Not really. It may be bad for you but saying its bad in general is the state of opinion.Originally Posted by teaandmachines
Not really. It may be bad for you but saying its bad in general is the state of opinion.
Alright I'm gunna lay out what i think about this whole ordeal.
1) Chickens are chickens. Not humans. We eat them because they are way way lower life forms than us and have no souls.
2) PETA is worse than KFC because they treat people worse than animals and are very radical with their actions. They don't even want people to have pets. PETS! because it "enslaves them". Shoot any animal would be glad to be kept as a pet rather than in the wild. This also means that they don't want blind people to have seeing eye dogs! You tell me all this is sane thinking and I'll show you an idiot by giveing you a mirror.
3) Personally( this is jus my little theory here) I only think PETA only wants to save cute animals. I mean have you ever seen them do a huge campaign against fish abuse? I mean ya catch it with a hook deep in its mouth and then its suffers out of the water and it suffocates to death. But hey its not cute and cuddly. Its just a fish. Also think about it you have little organisms that live on you all over your body. They are still living things yet you dare wash your body and kills thousand of them?? Herasy i say!!:rolleyes2
4) Oh man this one ticks me off the most.....if you or anyone dares put the holocaust and the killing of animals of slauterhouses, or to a more exact point, jews and animals on the same level.....you should be pimp slapped seriously.
People clearly arn't listening. This NOT about killing/eating animals. I repeat its NOT. get it? NOT. What it IS about is HOW they die, in abuse and tourcher. I repeat again, its about HOW thet die thats the problem.
Im guessing everyones seen that video where men bat live chickens with planks of woods like a ball?
"NPC: Sorry this house is sealed off because of Blight"
First: How in the hell has the post survived this long? it's freaking FRIED CHICKEN people. FRIED CHICKEN.
Secondly: The one argument i've heard over, and over, and over again is that People are no better than animals and we should respect them as such. Then it stands to reason, that people, as animals, should behave as animals. that means that we destroy and consume what we wee fit and what we are able to catch or produce ourselves. check it out, I can both catch, and raise, a chicken. Therefore, as natural law and survival of the fittest dictates, i retain the right to destroy and consume that chicken in whatever manner is most fitting to me. don't rant cruelty either. Ever watch a cat kill a bird? they play with it. ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. up to an hour as i once saw my cat do. they injure a wing an then taunt it while it flaps around. then they'll dismember a leg, get bored and wander off to a feed bowl. ten minutes later they'll come back to the bleeding twitching thing and claw at it some more. Spiders wrap up paralyzed, living flies for hours or days. Gators will bite a goats neck and carry it downstream while it's kicking before finally dragging it under and drowning it. Monkeys will beat the hell out of other monkeys, and walk away like nothing. Cruelty is natural, it's just that we're smarter than them. they use a rock, a river, a web, we build machines. so stuff it, nature is a cruel mother.
Third: Peta is a pile of hypocritical crap. They seek to make humans less than animals, to degrade the natural cycle of survival. They seek to limit humanities natural right to ensure it's own comfort and survival by forcing us to respect other species. this does not happen, anywhere in nature. If an animal tolerates another animals presence, it is due to one of three reasons. A: it is of the same "family" unit. B: The animal is somehow benefitting from the other animals continued presence or survival or C: the animal's presence is in no detriment to the first animal. No Lion is ever going to let a gazelle go out of mercy. PETA however, has stated rather publicly that if human benefit comes at the cost of another animals, they would not support it. rather poignantly: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, September 1989, Vogue Magazine" This is crap as far as the natural order goes. I come first, if i gain from the loss of a member of another species, so be it. If I've got aids, and i can solve it by testing a thousand puppies, i'm sure as hell going to test every puppy i can get my hands on. that's the way nature works.
In 1999, PETA euthanized 1,325 of the 2,103 animals it took. PETA claimed that euthanizing the cats was much kinder than leaving them in the streets. PETA made the statement that a quick painless death is much better than a slow painful one. However, when hunters or farmers talk of quick painless ways of killing animals, PETA calls them barbarians and claim no animal death is justified. Explain to me how my eating chicken is screwed up because i support a machine that kills animals? PETA kills animals. They rescue them from us "barbarians" then kill them gently.
The last point that i will even bother to make in this, is that is we were to simply release all of those poor lil animals tommorow, they would all die, and we would all starve. Nature has no way of supporting that mass of animals. A great way of showing it is by looking at the deer population in Virginia. Deer hunting is an absolute neccessity, because without it, the deer would literally eat themselves to extinction, and destroy the farming industry in the process. If you have a field that supports 100 deer, and 2 deer are there, and they mate. now you have 3 deer. next year, maybe you have five. then 8, 10. 15. 23. 36.50. 75. they're all skin and bones now, but still somehow surviving. some of them are dying naturally, some just being to weak to fight for food. but they're still popping em out. 115. now you're over shot. you have 15 that couldn't survive on a bare minimum diet, everyone else is getting less than that minimum because those 15 aren't simply going to give up. so your herd, already weak, drops off the face of the earth because the land has been over grown for too long, the soil is dry and overstressed, the deer are starved or too weak, back down to a bare minimum bag of bones crew.
this already occurs on a yearly basis in random areas in Virginia, and that's with hunters taking them down as fast as they can pull the pump on their 12 guage. Imagine PETA's vision now. an underfarmed, overstressed landscape, much of which has been turned urban or suburban and is now UNfarmable. Now ban hunting, animal testing, and automated mass poultry, pork and beef farming. yeah, Peta is a bunch of freaking genius, and the whole "animal rights" thing is so appealing.
I am Man. I survive, and i crush what will aid in that goal.
1) PETA being awful does not justify the torturous lives animals live for the sake of profit.
2) "We're people" does not justify the torturous lives animals live for the sake of profit.
3) Nobody said anything about releasing millions of diseased and invalid chickens into the wild.
4) You don't have to give up eating meat to help the problem. A 10% reduction in meat in the American diet, which is still more servings of meat than is healthy for anyone, would free up enough farm land to feed approximately 60,000,000 more people.
5) Someone needs to explain to me how "they're chickens" makes anything in that video okay. Debeaking is disgusting. Keeping chickens in flocks larger than they can psychologically handle is disgusting. Giving them hormones until they grow too big and too fast to stand so that they spend their lives flapping around on the floor is so wrong.
6) It's unfair to use "the food chain" or "nature" to justify the mass farming and abuse of animals. There's nothing natural about these farming methods. If you want to talk about the food chain, go kill your own damn chicken.
7) Again, PETA has nothing to do with the topic. Whether or not eating meat it okay has nothing to do with the topic. This topic is the extreme life-long abuse of living creatures because people think fried chicken is "yummy."
QFT
Actually, I do. I hunt moose, duck, goose and grouse in the fall (autumn). Moose is similar to beef, except leaner, stronger tasting and gameyer. Likewise, grouse is virtually identical to chicken, except a little leaner and the slightest bit gameyer (if "gameyer" is actually a word). And yes, I clean, cook and eat them.
So yes, I sit on top of the food chain. We, as humans, all do, because we consume almost all other forms of life on the planet, while there's nothing that consumes humans as regular parts of their diet.
Of course, that certainly doesn't give people the right to treat chickens, or any other animal so brutally.
WICKED-AWESOME SIG.
And that was the main point of Shlup's post. She wasn't saying that humans shouldn't go out and eat other animals. She was saying that using the "food chain" excuse wasn't a valid excuse for literally torturing other animals in the process of making them into consumable products.
And the fact many people don't see a problem with that.This topic is the extreme life-long abuse of living creatures because people think fried chicken is "yummy."
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
It's sad that I was somehow logged out of the forums and forgot how to spell my name so I had to come into this thread and find a post by me and copy and paste it into the login thing
*runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, crashes into a wall* bawk bawk bawk :</>D
*cough* Animal abuse is bad. Have I said that already? *runs away*
Wat
is
going
on
wtf
rawr
The point is that Mass farming is the "natural" step. you do what fits best for the survival of your species. What fits best, with a population as overgrown as ours is, is to concentrate as much freaking chicken into a square foot as humanely possible. chickens are another animal, one that is beneath us in power and intelligence. in the glorious animal kingdom, that generally makes them food, a tool for our survival. So we will use these tools as efficiently as possible. IE: fast, methodic execution resulting in an easily indetifiable, readily useable product for mass consumpiton, thus feeding the most people with the least amount of work, for the least overhead price.
Actually look at it without crying over the hurt chickens. it IS the next logical step in the continuing survival of mankind.
I always assumed that the next logical step would be orcastrate world war three to reduce the population of large countries like China and India, along with attacks against the largest cities of the US.
Can we justcookclose this thread. I'm hungry and am tired of arguing about the worth of chickens as something more important than a farming unit to feed the populace.
Is it so bad to care about an animal?
hi.
And that's perfectly fine... except to those people who feel it's wrong to eat animals at all, but that's not what we're talking about here.
That would be lovely if factory farming were feeding more people. It isn't. Animals require more feed themselves than they produce. It takes... 21 or 22 pounds of feed to make one pound of beef. Mass producing animals simply does not feed more people.
So it isn't the next natural step. The next natural step would be to use the farmland used to feed livestock to feed people. The current practices are only in place because (1) people want to eat meat, and don't care how they get it or don't know what it takes to get that meat on their plate and (2) the cheaper the farmer can produce it, the more profit he makes.
I'm sorry, but stuffing 10,000 chickens into a barn where it's hot and stuffy and they recieve no light most of their lives, have to have their beaks cut off to prevent them from pecking each other after going insane from the psychologically unsound conditions, and are fed hormones so that their legs can't support their mass, does not have to do with our survival. It has to do with us thinking meat is yummy, and "yummy" does not justify anything shown in that video.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
