Caged PETA activists at KFC Norodom today

[keeping_it_riel]

And here they are in a cage just before Mr Plod arrived and took them away. I imagine they are in a real cage now....

Hat tip https://twitter.com/ellie_dyer

[cambod]

.... I imagine they are in a real cage now....

...

Where they belong.

[digiboy]

hmmmm.......why do they bother?

I'm sure their demonstration was not lost on your average Cambodian...?!!

[Filofax]

They are fighting a loosing battle in SE Asia. Is PETA a registered NGO here or is it a couple of "volunteers" off the street? It must have been hot for the bloke in a collar, tie and Jacket!!

[digiboy]

LOL!

Mr Cambod....you are quick aren't you?!!!

[keeping_it_riel]

I doubt they ruffled many feathers. *































* I'll get my coat.

[tuk-tukfish]

Why they bothered with this is beyond me.
If a Khmer can afford to eat KFC they probably don't give a shit about their fellow downtrodden man, let alone a fucking chicken.
PETA has had success in the west where people have become albeit to where there dinner originates. It will not have the same success rates in majority rural countries, developed or not.

[migratory]

She does look a bit like a tired bird on the right.

[vladimir]

I doubt they ruffled many feathers. *

The sky is definitely falling.

Anybody protesting using KFC as a banner deserves to be deep-fried.































* I'll get my coat.

[kiiniaew]

Haha whining about chickens in a country where the population still struggles to earn enough to actually be able to eat them at all.... I wonder what they think of the local way to transport your livestock on a motorbike.

I agree that keeping chickens in small cages is not the best way however there is little choice. If we don't do it we can't keep up with the ever increasing global food demands. Sure, if some day we could grow meat in the laboratory that would be a viable option. However we are not there yet so stop whining and invest your time researching a viable solution.

[Goodoldkenny]

Each year, something in the order of 15 million kids around the world don't live to see their 5th birthday and these guys are worried about some chickens?

KennyF

[cambod]

Each year, something in the order of 15 million kids around the world don't live to see their 5th birthday and these guys are worried about some chickens?

KennyF

That sums it up nicely. Just seems retarded to worry so much about animals when so many humans are in need of other's help.

[InterNed]

I've been a vegetarian for 18 years.

I'm generally in favor of society increasing its overall concern for the welfare of animals and treating them as humanely as possible, though I think the term "animal rights" is a misnomer. I don't want to extend the voting franchise to my cats.

PETA is a fucking embarrassment to any serious person, concerned with animal welfare, who has reasonable views regarding these issues. I don't expect society to change overnight or conform to some list of my demands (that'd be tough, I'd have to write the fucking list up on the quick, and with an overnight deadline, it would probably just end up being a lot of stuff like "Bring me the head of Tom Cruise").

I don't get angry because people eat meat, however, I would like to see abusive practices like factory farming ended, or altered fundamentally, because it's shitty for the animals, the environment, and the people eating the disgusting, tumor-ridden, antibiotic slathered corpses. They'd be much better off dining on the corpses of happier, farm fresh little critters, whose bodies aren't laboratories for super-bacteria. Probably tastes better.

Now, I guess politically I'm even more concerned about human rights, human suffering, and so forth. Far more. What bothers me, however, is that many of the people who level that argument - WHAT ABOUT THE STARVING CHILDREN? (if it can be called one) at people who are concerned about animals, just don't actually give a shit about the human suffering either. They're often just using it as a prop, a way to make the people concerned about animals look ridiculous, only to discard their deep compassion for the starving and penniless the moment the conversation comes around to trying to do something tangible to aid these poor or vulnerable people.

I'm not saying that about anyone here, but it's pretty typical. I find that most of the people who care about the well-being of animals, also deeply care about the well-being of humans ... And not vice-versa. If you are totally callous in your views towards animals, the likelihood that you actually give a shit about other people (especially the far-away ones, outside your tribal group, or nuclear family) is extremely low. I think there is plenty of room for both, and I don't see it as being at all contradictory. In fact, concern for the welfare of both humans AND animals (even if you prioritize humans first) is a far more coherent position to take than "Fuck them animals! We got our own problems!" As if the animals caused those problems, or funding for anything to do with animal welfare is significant enough to undermine efforts to aid humans ...

How about this:

Most people don't want animals to suffer needlessly, for any reason, and if it was practical, reasonable, and possible, they'd be in favor of reducing that suffering and improving their welfare. Right?

If you disagree with that statement, you are probably a faux-macho dude who thinks he's a Tyrannosaurus Rex because he eats a steak once a week, or a serial killer who is strangling a cat as he reads this.

But for everybody else - that's some common ground. See? Not so hard. No need to lock yourselves in a cage and start clucking like a chicken.

[cambod]

..

Most people don't want animals to suffer needlessly, for any reason, and if it was practical, reasonable, and possible, they'd be in favor of reducing that suffering and improving their welfare. Right?

....

Needlessly? No.

I would rather have millions of dogs/monkeys killed by scientific research if it could avoid a single human death.

For testing cosmetics? Hmmm....I'm thinking.....

[InterNed]

..

Most people don't want animals to suffer needlessly, for any reason, and if it was practical, reasonable, and possible, they'd be in favor of reducing that suffering and improving their welfare. Right?

....

Needlessly? No.

I would rather have millions of dogs/monkeys killed by scientific research if it could avoid a single human death.

For testing cosmetics? Hmmm....I'm thinking.....

I'm in favor of animal testing for medical purposes.

Not cosmetics, I guess, it'd have to be a pretty fucking impressive brand of shampoo or lipstick to make that trade off sensible.

Here's the interesting thing, though: The actual scientists who do the animal testing, the important medical research, would NOT say that it is reasonable to kill millions of dogs or monkeys to avoid a single human death. They would decline to be a part of that project, generally. Because, hyperbole though your statement may be, it would never be necessary to do that if the research study or experiments were well-designed and worth doing. There are ethics boards that review every research proposal involving animals that comes up at a university or wherever, other scientists and experts, and they look carefully for ways to reduce the impact or suffering of the animals and ascertain that the research is necessary, is not redundant, and may produce important data.

Outside an occasional or unfortunate aberration, overall, the scientific research community has done a good job in implementing measures to make what they do as responsible, humane, and cruelty-free as they can manage at this point. It wasn't always this way, but scientists are intelligent people, they see the big picture.