PETA versus Tanooki wearing Mario

[Sunnyvale]

Oh, another thing. World hunger can be tackled more efficiently when everyone realizes the exorbitant amount of space and energy factory farming uses up. For every sixteen pounds of grain and soy fed to beef cattle in the United States, we only get one pound back in meat on our plates. And fuck man, we could use all this land used to grow all this grain to grow edible grains for humans to help combat world hunger several times over.

-GoTaS

Our bodies aren't set up to live on grain alone. Soy protien has shown to have a number of issues the body is far less prepared to cope with than the problems associated with meat.

Let's not forget that in order to crank out the yield of grains you quoted, a farmer has to use GM grains, something I'd bet my heavy sixer on that you're against.

But it's not 'karmically correct' to eat animals, right? Sheesh... Look, if you want to be 'humane' about it, vegetables have a nervous system as well. They feel something when damaged, that much is known, and I doubt it's an orgasm. So all you get is fruit. Or would you needlessly slaughter the infants of an entire species as they writhe in pain in front of their mothers? Monster.

I'm not of the religious 'we're above them' mentality; I'm of the Darwinian 'we're above them' mentality. On this one, even The Shawn and I can find common ground.

Watch a cat play with a mouse. That's what happens to food, it's seldom pretty or humane. And if you want to say 'we're better than them', I agree. So much better, we are the king's and they our foodstuffs.

[treismac]

Chickens are not domestic animals. They are here for us, believe it or not, to use for eggs and meat. They serve no other purpose in the welfare of humans.

First off, I'm not that emotionally involved with the rights of chickens. I'm saying this so you don't read any vehemence into the tone of my writing. So don't take any offense, please, I'm just jumping around with words and ideas, alright? Anyway...

Why must chickens or any other sentient being have to serve a purpose in the welfare of humans? Can't chickens just enjoy being chickens without us having to have a use for them? One way you could reframe this line of thinking is that the weak (chickens) should serve a purpose for the benefit of the powerful (humans). You could extend this line of thinking beyond chickens with barbarous results. What purpose do people who are seriously mentally handicapped serve? How about the homeless? What if science uncovered a method for extracting the vitality out of them and transferring it upon the wealthy? If the weak have no purpose but to serve the powerful, then there should be no complaints. But let me assume that someone will raise the objection that chickens are a different species than humans, and a vastly stupidier one at that. Alright. If another life form, that dwarfed our intelligence landed on earth, discovered that human brains were the most incredible delicacy in the entire cosmos, why should we be any different than chickens? This hypothetical race of beings could experience love and thoughts so much deeper and richer than our capacity, that humans would by comparison be closer to an earthworm than a noble chicken.

Once again, this is all just for the sake of discussion. I enjoyed a rather delicious buffalo chicken sandwich for lunch today without any thought to the relationship of my power to the chicken's.

[The Shawn]

First off, I'm not that emotionally involved with the rights of chickens. I'm saying this so you don't read any vehemence into the tone of my writing. So don't take any offense, please, I'm just jumping around with words and ideas, alright? Anyway...

Why must chickens or any other sentient being have to serve a purpose in the welfare of humans? Can't chickens just enjoy being chickens without us having to have a use for them? One way you could reframe this line of thinking is that the weak (chickens) should serve a purpose for the benefit of the powerful (humans). You could extend this line of thinking beyond chickens with barbarous results. What purpose do people who are seriously mentally handicapped serve? How about the homeless? What if science uncovered a method for extracting the vitality out of them and transferring it upon the wealthy? If the weak have no purpose but to serve the powerful, then there should be no complaints. But let me assume that someone will raise the objection that chickens are a different species than humans, and a vastly stupidier one at that. Alright. If another life form, that dwarfed our intelligence landed on earth, discovered that human brains were the most incredible delicacy in the entire cosmos, why we be any different than chickens? This hypothetical race of beings could experience love and thoughts so much deeper and richer than our capacity, that humans would by comparison be closer to an earthworm than a noble chicken.

Once again, this is all just for the sake of discussion. I enjoyed a rather delicious buffalo chicken sandwich for lunch today without any thought to the relationship of my power to the chicken's.

I enjoyed your debate also. So much so I am maturbating as we speak.

Ahhh chickens.

[treismac]

This is veering off topic, but what the hell:

I am opposed to Social Darwinism. Just 'cause the powerful can do what they like, doesn't mean that they should. Refer back to my earlier posted guillotine gif to better understand the reasons why.

[treismac]

I enjoyed your debate also. So much so I am maturbating as we speak.

Ahhh chickens.

If your self-pleasuring involves blue cheese and hot sauce then more power to you, sir.

[The Shawn]

If your self-pleasuring involves blue cheese and hot sauce then more power to you, sir.

Sorry I'm still not finished.

[PC-ENGINE HELL]

Alright. If another life form, that dwarfed our intelligence landed on earth, discovered that human brains were the most incredible delicacy in the entire cosmos, why should we be any different than chickens?

We can fight back with independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase-plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers!!! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks... chickens are sol.

[The Shawn]

We can fight back with independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase-plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers!!! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks... chickens are sol.

Chickens suck anyway's. They are dirty vile creatures who shit green and are not loyal, and they stress out my dog.

Eat them and be done with it.

And I want a tanooki fucking hat!

[PC-ENGINE HELL]

Seriously. It always amazes me how people can cry for the welfare of chickens and crap over that of any starving kids in third world countries, dying to eat something, anything besides mud cookies.

[Buyatari]

Just for the hell of it, let's take this argument to a ridiculous level. What if corporate scientist devised a torture technique that made the food tastier and cheaper, but increased the agony of the animals 100 fold? I understand that it is difficult to imagine anything being tasty at McDonalds but try. Does a point come when we say that what benefits us costs others too much? This question could be applied to many other cases of course.

To me, it is one thing for a starving family to do what they must to survive and quite another thing for a multinational corporation to do what they can to make more money.

I would be in heaven. If there was a way to make chicken taste 100 times better and 100 times cheaper (1 cent on the dollar) you would have to go for that. Chicken is pretty good and pretty cheap as it is.

[The Shawn]

I would be in heaven. If there was a way to make chicken taste 100 times better and 100 times cheaper (1 cent on the dollar) you would have to go for that. Chicken is pretty good and pretty cheap as it is.

Some asshole's gonna post a George Carlin clip soon. And it's not gonna be me.

Allthough I will el oh el.

[j_factor]

Seriously. It always amazes me how people can cry for the welfare of chickens and crap over that of any starving kids in third world countries, dying to eat something, anything besides mud cookies.

You do know that meat production consumes more resources than other foods? Lessening the intake of meat increases the world's food supply.

[The Shawn]

You do know that meat production consumes more resources than other foods? Lessening the intake of meat increases the world's food supply.

So, the starving kids should eat straw?

[treismac]

Some asshole's gonna post a George Carlin clip soon. And it's not gonna be me.

Allthough I will el oh el.

Post it, man, or at least tell me what to search for on youtube.

[RCM]

Fuck PETA, seriously. I wish they'd just fucking go away.

[The Shawn]

Post it, man, or at least tell me what to search for on youtube.

"Chickens are decent people"

[Gameguy]

2) People whom are starving already shouldn't be eating fast food anyway as that food is:
a) Not healthy
b) Not really cheaper

For the homeless what should they eat instead? They don't exactly have a kitchen where they can cook their own food from scratch.

4) You shouldn't fuck your dinner

What about cannibalism?

And someone should take care of all those fucking stray cats that like to shit in my backyard...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmXxrMC5Pv4

Chickens are not domestic animals. They are here for us, believe it or not, to use for eggs and meat. They serve no other purpose in the welfare of humans.

Only for humans? Other animals eat chickens too, not just humans. Foxes and the like. But they aren't just for food, if my research is correct they were originally domesticated by people for the purpose of cockfighting. Using them for food is actually less cruel than their original purpose.

Why must chickens or any other sentient being have to serve a purpose in the welfare of humans? Can't chickens just enjoy being chickens without us having to have a use for them? One way you could reframe this line of thinking is that the weak (chickens) should serve a purpose for the benefit of the powerful (humans). You could extend this line of thinking beyond chickens with barbarous results. What purpose do people who are seriously mentally handicapped serve? How about the homeless?

So you're saying we should eat people too? You have an interesting argument there.

[The Shawn]

Only for humans? Other animals eat chickens too, not just humans. Foxes and the like. But they aren't just for food, if my research is correct they were originally domesticated by people for the purpose of cockfighting. Using them for food is actually less cruel than their original purpose.

I don't believe that they were originally set forth in this world for cockfighting. And you must have allready assumed this by some of my posts in the past.
Hence why you brought it up.

Besides, I would rather tenderize my meat by myself before it's eaten. Not some other cock.

[Buyatari]

You do know that meat production consumes more resources than other foods? Lessening the intake of meat increases the world's food supply.

I think his point is that some people care more about animals than people. That they take up the cause of animals when there are causes he considers to be much greater such as human life.

Just speculation here but if you are a member of PETA it might be ok to get an abortion but not ok to declaw your cat because your landlord demands it.

[Iron Draggon]

Actually, a Tanuki is a Japanese MYTHOLOGICAL creature that resembles a raccoon, which is associated with alcoholism and other forms of addiction. IT'S NOT A REAL ANIMAL!