| | | Author | Message |
|---|
Wicksy 
| #1 posted October 10, 2009 at 11:02am (EST)
edited October 10, 2009 at 11:05am (EST) |
One in twenty chickens die before they are slaughtered. I saw a five second youtube video yesterday and saw over 10,000 chickens in one shed. That means that 500 of them will die of disease, abuse, hunger and thirst.
I love chickens and I am sad.
These 500 will be dead already. I feel like they were a part of me
| Iseult  
| | #2 posted October 10, 2009 at 2:04pm (EST) |
I love chicken, too. Very tasty. | Melf
| | #3 posted October 10, 2009 at 2:50pm (EST) |
It's nice.
Quorn chicken is also nice.
Cochineal isn't 'nice', but it's bright.
Conclusions: food is nice, some food is bright. | Wicksy
| | #4 posted October 11, 2009 at 2:49pm (EST) |
Just as I thought.
500 deaths and there is no sadness, in fact, some even mock the fact.
On the other side, 1 cat dies of cancer and dozens show their symapthy.
The hypocrisy in this world is complete. I need not ever doubt my opinions again | Crayons  
| | #5 posted October 11, 2009 at 3:14pm (EST) |
It comforts me to know the chickens are stupid. I care more when an intelligent person dies than when a stupid one does. At least I have a reason. Plus, I'm too weak and skinny to give up the protein in meat. | labjog
| | #6 posted October 11, 2009 at 6:30pm (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> Just as I thought.
>
> 500 deaths and there is no sadness, in fact, some even mock the fact.
>
> On the other side, 1 cat dies of cancer and dozens show their symapthy.
>
> The hypocrisy in this world is complete. I need not ever doubt my
> opinions again
Are you really this dense, or are you just playing? | southernyankee 
| | #7 posted October 11, 2009 at 8:16pm (EST) |
CK cares about his cats, because they're his cats. He also cares about his wife (or at least I hope he does) because she's his wife. He doesn't care about animals or people that aren't his. Does that make sense?
Also, we care about CK's cats too, because CK is a SC user, therefore by extension we care about CK, so we care about CK's cats by proxy. It works like that up to 2 levels of Kevin Bacon. | Iseult
| #8 posted October 11, 2009 at 8:17pm (EST)
edited October 11, 2009 at 9:14pm (EST) |
Yes, it's the same principle as when 500 people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, instert your own country of choice here, die. It's sad and everything, but in the end you don't really care.
But when somebody you personally know dies, yes, it's a tradegy because you knew these people, you loved them, you cared about them.
500 nameless chicken (that end up as your food) = 500 Iraqis dying
1 cat that you loved and cared for = your friend dying | labjog
| | #9 posted October 11, 2009 at 8:20pm (EST) |
Did anyone have an emotional bond to these chickens? | llamamama 
| | #10 posted October 11, 2009 at 8:53pm (EST) |
That...and we're less apt to care because you were doing it to be a spiteful jerk..
And you know, chickens are delicious. | Iseult
| | #11 posted October 11, 2009 at 9:15pm (EST) |
I love chicken.
You know what else I love - turkey. And speaking of turkey, tomorrow's Thanksgiving. Imagine all those households serving a delicious turkey tomorrow. | llamamama
| | #12 posted October 11, 2009 at 9:24pm (EST) |
My friend had Thanksgiving today ebcause she goes back to Canada tomorrow. I love turkey. I can't wait until our Thanksgiving.
And you know what else is good? Ham. Mmmm.
And my favorite..roast fox sandwiches. Drool. | Iseult
| #13 posted October 11, 2009 at 10:07pm (EST)
edited October 11, 2009 at 10:07pm (EST) |
I never tried roast fox sandwiches, but it sounds good.
Maybe Subway should serve them? | Wicksy
| | #14 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:47am (EST) |
labjog wrote:
> Did anyone have an emotional bond to these chickens?
Yes, I did because I saw them! | Wicksy
| | #15 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:48am (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> CK cares about his cats, because they're his cats. He also
> cares about his wife (or at least I hope he does) because she's his
> wife. He doesn't care about animals or people that aren't his. Does
> that make sense?
>
True but this is the problem of the world. People and animals are dying left, right and centre, and all we do is watch.
Why? Because it doesn't really matter to us. But when someone close dies, we do, and we expect the world to stop.
It's a shame that people don't think about other people more! | Wicksy
| | #16 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:49am (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> I never tried roast fox sandwiches, but it sounds good.
>
> Maybe Subway should serve them?
Nothing you say here can offend me. Nice try though.
If all animals were killed humanely, I would be happy. Unfortunately, this is not the case... | Melf
| | #17 posted October 12, 2009 at 4:05am (EST) |
If you really cared, Wicksy, you'd be fudging vegan. I always think this about way too overboard veggies. | Wicksy
| | #18 posted October 12, 2009 at 4:11am (EST) |
My point is this. A life is a life, no matter whom or what is close to it. A chicken’s life is as important as a cat’s life. Yet when I stand up for chickens, people accuse me of all sorts of things. Some people go as far as mocking me over it (in other words, using the death of a living thing for comical purposes). Yet when I mock the death of a cat in response, I get called all the names in the world...hypocrisy.
Surely, someone understands this. Where is risingroad!!?
ps: For melf, I am now no longer wearing leather, I no longer eat eggs, and I will be off milk very shortly. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. | Melf
| | #19 posted October 12, 2009 at 6:04am (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> My point is this. A life is a life, no matter whom or what is close to it. A chicken’s life
> is as important as a cat’s life. Yet when I stand up for chickens, people accuse me of all
> sorts of things. Some people go as far as mocking me over it (in other words, using the death
> of a living thing for comical purposes). Yet when I mock the death of a cat in response, I
> get called all the names in the world...hypocrisy.
>
> Surely, someone understands this. Where is risingroad!!?
>
> ps: For melf, I am now no longer wearing leather, I no longer eat eggs, and I will be off milk
> very shortly. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
You know what, good. Off milk is a big commitment. I hope you mean all forms of it and not just your couple of teaspoons in a cuppa. It means most sweet confectionary and crisps. All milk chocolate, ever. Vitamins will be a must have. You'll have to google wines and beers before drinking. No quorn. Tofu will be your best friend and you won't ever be able to wear wool again. I really do wish you good luck, even if you are a cruel and heartless wanker. | labjog
| | #20 posted October 12, 2009 at 8:45am (EST) |
Wanker wanker  Love that word, wanker | Iseult
| | #21 posted October 12, 2009 at 9:45am (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> Iseult wrote:
>> I never tried roast fox sandwiches, but it
> sounds good.
>>
>> Maybe Subway should serve them?
>
> Nothing you say here can offend me. Nice try though.
>
> If all animals were killed humanely, I would be
> happy. Unfortunately, this is not the case...
Oh thank you, but offending you wasn't really what I was going for. You're not worth offending. | labjog
| #22 posted October 12, 2009 at 10:27am (EST)
edited October 12, 2009 at 10:31am (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> My point is this. A life is a life, no matter whom or what is close
> to it.
I agree, to a point, There is something called "the food chain" and , unfortunally for you chicken lovers, the chicken is pretty low on that chain.
A chicken’s life is as important as a cat’s life.
Again I agree but
in such different ways.A chicken is generaly considered food except for the few who have bonded with a human, I have bonded with chickens before on the farm, it does happen.
Yet when
> I stand up for chickens, people accuse me of all sorts of things.
It's your presentation.
> Some people go as far as mocking me over it (in other words, using
> the death of a living thing for comical purposes).
Sometimes it's fun to mock someone with a fudgeed up perspective on life, after all, we are only human.
Yet when I mock
> the death of a cat in response, I get called all the names in the
> world...hypocrisy.
Again, your presentation and your failure to understand the bond one develops with a
pet
.
| southernyankee
| | #23 posted October 12, 2009 at 11:41am (EST) |
I don't buy the premise that a chicken's life is equal to a cat's life to begin with. And not just because cats are pets and chickens are food, but also because cats are more intelligent (therefore deserve better rights just on that).
I also think that a monkey should have more rights than a dog or a cat, even though I wouldn't want one as a pet. | Wicksy
| | #24 posted October 12, 2009 at 12:55pm (EST) |
Melf wrote:
> You know what, good. Off milk is a big commitment. I hope you mean
> all forms of it and not just your couple of teaspoons in a cuppa.
> It means most sweet confectionary and crisps. All milk chocolate,
> ever. Vitamins will be a must have. You'll have to google wines and
> beers before drinking. No quorn. Tofu will be your best friend and
> you won't ever be able to wear wool again. I really do wish you good
> luck, even if you are a cruel and heartless wanker.
Thanks for all the kind words  | Wicksy
| #25 posted October 12, 2009 at 12:57pm (EST)
edited October 12, 2009 at 1:03pm (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> Wicksy wrote:
>> Iseult wrote:
> |>> I never tried roast fox sandwiches, but it
>> sounds good.
> |>>
> |>> Maybe Subway should serve them?
>>
>> Nothing you say here can offend me. Nice try though.
>>
>> If all animals were killed humanely, I would be
>> happy. Unfortunately, this is not the case...
>
> Oh thank you, but offending you wasn't really what I was going for.
Umm, well I find it hard to think of what else you were doing (ie. talking about killing my favourite animal and sticking it in a subway - on a post that showed my disgust at the way we treat animals) | Wicksy
| | #26 posted October 12, 2009 at 12:58pm (EST) |
labjog wrote:
> Wicksy wrote:
>> My point is this. A life is a life, no matter whom or what is close
>> to it.
>
> I agree, to a point, There is something called "the food chain"
> and , unfortunally for you chicken lovers, the chicken is pretty
> low on that chain.
>
>
> A chicken’s life is as important as a cat’s life.
>
> Again I agree but
> in such different ways.A chicken is generaly considered food except
> for the few who have bonded with a human, I have bonded with chickens
> before on the farm, it does happen.
>
> Yet when
>> I stand up for chickens, people accuse me of all sorts of things.
>
> It's your presentation.
>
>> Some people go as far as mocking me over it (in other words, using
>> the death of a living thing for comical purposes).
>
> Sometimes it's fun to mock someone with a fudgeed up perspective
> on life, after all, we are only human.
I would be very interested to know how I have a 'fudgeed up perspective on life' | Wicksy
| #27 posted October 12, 2009 at 1:02pm (EST)
edited October 12, 2009 at 1:13pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> I don't buy the premise that a chicken's life is equal to a cat's
> life to begin with. And not just because cats are pets and chickens
> are food, but also because cats are more intelligent (therefore deserve
> better rights just on that).
>
> I also think that a monkey should have more rights than a dog or a
> cat, even though I wouldn't want one as a pet.
A pig is more intelligent than a dog, yet we still castrate pigs without anathestic which leads to unimaginable pain (try and imagine this to yourself). Therefore, your argument is flawed
Again, it comes down to a simple belief that most people have: the more intelligent you are, the more important you are! That is simply not true!! A chicken's life is as important as a dog's life, yet this is not believed by the majority...unfortunately!
But a big big THANK YOU southernyankee...we are disagreeing yet we are arguing in a constructive way. Neither of us are calling each other names, and I am showing respect for your beliefs, even if it is totally the opposite of mine.
I am not calling you names, and you are not calling me names...unlike melf, for example.
| cerealkiller
| | #28 posted October 12, 2009 at 1:19pm (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> True but this is the problem of the world. People
> and animals are dying left, right and centre,
> and all we do is watch.
>
> Why? Because it doesn't really matter to us. But
> when someone close dies, we do, and we expect
> the world to stop.
>
> It's a shame that people don't think about other
> people more!
If you cared personally and tried to help everyone in the world you'd go insane. It's enough for most people to care about family, friends and their pets. Yes, it is not pleasant to hear about people dieing/murdered, etc., animals being abused, people starving, and all the rest. But you feel bad for a minute or two then go on with life.
I hate to hear about thousand's of cats, dogs, etc. being euthanized in shelters every year. But I sure can't bring them all home to try to save them. All I can do is feel sad when I think of it but then go on. I see personally what happens if you care to much, worry too much. My wife is neurotic and paranoid about everything, worries about all our cats, the cats outside, the kids, the grandkids, healthcare, the country, you name it. No way I'm gonna end up like that. You think doctors could function if they got so hung up personally on everyone and tried to save the world?
You're dreaming of a utopian society that will never exist and shouldn't. Now, if everyone cared more about their immediate world, their neighbors, what they could do locally for people and animals, the sum total would improve the whole world. People are such hypocrites though. Our next door neighbors keep trying to get us to go to their church. But on the other hand the husband just thinks of the stray cats around the neighborhood as wild animals and thinks nothing of trapping them and taking them to the pound for certain death. I've at least trained him to bring us any cat he traps and I bring them to the cat rescue place for help. | southernyankee
| | #29 posted October 12, 2009 at 1:55pm (EST) |
I do think its a bit of a double standard that if Wicksy is a dick, people get all pissy, but its ok to make jokes about how chickens are tasty (fyi: I too think chickens are tasty and don't think much about their pain, but at least I don't be a dick about it (although if you're the killed chicken would you really care if the person eating you makes jokes about it, feels bad about it, or indifferent)). I'll stick to reasoned arguments.
"A pig is more intelligent than a dog, yet we still castrate pigs without anathestic which leads to unimaginable pain (try and imagine this to yourself). Therefore, your argument is flawed"
Whether or not a pig is more intelligent than a dog is debatable, but theres no debate that chickens are less intelligent that both dogs and pigs. Off course, the world and its laws will never be perfect and without inconsistencies (why is alcohol legal, but pot isn't). But at least we're on the right path. Yes, severally retarded people are less intelligent than severely intelligent monkeys; yet the retarded person will have more rights than the monkey-- just for being a member of the more intelligent species. But that doesn't mean that intelligence isn't a good litmus test for your level of rights. Its not perfect, but its the best we got.
Also, are you willing to extend crawfish and other seafood the same courtsey of equal rights as you would do with chickens? What about insects? What about bacteria you kill with Lysol? Where do you draw the line? | Wicksy
| #30 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:00pm (EST)
edited October 12, 2009 at 2:04pm (EST) |
cerealkiller wrote:
> Wicksy wrote:
>
>> True but this is the problem of the world. People
>> and animals are dying left, right and centre,
>> and all we do is watch.
>>
>> Why? Because it doesn't really matter to us. But
>> when someone close dies, we do, and we expect
>> the world to stop.
>>
>> It's a shame that people don't think about other
>> people more!
>
> If you cared personally and tried to help everyone in the world you'd
> go insane. It's enough for most people to care about family, friends
> and their pets. Yes, it is not pleasant to hear about people dieing/murdered,
> etc., animals being abused, people starving, and all the rest. But
> you feel bad for a minute or two then go on with life.
>
> I hate to hear about thousand's of cats, dogs, etc. being euthanized
> in shelters every year. But I sure can't bring them all home to try
> to save them. All I can do is feel sad when I think of it but then
> go on. I see personally what happens if you care to much, worry too
> much. My wife is neurotic and paranoid about everything, worries
> about all our cats, the cats outside, the kids, the grandkids, healthcare,
> the country, you name it. No way I'm gonna end up like that. You
> think doctors could function if they got so hung up personally on
> everyone and tried to save the world?
>
> You're dreaming of a utopian society that will never exist and shouldn't.
> Now, if everyone cared more about their immediate world, their neighbors,
> what they could do locally for people and animals, the sum total would
> improve the whole world. People are such hypocrites though. Our
> next door neighbors keep trying to get us to go to their church.
> But on the other hand the husband just thinks of the stray cats around
> the neighborhood as wild animals and thinks nothing of trapping them
> and taking them to the pound for certain death. I've at least trained
> him to bring us any cat he traps and I bring them to the cat rescue
> place for help.
You know what CK, I liked what you said. I agree with it also
However, we have to try and do as much as we can, rather than the least amount.
Instead of saying: who cares about farm animals, rather: let's try and do our own bit for them, after all, they have feelings and feel pain like we do. How about: not eat meat once a wekk; eat better welfare animals etc etc. It's all simple logic to me
And CK: never meant to take a dig at you. In fact, it was about what you said rather than CK.
I actually like you in a strange way!!! Maybe I am just too nice  | Wicksy
| | #31 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:03pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> I do think its a bit of a double standard that if Wicksy is a dick,
> people get all pissy, but its ok to make jokes about how chickens
> are tasty (fyi: I too think chickens are tasty and don't think much
> about their pain, but at least I don't be a dick about it
Well said
> Also, are you willing to extend crawfish and other seafood the same
> courtsey of equal rights as you would do with chickens? What about
> insects? What about bacteria you kill with Lysol? Where do you draw
> the line?
Of course you have to draw the line somewhere. After all, I don't look at the pavements every time I walk in fear of killing an ant!
To me, it comes down to pain. If a living creatire has a nervous system, they can feel pain. This creatures should be cared for. Other animals that feel no pain, do we need to kill them humanely?
Biggles knows a lot about this, I wish I did more!! | Iseult
| | #32 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:11pm (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> I don't buy the premise that a chicken's life
> is equal to a cat's life to begin with. And not
> just because cats are pets and chickens are food,
> but also because cats are more intelligent (therefore
> deserve better rights just on that).
>
> I also think that a monkey should have more rights
> than a dog or a cat, even though I wouldn't want
> one as a pet.
You argument really doesn't work, in my opinion, just by the virtue of the fact that there is a huge variable in intelligence between humans. Should a person who's intelligent (and I'm not arguing here how to determine whether one is intelligent or not, because if we did, that would take a long time) recieve more right, more power over a person who is not? Think about it - everyone over 18 votes. Even if you're legally mentally retarded you can still vote. Should then really smart people get two, three votes? | Iseult
| | #33 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:16pm (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
>
> Umm, well I find it hard to think of what else
> you were doing (ie. talking about killing my favourite
> animal and sticking it in a subway - on a post
> that showed my disgust at the way we treat animals)
I was just trying to prove a point and have fun with it. I really dislike the way you go on about things. Yes, animals are treated poorly, yes it is very sad, yes I have an extremely inappropriate sense of humour at times and I've hurt many people with it and not just you. | llamamama
| | #34 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:47pm (EST) |
I agree with Iseult.
I was saying those things because the way you were going about it was bad. Very poorly timed. | Wicksy
| | #35 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:56pm (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> Wicksy wrote:
>>
>> Umm, well I find it hard to think of what else
>> you were doing (ie. talking about killing my favourite
>> animal and sticking it in a subway - on a post
>> that showed my disgust at the way we treat animals)
>
> I was just trying to prove a point and have fun with it. I really
> dislike the way you go on about things. Yes, animals are treated
> poorly, yes it is very sad, yes I have an extremely inappropriate
> sense of humour at times and I've hurt many people with it and not
> just you.
Well I like SC for a number of reasons. One of them is the FILTER button.
Use it... | Wicksy
| | #36 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:57pm (EST) |
llamamama wrote:
> I agree with Iseult.
> I was saying those things because the way you were going about it
> was bad. Very poorly timed.
and CK badly timed his: 'who cares about farm animals' comment, yet he avoids all criticism from you. Yet when I reply, I am attacked.
| cerealkiller
| | #37 posted October 12, 2009 at 2:59pm (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> llamamama wrote:
>> I agree with Iseult.
>> I was saying those things because the way you
> were going about it
>> was bad. Very poorly timed.
>
> and CK badly timed his: 'who cares about farm
> animals' comment, yet he avoids all criticism
> from you. Yet when I reply, I am attacked.
>
>
I don't recall any issue about timing from the comment I made. Maybe you can clarify? You have a farm animal die in your family? | llamamama
| | #38 posted October 12, 2009 at 3:00pm (EST) |
Okay, we know he was wrong..But did he attack you when your pet died? No.
And, do two wrongd make a right? Last time I checked, no. | southernyankee
| | #39 posted October 12, 2009 at 3:20pm (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> You argument really doesn't work, in my opinion, just by the virtue
> of the fact that there is a huge variable in intelligence between
> humans. Should a person who's intelligent (and I'm not arguing here
> how to determine whether one is intelligent or not, because if we
> did, that would take a long time) recieve more right, more power over
> a person who is not? Think about it - everyone over 18 votes. Even
> if you're legally mentally retarded you can still vote. Should then
> really smart people get two, three votes?
Like I said in a different post, using intelligence as the litmus test for rights isn't perfect, but its the best approximation we have. For instance, a servery retarded person would still have more rights than the most intelligent dog in the world (the dog would likely be a bit smarter). The reason is that s/he's a member of the human species, and that membership automatically grants you the same rights no matter what. And humans being the most intelligent species on Earth, have the most rights (might =s right in this case).
Just because the system isn't perfect doesn't mean we give up on it entirely. For instance, why is alcohol legal but not pot? Theres really no good reason for the inconsistency; but the majority of people agree that allowing all drugs to be legal (including cocaine, meth, excecy) is a bad idea. Likewise, the majority of people think going the other way of banning coffee and cigarettes is bad too. The penalty of selling heroin is also higher than selling pot.
People are generally good at approximating where to draw the line, even with inconsistencies here and there. I still think intelligence is generally the best way to determine which animal gets what level of rights. | southernyankee
| | #40 posted October 12, 2009 at 3:27pm (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> Of course you have to draw the line somewhere. After all, I don't
> look at the pavements every time I walk in fear of killing an ant!
>
Well, there are shades of gray no doubt.
> To me, it comes down to pain. If a living creatire has a nervous system,
> they can feel pain. This creatures should be cared for. Other animals
> that feel no pain, do we need to kill them humanely?
>
Its not that black and white though. Insects most likely don't feel pain. Fish, probably not either. You go up the chain, and those animals probably do feel some pain, but it doesn't mean its the same kind that a mammal would experience. It sort of happens on a sliding scale.
I would argue that yes, we could treat chickens a lot better than we do. Its a shame we don't. However, I would fight for a pig's right to anesthesia before getting slaughtered than I would for a chicken. Making that distinction is a worthy endeavor. If its ok to say that a human life is worth more than an animal's, why can't we say that some animals should have more rights than others.
> Biggles knows a lot about this, I wish I did more!!
Well, even Biggles couldn't accurately answer "what does a frog experience", because she's not a frog. We can only guesstimate what level of pain, if any, do animals experience. | | |
There are more posts in this topic. See More New Posts Jump to the End Post Follow-up |
- Twitter 
- Facebook 