Once I heard someone say "de-beaking", I decided not to watch. >_> I'll just go with the crowd and say...
I'm never going to KFC again.
Once I heard someone say "de-beaking", I decided not to watch. >_> I'll just go with the crowd and say...
I'm never going to KFC again.
Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke
if there are ostriches, there will be chocobos, xD (which have been known to attack humans)...
Last edited by Yuffie514; 06-03-2006 at 01:49 AM.
Well... Fried chicken IS good...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."
Let's leave KFC for a moment, and take a broader look.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.
Induatrialised farming. It's done everywhere in the world, in order to provide lots of cheap meat.We're not talking fast-food chains - we're talking about 'feeding the world'. We're talking seemingly awful conditions for millions and millions of animals, in order to feed billions of people.
Most of the world's populace can barely afford simple food, let alone meat, let alone meat produced in 'free ranges'. I don't think they've even heard of fancy-ass veggie supplements. Now, what people are suggesting here is that we feel sorry for the chickens (who are indeed treated horribly), and start treating them better. For them, it would only mean a price-rise in meat (in KFC or the local meat-shop, doesn't matter). For countless others who are less fortunate, it would mean that what little meat is on their diet, is also taken away. What little constitution they may possess, will disappear. They will grow weak and unhealthy. This will affect a bit more than the price of life-insurance - it will cause the whole WORLD to go back generations in terms of life expectancy.
So, no, the treatment of various animals in the food industry is not nice. But it's the price we pay, in order to pay less. There's plenty of meat sold in various stores, 'health food' they call it, and among those things is free-range produced meat. Happy chickens and cows, that live their lives happily untill their throats are cut, their bodies cut and stuffed into bags and boxes. Rich folk with an active conscious can buy their meat there. The rest should still have the option of buying cheaply produced meat, with the realisation that all the chickens and cows did not frolick their days away on the green pastures of their homeland.
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
If we were all vegetarians it would save alot more money and resources than us all eating animals that have been kept and slaughtered as cheaply as possible. An you're very much mistaken in thinking that to be a vegetarian an eat well you need to be rich.
Without protein, B12 and iron, the human body collapses. Vegeterians must provide themselves with these ingredients, normally found in meat, through supplements. Those supplements cost money, and a good deal of it too. The poor cannot abolish meat from their diets, as they cannot afford, say, B12 pills.An you're very much mistaken in thinking that to be a vegetarian an eat well you need to be rich.
Certainly it would be a lot cheaper. People would be a lot more susceptible to disease, would live less, the natural abortion rates would sky-rocket, etc etc... But that's a third-world existence I wouldn't want to live in.If we were all vegetarians it would save alot more money and resources than us all eating animals that have been kept and slaughtered as cheaply as possible.
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
If our taxes would be going towards to safety of animals, and not all going to the same old ( school, police etc ) then this can all be prevented. But alas, when has any goverment cared about anyones safety.
Moses fooking Christ, you're actually advocating the promotion of the 'safety' of animals which are about to be BUTCHERED and EATEN, over the betterment of human living conditions?!If our taxes would be going towards to safety of animals, and not all going to the same old ( school, police etc ) then this can all be prevented. But alas, when has any goverment ever been intrested in anyones safety.
Or were you being cynical?...
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
Other than the last couple of off posts, War Angel, you clearly missed a big part of my point: Producing more meat does not feed more people. It's an assumption a lot of people make, and on the surface it's logical, but it's just not correct.
Firstly, the amount of resources it takes to produce meat, if used to feed people, would feed a lot more people than the meat itself. Like I said, if the U.S. alone reduced it's meat intake by 10% we could feed 60,000,000 more people. Already people from "rich" countries eat far larger servings of meat than nature intended (steaks at resturants are served in 8, 12, or 16 ounce portions, while a serving of meat is only 3 ounces), so why is it so awful to suggest reducing our intake to fee up some farmland to feed people?
Secondly, factory farming does not make meat cheap. Another assumption that's logical on the surface, but not true. Meat is cheap because meat farms recieve large government subsidies. The methods used to farm increase the output, yes (also increasing the amount of farm land used to feed these animals), but does not lower prices. If not for government subsidies, a McDonald's hamberger would cost at least the $11 or $13 (one of those numbers... I forget exactly) it costs to produce. In essence, we're paying for this meat with our taxes.
So it's very humanitarian for people to believe factor farming sacrifices the wellbeing of animals to feed more people, but it just isn't true.
As for vitamins, the only vitamin in jeopardy from a vegan diet is B12, which is not only found in meat, but also dairy products. Iron, protien... none others are a problem. But that is a vegan diet. No one (except PeTA, but they're crazy bastards anyway) is saying you have to go vegan. No one's saying you have to go vegetarian. Just quit eating an excess of meat!
Again, the assumptions people make about "quick and dirty farming = more cheap food for the hungry" seems logical on the surface, but if you look into it a bit you'll find it's not. One of my favorite resources on the topic is Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. The title is really out there, but it's mostly as an attention-getter and he really isn't as insane as you'd assume from the title; he even advocates meat eating and animal testing under certain circumstances.
Whats the problem with our money going towards better conditions for these animals. So what if there going to die, the conditions there in at the moment, im sure they look forward to death. We are practically torturing these animals.
We need to stop being so selfish, everything is for our convenience nowadays. It seems like no one cares about anything apart from themselves. Its people who should be in those farms, its exactly what we deserve. But then again, if you were a man by your word, you wouldnt have a problem being in those conditons, seeing as we'd be doing our part in the food chain.
Is there a way of lessening the suffering of animals without decreasing the amount of meat we can get? If not, then I would say its though luck for the chickens.
We dont even need that much meat. We shouldnt even be eating fast food in the first place. Again, were doing this for our pleasure, its not a necessity for our survival.
Yeach, but I like eating meat, and the majority of the human population does too. So though I might not like how those chickens are threatened, if changing it will mean less meat for us, it isn't gonna happen.
Yep, thats the kind of bastards we are.
We don't stop at chickens. If we don't respect things like chickens, how can we respect people? It's greed, it just keeps going on and up and stuff.
What the hell does that even mean (besides what it obviously means)? That... that's not an argument! Shush, sir! Shush!
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.
Just because the holocaust is a touchy thing (and very touchy) doesn't mean squat-diddly. It's a fair point. They're so similar. And isn't that disgusting? If it's all so disgusting, you should be disgusted!
And, besides those beautiful words above, I say!: just listen to Shlupquack because she's a genious and we love her.
Any toher argument I could delightfully argue... it's hiding in her posts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
