Quote Originally Posted by Sunnyvale420 View Post
Back to what I said a few posts ago... The 'fat cats' will donate what they can afford to.


Again, if food was plentiful to the point of being worthless, would people still starve? So to save the suffering of some chickens, we need to take the rich and make their money the poor's...
No thanks.
Look into overproduction of food & subsidies of farming. You'd be amazed how much food is voluntarily destroyed because it's cheaper then actually using it to feed the poor.

I have no issue with how you feel, it's what you do with those feelings I take issue with. I actually applaud the humanitarian feelings you and Amon Re and others feel. However, if it is going to make it more expensive to feed my kids, to hell with your philosophy.
The thing is, it doesn't make it more expensive to feed your kids, it might at worst mean you have to give them a more balanced diet, but that too is a good thing.

I have every right to feel this 'cause' is a joke, a waste of human resources. Again, when all of the human issues are solved, I'll start worrying about the poor chickens.
There is no profit in solving 'all human issues' hence you will never see it come to pass. Like has been said many times already: We have the means and resources to feed the whole world population but we chose not to.

It's like the (pointless) argument of capitalism vs socialism. You don't need to pick one or the other, you can take the best of both.

To me, to worry about another species while your own has such serious troubles (that are directly related, but eh, I'm tired of trying to teach business here) is no different than a person who can't feed their family giving to a charity or a church. That is irresponsible.
They are not directly related as there is food aplenty and most of it is actually healthy (compared McDonalds/KFC just about anything is healthy). Do some googling about the overproduction of food please.