Are Chickens Sentient?
Is the question on my mind right now.
Yeah, well.
Yes.
Yes unless they are dead.
Quote from: Yvonne on May 29, 2007, 11:04:38 PM
Yes unless they are dead.
Oh! That is a good distinction there,
*nods twice* yes it is!
May I answer with a question?
I'm not trying to be rude. But really... does it matter?
Cindi
Does it matter if something you eat is intelligent and self aware?
Depends on which side of the fork you are on...
*shrug*
Does it matter if you murder something that is intelligent and self aware because it is doing something you don't like/do not want?
*shrug*
Humanity is willfully blind to a great number of things because it does such things.
Or in fewer words, yes it matters if you are the chicken :P
of course they are! they've got different personalities and everything.
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 12:38:58 AM
Or in fewer words, yes it matters if you are the chicken :P
Really, chickens seem to have a pretty bad time when it comes to humans - if we aren't killing and eating them, we are stealing their unborn children and eating
them instead. Hardly seems fair, does it?
Megan
Quote from: MeganRose on May 30, 2007, 12:48:28 AM
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 12:38:58 AM
Or in fewer words, yes it matters if you are the chicken :P
Really, chickens seem to have a pretty bad time when it comes to humans - if we aren't killing and eating them, we are stealing their unborn children and eating them instead. Hardly seems fair, does it?
Megan
Cattle have it worse........
I'm going to say no, because I've seen no evidence that they are.
Actually, we aren't eating unborn chickens when we eat eggs. We are eating "chicken periods" since the eggs are unfertilized. Some people consider that worse though...
Yeah, see, I had this roommate recently, and she got these chickens. Now, a Jainist, or maybe even a Buddhist of some description believes that all these critters is potentially sentient, and you got to give them the benefit of the doubt. (of course, The Buddha in history died from eating too much Bar-B-Q. So, go figure, as per usual)
Only thing is, these animals is awful stupid. They defecate where they eat.
A guy I used to know defaced the KFC billboard when it hit the news what the Colonel was doin to them chickens, keepin em totally cooped up and feeding them their own excrement to fatten em up for the fryer. The slogan went: We Do Chicken Right. It now read, and quite a pro job dude did, too: You Done Them Chickens Wrong.
Now, of course, hearing about this KFC Chicken Holocaust as it were, was appalling. But, on the other hand, after seeing actual chickens in action, it occurred to me that once the Colonel started feeding them their own *stuff*, the diff was subtle enough that they might not even notice this shift. SO: I don't know about this sentience factor, know what I mean?
No doubt about it, they are pretty dumb animals. Pigs will eat excrement as will dogs. They are smarter animals than chickens. We used to have a dog that loved to follow our cat around... ewe!
I think that we should treat the animals we eat with some respect however. I believe in giving them a decent life while they are around.
Cindi
Well it has been somewhat frustrating, there having been the household edict, that Ya Don't Eat Chickens Round Here.
I Love Chicken. Bar-B-Q'd, Fried, lotsa ways
tmw
Cind, how can ya eat what ya respect. That's awful. Or it's Cannibalism.
Quote from: Zombies on May 30, 2007, 03:35:31 PM
My dictionary thing says that being sentient is being "able to perceive or feel things" (I'd cite it, but I'm not sure how to cite a widget)
I'd imagine that chickens are able to perceive or feel things. I guess.
But that's my point! If they don't care about pooping where they eat, Whence Perception?
They are sentient.
My reasoning for eating them is that they are winged freaks as are all birds. I don't know why we tolerate the presence of birds on this planet. I don't trust them. They look scary. And, if I heard right, they don't pay taxes. Birds are always crossing our borders without even pretending to have the proper papers.
Actually, I agree with Cindi that we should be respectful to them and even treat them humanely even though we still devour them. There's no reason to be extra cruel to other creatures (unless they is birds).
Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 30, 2007, 03:48:24 PM
They are sentient.
My reasoning for eating them is that they are winged freaks as are all birds. I don't know why we tolerate the presence of birds on this planet. I don't trust them. They look scary. And, if I heard right, they don't pay taxes. Birds are always crossing our borders without even pretending to have the proper papers.
Actually, I agree with Cindi that we should be respectful to them and even treat them humanely even though we still devour them. There's no reason to be extra cruel to other creatures (unless they is birds).
Well I tend to agree, let 'em totally free-range and get their chicken ya-yas out, and all that rhythm.
But I think they's made for eatin', is all.
Heh. Well, you guys have to remember that they are pretty stinking stupid NOW. Domestication sucks. That is the politest way I can phrase it to be perfectly honest. If you want to see a smart animal do not look to the poor domesticated slobs. You also need to remember that smarts is not a measure of sentience, else I've seen humans among others that would not qualify.
*shrug*...
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 03:49:58 PM
But I think they's made for eatin', is all.
An that point of view makes me want to cry.
*sigh*
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 05:16:04 PM
...
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 03:49:58 PM
But I think they's made for eatin', is all.
An that point of view makes me want to cry.
Oh good grief. I take it then you won't eat chicken, no way no how.
T
MW
If I didn't eat things that were once alive I would not eat at all. So far I've not had much luck at that.
*shrug*
It's the turning the blind eye that hurts me.
Let me leave it at that.
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 06:00:40 PM
If I didn't eat things that were once alive I would not eat at all. So far I've not had much luck at that.
*shrug*
It's the turning the blind eye that hurts me.
Let me leave it at that.
Maybe The Middle Way's eye is blind because it was pecked by a chicken. That would explain why she can be seen roaming the farmlands at every opportunity carrying a spear gun and sporting an eye patch.
I believe this would explain her preoccupation with finding out if chickens are sentient because she is interested in discovering their weaknesses.
::) :o ;D ;) ::)
I think you're onto something there. Could be worse, could be a Chupacabras.
I have turned a blind eye to what?
I like chickens, eating them, that is. They are tasty. I have actually spent a small amount of time recently, thinking:
do they have another function in this world?I think not. They's GOOD EATIN! Period. End of story. Blind Eye or what-have-you.
If you are not a practicing, nay,
religiously practicing vegetarian, my advice to you, is maybe stay away from such a judgment of another's ethics - about a chicken. LOL
the Middle Way
which is Not the Extreme Way
no way
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 30, 2007, 06:15:00 PM
I think you're onto something there. Could be worse, could be a Chupacabras.
You don't actually believe in that one do yez?
Nah,
torturing cows is something only bored country folk can do.
As for the vegetarian thing, I personally think that meat gives a dinner focus and without it, you got veg. Which is nice, but nice in the way Pete Poslethwaite is nice. He makes a great character actor, he just don't carry a whole film.
When I was a kid, I had a pet rooster, known by the descriptive name of 'Little Yellow Rooster.' He came when called and would ride on the handlebars of my bike, looking pleased.
Pooping where you eat doesn't make you stupid, it just makes you a creature with poor bowel control. The wild ancestors of chickens don't forage in the same place every day, so it doesn't matter if they poop there, they will be feeding somewhere else tomorrow. Geese are fabulously intelligent and forget nothing, and are biologically incapable of not pooping every couple of minutes.
Dr. Irene Pepperburg's lengthy studies in teaching African Grey Parrots to speak with cognition has concluded that the parrots have the intellect of an average five-year-old human, and the emotional maturity of a three-year-old human. Alex the parrot does speak with cognition. If you ask him what colour or shape something is, he will tell you correctly. He also expresses desires, and if he asks for a certain food item and you give him something else, he gets angry and will throw it at you. Not too long ago he was ill and was taken to the vet. When he realised he was about to be taken back to the clinic's hospital-ward, he said, "I'm sorry, I wanna go back." Parrots are very bright, but probably stupider than crows. The part of the human brain that allows us to do these kinds of thinking is not present in avian brains, but it is absolutely clear that birds can do this sort of thinking.
About ten years ago a grad-student at the University of Guelph did a mini-study with chickens. She gave several parrot-owning families day old white leghorn chicks and asked them to raise the chicks as pets, giving them the same social interactions as they gave their beloved parrots. The parrot owners reported that they did not find the chickens to be particularly stupider than their parrots, and they all wanted to (and were allowed to) keep their pet chickens.
Probably everything is brighter than we figure. You can train a guppy to jump over a match-stick on command.
Quote from: Doc on May 30, 2007, 06:40:27 PM
Pooping where you eat doesn't make you stupid, it just makes you a creature with poor bowel control. The wild ancestors of chickens don't forage in the same place every day, so it doesn't matter if they poop there, they will be feeding somewhere else tomorrow.
Well that isn't the same thing at all. And I have little doubt that chickens were not
as stupid, not nearly, in the wild, as they appear to be, domesticated. But I am sticking to my story here. These critters am not so very bright. I have heard reports of escape-artist genius chickens, but guess what? That chicken farmer eats hers, especially if they get too stupid on the job. THIS roommate had elevated chickens to a sort of elite position, above the food-chain so-to-speak, and well, there's a new bar-b-q joint in the nayborhood...
And I thought Chupacabra was some kind of goat-monster-from-hell. I do know, that down in places where they got roosters - to a man, they got roosters - you don't idly mention The Chupacabra, else they'll be TRUBBLE! Believe you, me.
I vaguely remember some X Files episode, Chupacabra! Better go back and take a look.
::)
they're as sentient as you are. :P
http://goveg.com/f-hiddenliveschickens_brainy.asp
QuoteWell that isn't the same thing at all. And I have little doubt that chickens were not as stupid, not nearly, in the wild, as they appear to be, domesticated.
Well, any creature that is raised in an 'enriched' environment (one with places to go, things to do, and novel events and objects) will score better on any 'intelligence' measure we have than one raised in a blank environment. If you want a stupid dog, get an adult dog that spent its entire puppyhood confined alone in a kennel with no toys. No matter if it's a notoriously smart breed like a border collie or a notoriously dumb one like a bulldog, the dog with the impovershed childhood will be dumb as rocks and probably fearful and neurotic. Just like a typical chicken. These chickens-raised-as-parrots were of the most common and highly-domesticated breed, but toys and interaction are a must for parrots, so the chickens were raised in an 'enriched' situation and thus grew up smart. Though my experience with my own chickens, the more common domesticated breeds seemed stupider than the prettier rare breeds that are physically closer to the wild-type.
QuoteTHIS roommate had elevated chickens to a sort of elite position, above the food-chain so-to-speak, and well, there's a new bar-b-q joint in the nayborhood...
Heh. Ick. I am all for eating chickens should you be so inclined. Intelligence or emotional sensitivity do not give anybody or anything a free ride or a 'right' to be disconnected from the biotic enterprise. All living things must die and all corpses are in their turn eaten. The obscenity in eating chickens is not the eating of chickens, it is that most chickens we eat live non-lives. The same impovershed environment that causes them to be stupider than they ought to be strips their lives of joy and meaning, and the fact that they are treated like machine cogs devalues our own act of eating, transforming our relationship with food from one of intimacy to one of abuse.
Quote from: Doc on May 30, 2007, 07:14:45 PM
QuoteWell that isn't the same thing at all. And I have little doubt that chickens were not as stupid, not nearly, in the wild, as they appear to be, domesticated.
QuoteTHIS roommate had elevated chickens to a sort of elite position, above the food-chain so-to-speak, and well, there's a new bar-b-q joint in the nayborhood...
Heh. Ick. I am all for eating chickens should you be so inclined. Intelligence or emotional sensitivity do not give anybody or anything a free ride or a 'right' to be disconnected from the biotic enterprise. All living things must die and all corpses are in their turn eaten. The obscenity in eating chickens is not the eating of chickens, it is that most chickens we eat live non-lives. The same impovershed environment that causes them to be stupider than they ought to be strips their lives of joy and meaning, and the fact that they are treated like machine cogs devalues our own act of eating, transforming our relationship with food from one of intimacy to one of abuse.
Well, I have to come clean. These chickens were pets. Not very responsive pets, I might add. And noisy damn beasts to boot.
The lady, would-be-chicken-farmer's boy is allergic to stuff, it turns out the same stuff, pretty much, that I am allergic to. He has severe asthma. I have noticed that the boy is allergic to chickens. So we're talking about a weird co-dependent situation with the chickens (and the rabbits, especially "Michael", who basically eats newspapers on the kitchen floor all day), at the expense of actual persons, her own, in fact. And here I am, not allowed to bring chickens-for-eating up in the actual house.
So, I am kinda sorta struggling with Chicken Ethics as a result of this peculiar set of circumstances.
And so I wanted to ask, what's the deal?
And I am somewhat surprised at the thoughtfulness that is turning out of this topic, here.
Go Figure.
TMW
PS: My thought on Cannibalism, btw, per your biotic enterprise thought, is that it's more ethical than, say, creating a war in Iraq.
Anyway, what did chickens (back-in-the-day, before their stupidity was more-or-less enforced so we wouldn't feel too terrible about killing them for culinary purposes) actually do, you know with their sentient ways? I am clearly stuck on the thought that their function, nowadays, the only days I really now, is
to be et.
Ah. In that case, probably the fact that the chickens are chickens is not really relevant. It sounds as if this person is working on becoming a pathological animal collector. This is not the same as having lots of pets, pet-keeping is about having a whole relationship with an animal, animal-collecting is about believing that you are a savior and protector and the animal can have zero companion-qualities and still satisfy that. This vision of the self as a holy protector and savior of innocent little animals will be more important to the collector than the actual relationship the collector has with the animals, or her relationships with people, or her own comfort and health. Having a bunch of chickens that are not sociable with humans or pleasant companions, failing to keep them and their enclosure clean, and a militant additude about meat-eating is pretty consistant with a budding animal-collector. My only advice is to run away, because unless she gets so many chickens that they end up grossly neglected, there's not much you can do.
QuoteAnyway, what did chickens (back-in-the-day, before their stupidity was more-or-less enforced so we wouldn't feel too terrible about killing them for culinary purposes) actually do, you know with their sentient ways? I am clearly stuck on the thought that their function, nowadays, the only days I really now, is to be et.
Mostly they do the same things everybody else does. Look around for tasty stuff to eat, have sex, and raise babies.
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: Doc on May 30, 2007, 07:14:45 PM
QuoteWell that isn't the same thing at all. And I have little doubt that chickens were not as stupid, not nearly, in the wild, as they appear to be, domesticated.
QuoteTHIS roommate had elevated chickens to a sort of elite position, above the food-chain so-to-speak, and well, there's a new bar-b-q joint in the nayborhood...
Heh. Ick. I am all for eating chickens should you be so inclined. Intelligence or emotional sensitivity do not give anybody or anything a free ride or a 'right' to be disconnected from the biotic enterprise. All living things must die and all corpses are in their turn eaten. The obscenity in eating chickens is not the eating of chickens, it is that most chickens we eat live non-lives. The same impovershed environment that causes them to be stupider than they ought to be strips their lives of joy and meaning, and the fact that they are treated like machine cogs devalues our own act of eating, transforming our relationship with food from one of intimacy to one of abuse.
Well, I have to come clean. These chickens were pets. Not very responsive pets, I might add. And noisy damn beasts to boot.
The lady, would-be-chicken-farmer's boy is allergic to stuff, it turns out the same stuff, pretty much, that I am allergic to. He has severe asthma. I have noticed that the boy is allergic to chickens. So we're talking about a weird co-dependent situation with the chickens (and the rabbits, especially "Michael", who basically eats newspapers on the kitchen floor all day), at the expense of actual persons, her own, in fact. And here I am, not allowed to bring chickens-for-eating up in the actual house.
So, I am kinda sorta struggling with Chicken Ethics as a result of this peculiar set of circumstances.
And so I wanted to ask, what's the deal?
And I am somewhat surprised at the thoughtfulness that is turning out of this topic, here.
Go Figure.
TMW
PS: My thought on Cannibalism, btw, per your biotic enterprise thought, is that it's more ethical than, say, creating a war in Iraq.
Anyway, what did chickens (back-in-the-day, before their stupidity was more-or-less enforced so we wouldn't feel too terrible about killing them for culinary purposes) actually do, you know with their sentient ways? I am clearly stuck on the thought that their function, nowadays, the only days I really now, is to be et.
Personally, I think if you wanted to discuss the lack of curiosity of ball bearings within their natural environment, you couldn't get anything but the most thoughtful discussion from the folks who populate this forum.
Crazy, but cool. There is a depth to everything.
Quote from: Katia on May 30, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
::)
they're as sentient as you are. :P
http://goveg.com/f-hiddenliveschickens_brainy.asp
Guess what? My whole thought here stemmed from the fact that this one lady wasn't having her son tested for allergies to chickens, out of some kind of I don't even know what for the chickens, and I like the boy better than the stupid chickens. Thinking, maybe he deserves a better deal than this.
By contrast, I don't think the chickens were too worried about it.
TMW
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 07:22:22 PM
PS: My thought on Cannibalism, btw, per your biotic enterprise thought, is that it's more ethical than, say, creating a war in Iraq.
Anyway, what did chickens (back-in-the-day, before their stupidity was more-or-less enforced so we wouldn't feel too terrible about killing them for culinary purposes) actually do, you know with their sentient ways? I am clearly stuck on the thought that their function, nowadays, the only days I really now, is to be et.
Before the domination of their species by ours, chickens served the exact same purpose that we did. To eat and to be eaten.
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 06:24:08 PM
I think not. They's GOOD EATIN! Period. End of story. Blind Eye or what-have-you.
But that is exactly what I mean.
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 06:24:08 PM
judgment of another's ethics
I have not called your ethics into question.
Nor have I judged you in any way.
I am, however, trying to point out that it isn't quite so simple as them just being around for lunch.
*shrug* You are under no obligation to see that. Blindness to that, however, makes me sad. This is, however, nothing new.
*shrug*As you were, pay me no mind.
Oh, mind you if you are only referring to the domesticated idiots that tend to become food then I tend to agree; Not that they have had any say in it but they are lunch. Just don't think a wild peccary (for example) exists solely for the benefit of (generic)your food that is more of what I am on about :P Not that it makes it any less right to do what humans do but
*shrug*, not my game.
Heh, if you consider 'animals' intelligent you find a lot of really disgusting things humans do. Blatant slavery among the crimes :P
*shrug* But no one wants to see that now do they?
But this said, by the time it gets to your plate the animal is well past caring.
...
I wish I could explain. I wish I could put it in words you would understand. Here.. now.
:'(
Carry on I guess. We are used to being trod on.
Hey Middle...
Great troll!
;)
Cindi
Quote from: Doc on May 30, 2007, 07:14:45 PM
QuoteThe obscenity in eating chickens is not the eating of chickens, it is that most chickens we eat live non-lives. The same impovershed environment that causes them to be stupider than they ought to be strips their lives of joy and meaning.
MMmmm, sounds like Coventry again.
What's a troll?
and,
What's coventry?
A troll is someone who puts comments to try and wind people up and create arguments. And Coventry is the dullest city in England, filled with the dullest people.
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 31, 2007, 10:24:01 AM
A troll is someone who puts comments to try and wind people up and create arguments. And Coventry is the dullest city in England, filled with the dullest people.
They might not be so dull if they dressed like chickens. Though, I think dressing like monkeys would make them appear even more fun.
Quote from: Zombies on May 30, 2007, 09:37:07 PM
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 30, 2007, 08:41:26 PM
Hey Middle...
Great troll!
;)
Cindi
How is this a troll?
And this question comes from a young lass with a fish on her head! Hey... is the fish sentient?
;)
Cindi
Hmmmm, this is a very interesting thread. All that I care about as far as chickens are concerned is whether it is cooked throughly. ;D
Fair enough...But Coventry is the dullest city in the UK
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 31, 2007, 12:39:36 PM
Fair enough...But Coventry is the dullest city in the UK
...except when the citizens dress like monkeys.
Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 31, 2007, 12:51:45 PM
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 31, 2007, 12:39:36 PM
Fair enough...But Coventry is the dullest city in the UK
...except when the citizens dress like monkeys.
Even then. People here consider an afternoon at a wood reclamation centre as an enjoyable day out.
Or when the citizens troll for monkeys at the reclamation centre!
Cindi
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 06:24:08 PM
I think not. They's GOOD EATIN! Period. End of story. Blind Eye or what-have-you.
But that is exactly what I mean.
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 06:24:08 PM
judgment of another's ethics
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
I have not called your ethics into question.
Nor have I judged you in any way.
I am, however, trying to point out that it isn't quite so simple as them just being around for lunch. *shrug* You are under no obligation to see that. Blindness to that, however, makes me sad. This is, however, nothing new.
Calling me blind is a judgment. An ethical judgment. It's pretty simple, really.
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
I wish I could explain. I wish I could put it in words you would understand. Here.. now.
That might take more thoughtfulness (not to mention attention to the TONE of a thing) than you have just displayed in this topic. You have actually jumped on me more than once in these forums without the slightest attention to such nuances as tone and context.
Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
Carry on I guess. We are used to being trod on.
What 'We', you mean You Chickens? :D
TMW
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 31, 2007, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: Zombies on May 30, 2007, 09:37:07 PM
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 30, 2007, 08:41:26 PM
Hey Middle...
Great troll!
;)
Cindi
How is this a troll?
And this question comes from a young lass with a fish on her head! Hey... is the fish sentient?
;)
Cindi
LMAO.
How can it be said that one trolls one's own topic?
TMW
*sigh* I did not call you blind. I said you were turning a blind eye, that is NOT the same thing. I am pretty decent about saying what I mean, an decent about not saying anything else. (I think anyway!). I said you were turning a blind eye because you were ignoring a large section of what life is. Regardless if you wish to see it chickens are alive and sentient. *shrug* Saying that chickens are just for eating is, to me, like saying say cats are without intelligence, etc. To me, what I have found in this life (and ignoring everything else), I know this to be false.
If it means anything to you, if I thought that you were blind I would not bother talking to you. I do not think you are blind, simply turning a blind eye. To me at least, that is a significant difference.
I am sorry if this conversation has offended you, that was not, is not and will not be my endeavor. My wish, is simply to try and get people to think apart from society's programming.
Blessed Be.
Quote from: Kimberly on June 01, 2007, 05:37:39 PM
*sigh* I did not call you blind. I said you were turning a blind eye, that is NOT the same thing. I am pretty decent about saying what I mean, an decent about not saying anything else. (I think anyway!). I said you were turning a blind eye because you were ignoring a large section of what life is. Regardless if you wish to see it chickens are alive and sentient. *shrug* Saying that chickens are just for eating is, to me, like saying say cats are without intelligence, etc. To me, what I have found in this life (and ignoring everything else), I know this to be false.
Saying, in essence, that you know what I ignore, "in large sections of what life is", is a judgment call, one that you appear to have made in haste, out-of-context, with again, little or no attention to the tone of a piece, much less having read me elsewhere. The shrugs and sighs are condescending, and I did take exception to that, considering you
appear to be quasi-trolling me, IE: not taking the words in context or looking at tone, which you appear to have done in response to my thoughts on other topics.
I was trolling (or more precisely, watching closely) this topic to see what people say about the ethics of food, and because that, due to an unfortunate living situation, chickens have annoyed me quite a bit of late. I have learned some things; one is that chickens CAN reasonably be thought of as sentient, though I am still personally somewhat skeptical on this point.
Kimberley, have you lived with chickens very often, to know them and their function on a planet so well, or is the sound you are making strictly stemming from a philosophy in the abstract?
I kinda sorta know from chickens lately, and am still having difficulty imagining them doing much besides waiting to be et. Of course they lay unfertilized eggs, which can be et, and fertilized eggs to make more chickens. But these still - ha - feed into the food chain, as-it-were
TMW
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 31, 2007, 10:24:01 AM
A troll is someone who puts comments to try and wind people up and create arguments. And Coventry is the dullest city in England, filled with the dullest people.
Troll, in internet jargon, derives from
trawl, which is what a very bootstrap sort of fisherman does, from place to place. A troll looks for more or less random bits to attack on the www, and then does what you say above.
I am still
watching this topic. That I created the topic tends to indicate something other than a troll. I am (mayhaps doggedly?) trying to get some perspective on an issue I have some interest in,
Situational Ethics.
note:
Sentience has been defined in this topic as 'awareness of one's surroundings' (that might fit as only a partial definition...).
Not every animal or person always fits that bill. IE: does existence connote sentience?
TMW
I failed ethics...it was because studying ethics formally often ask for an ethical system.
I prefer the situation element of situational ethics. That's why I failed.
TMW, please see PM.
Quote from: Pica Pica on June 01, 2007, 06:15:31 PM
I failed ethics...it was because studying ethics formally often ask for an ethical system.
I prefer the situation element of situational ethics. That's why I failed.
And, according to the formal requirements of the discipline, rightly so. ;)
I failed inductive reasoning, cause it were
dumb as chickens :o.
tmw
I have never been able to reason with one, so I would have to say no.
QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?
Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality. Let the battle begin. Against chickens. Not me.
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 01, 2007, 06:58:48 PM
Quote from: Pica Pica on June 01, 2007, 06:15:31 PM
I failed ethics...it was because studying ethics formally often ask for an ethical system.
I prefer the situation element of situational ethics. That's why I failed.
And, according to the formal requirements of the discipline, rightly so. ;)
I failed inductive reasoning, cause it were dumb as chickens :o.
tmw
I was bad at that too. It's a real amazment that i graduated at all when i think of how little i learned.
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 01, 2007, 08:07:29 PM
QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?
Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality.
I won't destroy very much on a planet, I gotta tell you. Ants maybe, I know that they are robots, group mind, strictly. It matters cause I struggle with the idea of destruction of a critter, period.
I don't wanna be like the girly girl that prefers not to know how her steak got to her plate either. Middle ways.
I still have the thought, however (am I trying to kill this amazing thread? It's got it all, almost... drama, humor, philomosophical insight), that
chickens are for eatin'tmw
Quote from: Lori on June 01, 2007, 07:11:13 PM
I have never been able to reason with one, so I would have to say no.
There are people that I can't reason with! ;)
Cindi
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 01, 2007, 08:07:29 PM
QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?
Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality.
I won't destroy very much on a planet, I gotta tell you. Ants maybe, I know that they are robots, group mind, strictly. It matters cause I struggle with the idea of destruction of a critter, period.
I don't wanna be like the girly girl that prefers not to know how her steak got to her plate either. Middle ways.
I still have the thought, however (am I trying to kill this amazing thread? It's got it all, almost... drama, humor, philomosophical insight), that chickens are for eatin'
tmw
Pigs are for eating too, but some people keep them as pets. Same with chickens.
What if a person had a cockroach for a pet? Is that one cockroach somehow raised to another level of Being, or, of existential value because it, for some reason, is capable of stirring one person's friendship? I think that is what your chicken dilemma is. Chickens are for eating, but if a person loves them, are those particular pet chickens worthy of special consideration, or are
all chickens now worthy of an exalted position in your esteem?
Are the pet chickens still as worthless and kill worthy as all other chickens despite being loved by someone? Are you ready to respect the pet chickens? Because, once you do, you will be forced to consider respecting all chickens under all situations.
Sorry, I was going to let it go, but this came to me. I don't know if it makes any sense.
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 01, 2007, 08:07:29 PM
QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?
Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality.
I won't destroy very much on a planet, I gotta tell you. Ants maybe, I know that they are robots, group mind, strictly. It matters cause I struggle with the idea of destruction of a critter, period.
I don't wanna be like the girly girl that prefers not to know how her steak got to her plate either. Middle ways.
I still have the thought, however (am I trying to kill this amazing thread? It's got it all, almost... drama, humor, philomosophical insight), that chickens are for eatin'
tmw
Pigs are for eating too, but some people keep them as pets. Same with chickens.
What if a person had a cockroach for a pet? Is that one cockroach somehow raised to another level of Being, or, of existential value because it, for some reason, is capable of stirring one person's friendship? I think that is what your chicken dilemma is. Chickens are for eating, but if a person loves them, are those particular pet chickens worthy of special consideration, or are all chickens now worthy of an exalted position in your esteem?
Are the pet chickens still as worthless and kill worthy as all other chickens despite being loved by someone? Are you ready to respect the pet chickens? Because, once you do, you will be forced to consider respecting all chickens under all situations.
Sorry, I was going to let it go, but this came to me. I don't know if it makes any sense.
Why would you want to let it go? This is precisely the point of such a topic. Somehow I think we've just gotten to the heart of the matter: the tension between a systematic ethos and situational ethics.
I have already admitted that what I have to work with as an ethical system is non-existent, or is of the situational type.
First, no chickens are worthy of the exalted position they have in the household I have just taken leave of. A child suffers, according to that system, tied in with this <love of pet chickens>.
To answer categorically, that hypothetical cockroach
is ethically elevated, acc'ding to my non-system. The chicken, *Ginger's* value must be offset by
the situation, due to its particular perversity, which is excessive. The roommate in question's ethics are so utterly perverse, (some particulars of which I cannot even bear to report), that any objective consideration of whether the chickens are worth it because she "loves" them is not possible. My intuitive take on it, is that this individual, situationally, has chickens as some sort of symbol, to meet a lack, and it won't cut it in any ethical consideration. (Some persons "love" chickens, or the like, out of a lack of ability to actually treat other people ethically. This I have found concrete evidence of. )
Like I said my views on this are colored by this filter of experience.
I will markedly contrast this with an example of, say an incarcerated person who develops a relationship with a roach or a mouse while inside. That latter EG: to me connotes a real type of sentience. Due to the particulars of the situation.
OK. If all chickens are worthy of respect, because someone loves them - as
something more than chickens - will that, even if I buy it (which I do not) mean I won't eat chickens? What if chickens are within that group of foods I can afford, and I am hungry?
That would mean a sort of extreme position. You might be able to formulate an ethical system of foodstuffs, but would you be able to make it work in all situations you meet?
TMW
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 04:09:43 PM
OK. If all chickens are worthy of respect, because someone loves them - as something more than chickens - will that, even if I buy it (which I do not) mean I won't eat chickens? What if chickens are within that group of foods I can afford, and I am hungry?
That would mean a sort of extreme position. You might be able to formulate an ethical system of foodstuffs, but would you be able to make it work in all situations you meet?
TMW
I could not make it work in any situation because I'm not an assertive enough person. :) Also, I'm such a chump that I once allowed a prospective buyer to borrow my guitar in order to test it out and I never saw either the buyer or the guitar again.
If we did formulate an ethical system of foodstuff, I would be the worst person in the universe to be chosen as an advocate for making it work.
I was just wondering, though, where do Tuna fish stand as a food item? It's not like we keep them caged and humiliated their whole life, as we do with fowl and mammals. Tuna fish are truly free up until the time of their capture. I don't know what this says about me, but it makes it easier for me to eat them.
Maybe we should just release all cattle and chickens into the woods and valleys and then just eat those who are unlucky enough to get caught.
I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm just ruminating out loud (in quiet text). 8)
Dedicated to the tuna.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHiPHQECOg4
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 05:54:52 PM
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 04:09:43 PM
OK. If all chickens are worthy of respect, because someone loves them - as something more than chickens - will that, even if I buy it (which I do not) mean I won't eat chickens? What if chickens are within that group of foods I can afford, and I am hungry?
That would mean a sort of extreme position. You might be able to formulate an ethical system of foodstuffs, but would you be able to make it work in all situations you meet?
TMW
If we did formulate an ethical system of foodstuff, I would be the worst person in the universe to be chosen as an advocate for making it work.
I was just wondering, though, where do Tuna fish stand as a food item? It's not like we keep them caged and humiliated their whole life, as we do with fowl and mammals. Tuna fish are truly free up until the time of their capture. I don't know what this says about me, but it makes it easier for me to eat them.
That might say that you are a person who is considering the ethics of eating critters, such as I am trying to do, maybe better than I am doing, cause I now got
the 'tude, agin them pore chickens.
This might belong under spirituality/hinduism, but anyone know why the cow is considered sacred there? I know that Krishna was a cowherd (and a seducer of milkmaids)...
tmw
(PS I am that chump too, I let a chicken lover screw me over... ::))
Quote from: Cindi Jones on June 02, 2007, 03:02:18 PM
Quote from: Lori on June 01, 2007, 07:11:13 PM
I have never been able to reason with one, so I would have to say no.
There are people that I can't reason with! ;)
Cindi
Me2 come to think of it, but I meant Chickens are...food.
People are not...unless you believe in Soylent Green :P
What I meant is chickens do not reason, think, they exist to eat and be eaten. They are at the bottom of the food chain. They are essential but not Sentient. I'm not even sure they they communicate with each other. They have almost no intelligence. Ignorance is bliss, so they are blissful, not sentient.
Quote from: Katia on May 30, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
::)
they're as sentient as you are. :P
http://goveg.com/f-hiddenliveschickens_brainy.asp
Hi Lori,
Did you miss this post of Katia's? It makes you reconsider a little bit about chickens intelligence. You have to pay attention to the part where chickens have been proven to be at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers.
I don't agree about chickens being at the
bottom of the food chain. I don't believe there is a bottom. I believe it is a continuous circle. Because, if you believe there is a bottom to the food chain, then my personal heros, the worms, would be lower than chickens. I can't ever think of worms as being anything other than dignified little creatures who are the most worthy of us all. I'm talking NightCrawlers.
Call me weird, but I want to be a worm or a monkey.
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 08:04:17 PM
Hi Lori,
chickens have been proven to be at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers.
They can only turn right?
Quote from: Lori on June 02, 2007, 09:12:17 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 08:04:17 PM
Hi Lori,
chickens have been proven to be at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers.
They can only turn right?
That was a good one. :laugh:
Um... I've been away for a while, and it looks like this thread has just gone clucking nuts.
Let's not get too worked up over this okay? I mean... really.
I've seen henpecking in a thread before, but this is ridiculous. Yikes.
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 08:04:17 PM
Call me weird, but I want to be a worm or a monkey.
You're Weird.
Worms are hermaphrodytes. No males or females. Cool huh?
cindi
But they just have no backbone.
Yep.
Someday, I want to be a spineless hermaphroditic worm.
seriously.
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 05:54:52 PM
I was just wondering, though, where do Tuna fish stand as a food item? It's not like we keep them caged and humiliated their whole life, as we do with fowl and mammals. Tuna fish are truly free up until the time of their capture. I don't know what this says about me, but it makes it easier for me to eat them.
I agree about that. Wild game is the best food.
Did you know that there is a guy who trains tuna? For science, see, to learn what tuna can learn and how they learn it. Anyway, the tuna are emotional things. If one of them 'thinks' it is going to recieve a reward and doesn't, it'll have a terrific tantrum, evidently feeling strongly angered and dismayed.
Quote from: Doc on June 03, 2007, 04:36:44 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 05:54:52 PM
I was just wondering, though, where do Tuna fish stand as a food item? It's not like we keep them caged and humiliated their whole life, as we do with fowl and mammals. Tuna fish are truly free up until the time of their capture. I don't know what this says about me, but it makes it easier for me to eat them.
I agree about that. Wild game is the best food.
Did you know that there is a guy who trains tuna? For science, see, to learn what tuna can learn and how they learn it. Anyway, the tuna are emotional things. If one of them 'thinks' it is going to recieve a reward and doesn't, it'll have a terrific tantrum, evidently feeling strongly angered and dismayed.
Angry Tuna, Sentient chickens, hermaphroditic worms. I'm beginning to enjoy this planet. ;D
Is this a trick question, home girl?
I'd say "yes", they are sentient. In fact all animals are, unless of course, they are cooking in your oven! :P
tink :icon_chick:
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 03, 2007, 05:50:35 PM
Angry Tuna, Sentient chickens, hermaphroditic worms. I'm beginning to enjoy this planet. ;D
Yeah, it's a very amusing planet.
To totally derail the thread, I must now mention that marine clownfishes are all born male. When they reach adulthood and pair off, one member of the pair, the more aggressive one, becomes female. No, this does not mean that we will get a movie called
Finding Nemo II: Nemo's Transition in which Nemo falls in love and becomes a girl and, with her dad's support, copes with the reactions of the other reef-fishes who are from cisgendered species. Marine angelfishes are all born female and when they pair off the more aggressive partner becomes male.
Quote from: Doc on June 03, 2007, 07:26:27 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 03, 2007, 05:50:35 PM
Angry Tuna, Sentient chickens, hermaphroditic worms. I'm beginning to enjoy this planet. ;D
Yeah, it's a very amusing planet.
To totally derail the thread, I must now mention that marine clownfishes are all born male. When they reach adulthood and pair off, one member of the pair, the more aggressive one, becomes female. No, this does not mean that we will get a movie called Finding Nemo II: Nemo's Transition in which Nemo falls in love and becomes a girl and, with her dad's support, copes with the reactions of the other reef-fishes who are from cisgendered species. Marine angelfishes are all born female and when they pair off the more aggressive partner becomes male.
Fantastic.... though I feel I must change my song for the tuna.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydyn0H5h6UA
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 03, 2007, 02:10:48 PM
Yep.
Someday, I want to be a spineless hermaphroditic worm.
seriously.
That's easy...just get elected to Congress...
Quote from: Doc on June 03, 2007, 04:36:44 PM
Anyway, the tuna are emotional things. If one of them 'thinks' it is going to recieve a reward and doesn't, it'll have a terrific tantrum, evidently feeling strongly angered and dismayed.
Can't decide if this sounds like my co-workers, PETA or the Televangelist on channel 27...hmmm
It really doesn't matter if chickens are sentient or not...they are part of the great circle of life (queue The Lion King theme) and thus deserve a moment of thanks for their sacrifice in becoming this wonderful meal of chopped and formed dinosaur-shaped nuggets. Of course, in an existential way, so do the potatoes who receive the sacraments of seasoning before they are plunged into the boiling hot oil of the deep fryer along their journey of transitioning into the beautiful waffle-fry they were born to be.
Besides...some of my best friends are spineless hermaphroditic worms...I call them "golf buddies"
......Laurie
Good ones, Laurie
:D
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 08:04:17 PM
Quote from: Katia on May 30, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
::)
they're as sentient as you are. :P
http://goveg.com/f-hiddenliveschickens_brainy.asp
It makes you reconsider a little bit about chickens intelligence. You have to pay attention to the partwhere chickens have been proven to be at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers.
Heh. Didn't quite work that way for me. Most creatures are, #1, at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers, and #2, will prefer the food that kills pain.
Look again at this assertion:
They understood cause and effect and learned how to make the best decision.(In one experiment that explored chickens' understanding of causal relationships, researchers found that when injured chickens were offered the choice between regular food and food that contained a painkiller, the birds soon understood that the medicated food made them feel better, and they learned to seek it out it over the other choices. "The chickens will take the analgesic every time,"...)
Hope they didn't get too strung out on the dope.
tmw
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 05, 2007, 01:31:36 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 08:04:17 PM
Quote from: Katia on May 30, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
::)
they're as sentient as you are. :P
http://goveg.com/f-hiddenliveschickens_brainy.asp
It makes you reconsider a little bit about chickens intelligence. You have to pay attention to the partwhere chickens have been proven to be at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers.
Heh. Didn't quite work that way for me. Most creatures are, #1, at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers, and #2, will prefer the food that kills pain.
Look again at this assertion: They understood cause and effect and learned how to make the best decision.
(In one experiment that explored chickens' understanding of causal relationships, researchers found that when injured chickens were offered the choice between regular food and food that contained a painkiller, the birds soon understood that the medicated food made them feel better, and they learned to seek it out it over the other choices. "The chickens will take the analgesic every time,"...)
Hope they didn't get too strung out on the dope.
tmw
Even I would go for the doped food so I'm not surprised that chickens would choose it too especially since, compared to me, a chicken comes across as Albert Einstein.
I would like to rephrase something I wrote earlier. This -
Quotechickens have been proven to be at least as intelligent as Nascar race drivers.
- is inaccurate. What I meant to say is that "chickens have been proven to be at least 15 times as intelligent as fans of Nascar race drivers." :-X
Hoo Ha
(I found this just now :D)
Save the chickens (from hell)
Animal rights activists are trying to save chickens from hell.
Hell, as you may have suspected, is in South Carolina.
More specifically, it's on a chicken farm operated by monks, according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
PETA claims the monks of Mepkin Abbey were operating some kind of egg-laying sweatshop. It says thousands of poor hens were crammed into small cages and periodically starved.
While starving certainly sounds unpleasant, a "brother" who appeared on a secretly taped PETA video compared it to fasting.
Fasting means to abstain from food, often in observance of a holy day. This, of course, is highly irregular behavior for a chicken.
While fasting can serve as an impetus for a deep spiritual experience, it apparently has the added benefit of causing hens to lay more eggs.
But the abbey chickens were allegedly forced to observe this religious practice rather than participating of their own free will.
While this may cross some ethical line in the land of religious freedom, it doesn't actually kill the chicken. And you know the ancient Chinese proverb: "That which does not kill the chicken, makes the chicken stronger."
The alleged sins of these monks pall in comparison to certain other religious groups in the South, who are said to actually roll the chickens in batter and fry them — all without the birds' permission.
It's only a matter of time before PETA tries to videotape this Wednesday-night practice of forced chicken sacrifice.
I could speak more on this matter, but my membership in a secret fried-chicken sect requires a vow of silence. I can add, however, that it involves no fasting on the part of either the chicken or the brethren.
Meanwhile back at the hen house, the Trappist monks of South Carolina deny that they are mistreating their chickens.
"They are very hurt by all this," abbey spokeswoman Mary Jeffcoat said of the monks.
Maybe it's time for the two groups to meet in an ecumenical dialogue. Perhaps they could begin by agreeing that hell is no place for man nor chicken.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.savagechickens.com%2Fimages%2Fchickensatan.jpg&hash=700aa6ec321dd266f6a3493d45b3ce996e85dc08)
from another forum, the same topic:
What the hell?
This astonishing piece of heresy can in no way be justified:
"I just don't respect chickens very much. I don't consider them to be individuals who can have meaningful preferences about their own futures. A chicken has preferences about the here and now, but it doesn't have preferences about its future existence. A chicken isn't capable of conceiving of itself as a self over time. So, as long as the chicken doesn't suffer, it can't matter to the chicken whether it has a long life or a short one."
This scurrilous bit of anti-chickenhood must be squashed immediately. Death to all who differ! Death! Death! Death!
Posted by Heidi at January 17, 2006 10:29 PM
Isn't capable or chooses not to conceive of itself? The buddhist finds only burden in the pondering of his/her past or future. So something or someone that can live with such peace and happiness should be respected by all. And jesus do they taste good.
Posted by: Brandon at January 19, 2006 10:19 PM
yeah, well, I am easily amused. Not as easily as a chicken, maybe, but...
what hey, this just in, from the Wiki entry, Diyu
(Part of a series on
Hell / Underworld)
Diyu (Traditional Chinese: 地獄; Simplified Chinese: 地狱; Hanyu Pinyin: Dìyù; Wade-Giles: Ti-yü; Japanese: 地獄, jigoku, literally "earth prison") is the realm of the dead or "hell" in Chinese mythology.
"... terminologies related to hell:
油鍋 - the deep frying wok, one of the tortures in hell."
* * *
Well I don't wanna be no chicken (I been thru there and done that, and now it's time to break that yoke/yolk), and they say you are what you eat, so...
I DONNO.... ???
tmcw