Ok I will, but I doubt I will find a humane solution to their mass imprisonment and slaughter. by the way, yum.
well a quick search produced this
certifiedhumane.com/USAtoday81203.html
which says to me that you are right and i was shooting off my mouth.
i just find it ironic to pamper living creatures, who must surely wish they were on top of the food chain and could obsess about it, to slaughter and eat them. you have to be a vegetarian to really carry this argument, i hope you are for purity’s sake. if not, i will still say you are right.
Yes my loved ones always come first, but I also take the human race before any animal race. I would be the first to advocate humanitarian causes over animal causes. But on the same token, I am an animal lover and never abuse them or mistreat them. But they still run a far 2nd to my own species.
But sadly, with PETA as the spearhead and most visible group for animal rights, the issue will never be taken seriously on a large scale level because PETA is just as corrupt as any greedy corporation. When they launch a campaign against March of Dimes for god’s sake, or their high level members let out nuggets of wisdom like this…
[quote]“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” - PETA President Ingrid Newkirk
“McVeigh’s decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world’s greatest visionaries.” - Bruce Friedrich[/quote]
…not to mention openly advocating terrorist (sometimes violent) activities against those they oppose, then something is grossly wrong. All the bleeding hearts out there need to wake up and realize we have more pressing issues at hand that deal with our own survival as a species. How are you going to be able to help out the lesser life forms if you aren’t around?
Yes, there is a grey area as far as the line goes, but a chicken is industrialized food, has the intellect of, well, a chicken, and does not compare with a dog (a cat, maybe 
).
I don’t advocate kicking chickens around, but if it happens occassionally, well, that’s life. Probably some pissed off chickens will strap explosives under their wings and sneak into a KFC and blow the place up in revenge.
I’ve been a vegetarian for over 20 years, though 90% of the people who know me are unaware of it. Don’t tar us all with the same brush as those idiots at PETA, they’re just a noisy minority.
[quote=“Jinete Mortal”]More PETA silliness:
Excuse me while I LMAO. 
I wonder if they even give two shits about the “rights” of the pesky bugs they will inevitably kill out in the wilderness. Mosquitos be damned! 
[/quote]
That’s not a bug – its a camper.
Though pigs are as smart if not smarter than dogs and we still treat them in ways that are unacceptable if you were to do the same to a dog or cat. I dont think the issue is inteliigence but convenience and cost.
Jinete, I understand your animus towards PETA. I have no use for them either. But we need not turn a blind eye to obviously cruel livestock rearing anymore than we would ignore cruelty to animals on the set of a Hollywood film. There was a time when directors used ropes strung across a field to trip up horse when they needed to show a rider falling. Most of the time the horse broke a leg and had to be put down. Was this acceptable because Hilter was rising in Europe? No, and proper animal trainers were brought in to train the horses to fall on command without hurting themselves.
Animals were regularly used in testing cosmetics. It was barbaric. Tossing heavily acidic shampoos into rabbits eyes and all that shit. Did people say, oh, we have the cold war to worry about? Can’t care about those cottontails?
A wealthy society has plenty of time, resources and people to tackle more than one issue at a time. There are already people whose job is is to monitor livestock rearing to make sure it is sanitary. They can also check to make sure it is as humane as possible.
Agree, but also the point here is that pigs are not thought of as pets; they are institutionalized food for humans.
I think the issue is not human rights vs. animal rights. I don’t understand all the posts with the idea “why protect or properly treat animals when people are suffering?”
Seems strange logic to me.
Like saying why clean up the park when there is pollution down the road.
There is nothing wrong with wanting humane treatment of animals. In fact, M. K. Gandhi said “You can judge a nation on how it treats its animals.”
For those of you trumpeting about not caring for animals until the human condition is improved, what are you doing about it? Is it such a strange notion to care for something other than ourselves? They aren’t mutually-exclusive concerns. I’d wager too that people who mobilize against mistreatment of animals would tend to be more likely to support other causes for the betterment of us all.
I eat chicken. That doesn’t mean I don’t oppose them being stomped and kicked around like footballs, having their beaks twisted off and tobacco juice spat in their eyes.
There’s really no connection.
Anyone who eats meat (like I do) obviously puts their own appetite above the importance of a chicken, pig, dog or horse’s life. That’s clear.
But, does that mean that we agree that ANYTHING can be done to that animal, no matter how torturous or cruel? I say no.
One of the nicest things about people is our capacity to make choices that lessen the suffering of others - people, mammals, birds, whatever.
Chicken revenge (from CNN)
Poultry processor takes action after a PETA video shows animal cruelty at one of its facilities.
July 21, 2004: 7:32 PM EDT
DENVER (Reuters) - Poultry processor Pilgrim’s Pride said Wednesday it fired 11 employees at its Moorfield, West Virginia, facility after a video from animal rights group PETA showed cruelty to chickens.
The company said it dismissed one superintendent, one supervisor, one foreman and eight hourly employees following an investigation it began on Tuesday after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) released the video.
The tape showed workers at a West Virginia Pilgrim’s Pride plant ripping off birds’ beaks, spitting tobacco into their mouths and eyes and kicking live chickens.
[quote]They’re fucking chickens! Who cares?
What next? An outcry over the heinous suffocation of
huge numbers of squid by TAKING THEM OUT OF THE WATER!!![/quote]
Well I care.
Chickens may not be smart, but they have the capacity to suffer, and they suffer a lot.
If you think it’s fine to make chickens suffer because they have little or no intellect, then I take it you wouldn’t have a problem with torturing a ‘retard’ for pleasure?
Brian
Cool! Do you have one I can borrow?
My point is they are industrialized food products. How do you think an oyster feels when you are swallowing it live on the half-shell? Or the pain and suffering of a fish gaffed and then FROZEN ALIVE!!!
Hey, it’s just a chicken.
But if we request that KFC improve its treatment of chickens… whatever will we do with all the problems that plagues mankind?! We are all doomed! Noooo!!! :help:
[quote]My point is they are industrialized food products. How do you think an oyster feels when you are swallowing it live on the half-shell? Or the pain and suffering of a fish gaffed and then FROZEN ALIVE!!!
Hey, it’s just a chicken.[/quote]
I don’t get your point.
My point is that they suffer. Why do you say it’s just a chicken?
Brian
Intellect and capacity to suffer are not related as Bu Lai En pointed out.
One of the things that classifies life is the ability to feel pain. All life forms can.
Willfully causing pain, is in my view, one of the things that classifies evil.
Is this true? I thought insects, some sea creatures, plants and I’m sure some other things don’t have pain receptors (just pointing that out). Let me know if I’m wrong.
I think you’re right Miltownkid. It seems that insects, some sea animals (shrimps?, mussels etc) and certainly plants don’t have nevous systems and thus don’t feel pain. This is the criteria used by ‘some guy I can’t be bothered walking upstairs to check the name of’ in his book ‘Animal Liberation’. Personally pretty much use this criteria, but it never felt right to me to eat seafood either. Buddhists and others of course have different criteria. Buddhist vegetarians interpret Buddha’s first precept ‘Do not take life’ to include that of ‘all sentient beings’ of which they include insects and seafood, but not plants.
Brian
Are fish actually sentient? IIRC they have pretty basic nervous systems as well. Ability to feel pain is one thing, but actual concern about it is something else. Remember that opiate drugs are so effective not because they block pain, but they remove any concern about it. You can see the terror in a chicken or pig while it’s being killed, they are obviously sensitive enough. But a fish, does a fish know pain or terror?
Aside from the issue of pain in the higher animals, I think there’s also the issue of quality of life to look at. I think it’s fine for someone to kill a wild animal, dress, butcher and eat it, as long as it’s not on an endangered list. It’s the life of unnatural misery followed by cruel and violent death to top it off that bothers me. Then there’s those who like to eat processed meat products, but can’t stand the sight of blood. If you couldn’t kill or butcher an animal yourself, what gives you the right to eat its corpse?
Well as far as I reason it, fish do have nervous systems and do suffer. I don’t feel right about causing their suffering or taking their lives.
Also with regard to fish, I think the ecological concerns of massive overfishing are very important.
Brian