitary area, the scared birds in the background, the way the chicken is held by it's wings and swung around (probably not comfortable/probably frightening).

There's just no reason to have the thread go on forever to 'spread the word'. This is a chicken website. People engage with this topic on a more practical level every day on this site without the #savethewhales#oops#Imeanchickens posturing. They do it when they ask for butchering advice. Today I am going to engage on this topic in my own home as I process my extra roosters and make bone broth for my sick sister. They do it when they look at euthanasia for their pets in conditions where vets are unavailable. We don't need a theoretical topic to engage with - we have real ones we live regularly. And those are far more important than "did a male chick die in a woodchipper in a split second or to a knife in 20 seconds".
 
Top Bottom