NationStates Jolt Archive

click! (http://www.alldumb.com/item/11696/)

:D Thats good chicken!

Thats some damn good chicken...

"KFC tourtures chickens!"?! Who really gives a fuck about chickens? All they do is eat bugs and get deep-fried.

lol that's good :D

"KFC tourtures chickens!"?! Who really gives a fuck about chickens? All they do is eat bugs and get deep-fried. This poses a deeper question. If it's okay to torture chickens, why can't we torture the useless idiots who make up a small percentage of the population? Or chavs?

Note that I am not saying this would be a bad idea. :D Definitely not.

lmao XD He should've offered them some XD

click! (http://www.alldumb.com/item/11696/)

:D Thats good chicken!
ROFLMFAO!!!! Man, that made me hungry! :D

[ leaves to pick up a bucket of formerly tortured chickens! ] :D

This poses a deeper question. If it's okay to torture chickens, why can't we torture the useless idiots who make up a small percentage of the population? Or chavs?

Note that I am not saying this would be a bad idea. :D Definitely not.
"Chavs?" WTF, dude? :confused:

It would've been cooler if wore some fur too. :D Probably too hot, but still, I think it's worth it to piss off hippies.

"Chavs?" WTF, dude? :confused:

Hoolligans in the UK.

"Chavs?" WTF, dude? :confused:
Wiggers

thats great, i should find a protest and do something like that

Hoolligans in the UK.
Ah! Rather like Gang-bangers in the US? Thank you. :)

thats great, i should find a protest and do something like that
It would NOT do for me to attend certain kinds of protests! :(

KFC really does treat their chickens horribly. The chickens they use spend their lives in cramped cages, unable to move about. Their beaks are roughly burned off with hot irons (instead of simply cutting just the tip of their beaks), and as a consequence, their tongues are occasionally burned off as well, causing some birds to die of starvation. They are fed anti-biotics because the conditions that they are living in would otherwise kill them. Because of their lack of excersize and their heavy diet, their legs sometimes snap beneath their weight.
PETA's a little weird, but you should still educate yourselves on animal rights and those who aim to protect them. What irks them so much about the treatment of animals? Why are factory farms so detrimental to the environment? And, if you are enlightened, what can I do about it?

Lol.. thats pretty funny.

Damn.. too bad it's 1am here right now, if not I'd feel like having KFC right now but it isn't 24 hours.

I hate chickens. I like to eat them, but I raised chickens on a farm and I couldn't stand them.

I have attended KFC protests. It's not funny or clever to throw food at people. If you hate chickens, go throw things at them.
Unless you want to get charged with assault, leave the protesters alone.
As for all the comments that it's a waste of time to protest cruelty to animals, it just depends on your priorities. Protesting is higher up on my list than sitting on my ass in front of the telly eating chicken. Go figure.

If I knew they were having a protest at the local KFC, I would be the first one over there to buy a bucket of KFC then walk outside and sit next to the protestors and eat it.

I have attended KFC protests. It's not funny or clever to throw food at people. If you hate chickens, go throw things at them.
Unless you want to get charged with assault, leave the protesters alone.
As for all the comments that it's a waste of time to protest cruelty to animals, it just depends on your priorities. Protesting is higher up on my list than sitting on my ass in front of the telly eating chicken. Go figure.
Peta's annual budget - Tens of Million's
K.F.C.'s annual budget - Hundreds of Millions
Bucket of Chicken - $15.99
Using the same right to freedom of speech as PETA - PRICELESS

There are things in life that money can buy, for everything else, theres the constitution.

Yay constitution!

The only reason I'm against the PETA ios because tehy would get these places closed down. I'd actually help out if I wasn't afraid they might release anthrax into a Wal-Mart or something.

KFC really does treat their chickens horribly. The chickens they use spend their lives in cramped cages, unable to move about. Their beaks are roughly burned off with hot irons (instead of simply cutting just the tip of their beaks), and as a consequence, their tongues are occasionally burned off as well, causing some birds to die of starvation. They are fed anti-biotics because the conditions that they are living in would otherwise kill them. Because of their lack of excersize and their heavy diet, their legs sometimes snap beneath their weight.
PETA's a little weird, but you should still educate yourselves on animal rights and those who aim to protect them. What irks them so much about the treatment of animals? Why are factory farms so detrimental to the environment? And, if you are enlightened, what can I do about it?

if you want to do some thing about it buy organic free range chicken...also the reason that they clip the birds beak it to prevent cannibalism and to cut down on wasted food, when chickens eat they waste a lot of food that they push out of the feeders, if the tip of there beak is clipped off they cant do this but they can still eat normally...... its required by law that the birds receive anti-biotic..... about there weight... most of these bird are Cornish rocks (http://image.mcmurrayhatchery.com/product/200/cxr_1_s.jpg), this breed of chicken is ready for slaughter at the age of 90 days, if they are feed properly they will not break their legs, after the first 30 days you place them on a restricted diet, they only have access to food for 20 minutes 2 times a day other wise they will eat them selves to death.... the factory farms are not that detremental to the envrionment

KFC really does treat their chickens horribly. The chickens they use spend their lives in cramped cages, unable to move about. Their beaks are roughly burned off with hot irons (instead of simply cutting just the tip of their beaks), and as a consequence, their tongues are occasionally burned off as well, causing some birds to die of starvation. They are fed anti-biotics because the conditions that they are living in would otherwise kill them. Because of their lack of excersize and their heavy diet, their legs sometimes snap beneath their weight.
PETA's a little weird, but you should still educate yourselves on animal rights and those who aim to protect them. What irks them so much about the treatment of animals? Why are factory farms so detrimental to the environment? And, if you are enlightened, what can I do about it?
That's not just KFC that does that - most factory farmed chickens endure those conditions. Interesting phrase 'factory farmed' - since when have farms been factories?

their right thats cruel and unusal maybe we should take matters into our own hands. im calling for a boycott. and if that fails

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

their right thats cruel and unusal maybe we should take matters into our own hands. im calling for a boycott. and if that fails

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
Boycott by all means. More chicken for me and the rest of the bloodthirsty evil meat eating demonistic bastards.

their right thats cruel and unusal maybe we should take matters into our own hands. im calling for a boycott. and if that fails

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I agree, Animal rights terrorists should be boycotted and shot and then fed to hungry animals.

Hahahah... that looks like something I would do. KFC Chickens are meant to be for consumption. I could care less how they are treated. Animal rights activists are often time not thinking. Now when it comes to pets and stuff, yes I like to see those treated well (and if there are signs of abuse then action should be taken). But these chickens were always destined to be fried.

Hilarious. I would do the exact same thing as the guy did if there were protesters outside of the KFC here. And since the KFC is near my campus, I wouldn't be shocked to see it one of these days.

I am seriously, and I mean seriously, trying my best to figure out just exactly how one tortures food. I mean ... it's food! It was born to be food ... how can you be cruel to food?! FOOD!

Man ... now I want some chicken ...

I love popcorn chicken and that honey BBQ chicken strips they have...

the pop corn chicken is the best

what I find wierd is that I always find 4 legs 1 chest and 3 wings in my buckets WTF is up with that :eek: (I don't eat all that list I share :) )

That's funny, though I'm against battery-farming chickens. They taste better free range. I'm no vegan animal rights nut, but I think that animals should have the right to be killed painlessly.

That's funny, though I'm against battery-farming chickens. They taste better free range. I'm no vegan animal rights nut, but I think that animals should have the right to be killed painlessly.
Or born without a brain or a head and they are synthetically developed in a lab and just grow.

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with giving chickens antibiotics. What's teh big deal? I get antibiotics.

Or born without a brain or a head and they are synthetically developed in a lab and just grow.

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with giving chickens antibiotics. What's teh big deal? I get antibiotics.

i agree with you its not that big of a deal

Peta's annual budget - Tens of Million's
K.F.C.'s annual budget - Hundreds of Millions
Bucket of Chicken - $15.99
Using the same right to freedom of speech as PETA - PRICELESS

There are things in life that money can buy, for everything else, theres the constitution.Are you seriously defending your constitutional right to throw chicken at people?

KFC really does treat their chickens horribly. The chickens they use spend their lives in cramped cages, unable to move about. Their beaks are roughly burned off with hot irons (instead of simply cutting just the tip of their beaks), and as a consequence, their tongues are occasionally burned off as well, causing some birds to die of starvation. They are fed anti-biotics because the conditions that they are living in would otherwise kill them. Because of their lack of excersize and their heavy diet, their legs sometimes snap beneath their weight.
PETA's a little weird, but you should still educate yourselves on animal rights and those who aim to protect them. What irks them so much about the treatment of animals? Why are factory farms so detrimental to the environment? And, if you are enlightened, what can I do about it?
Ever had a chicken? We owned a chicken, she was a pet. I don't give a crap what happens to chickens in poultry-for-food farms. Like the other guy said, they are probably bred specifically to be raised as food and as such are even dumber than your average chicken, but twice as tasty.

Are you against fishing? Is it because of the hooks? Is it because you are sticking poor, defenseless, slimy-as-hell worms on a hook?

That's not just KFC that does that - most factory farmed chickens endure those conditions. Interesting phrase 'factory farmed' - since when have farms been factories?I think it started in the 70s.
"Factory farms" are just that. Most of the animals raised for food in North American these days hardly (if ever) see the light of day.

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with giving chickens antibiotics. What's teh big deal? I get antibiotics.The "big deal" is antibiotic-resistant strains of disease.

Are you against fishing?Yes.

Is it because of the hooks? Is it because you are sticking poor, defenseless, slimy-as-hell worms on a hook?All of the above.

Vote PETA, save nightcrawlers.

Yes.

All of the above.

Well animal rights activists cannot tell the average person how to eat.

Also one other thing, these animals are meant for consumption. People need to eat you know. They can't all be vegans.

Are you seriously defending your constitutional right to throw chicken at people?

I didn't see any chicken throwing in the video (maybe I missed it). Just a guy eating a bucket of chicken next to protesters.

I think it started in the 70s.
"Factory farms" are just that. Most of the animals raised for food in North American these days hardly (if ever) see the light of day.

HUH? cows see the light of day same goes for fish turkies ducks and every thing elce...even chickens

HUH? cows see the light of day same goes for fish turkies ducks and every thing elce...even chickens

As stupid as I find those protestor´s reasoning,he´s right about that.Term "factory farms" comes into play when you apply the principles of industrialization to agriculture.Mass food-production is factory farming,so chickens fall under that.

As for the issue at hand:

I´ve wondered if it´s occured to those people that the plants the so ruthlessly devour are also living things.Also,let´s forget about those countless insects,animals and eco-systems destroyed by pesticides and farming machinary.

As far as I´m concerned,an almost carnivorous diet is quite a bit more environment-friendly than that of the average vegan...

Ironically, I just polished off some Popeye's chicken...(personal preference is that it's better tasting than KFC)

While I agree that it appears cruel, these animals are dumb. They've been breed to be food - pure and simple. Not only that, chickens are some of the nastiest, dirtiest farmyard animals there are - one of few species that actually kill their own for sport.

I have a question though...how is it ever anything but inhumane to treat an animal like an animal? I mean, they're not human...wouldnt any treatment of an animal (such as petting your dog) be inhumane? I dont just walk up to Eutrusca and pet him on the head, scratch behind his ears, etc...


PETA has a bad rep. Not long ago, they were put under investigation in Cali (I believe, been a few months) because they were not properly taking care of animals in their charge - in fact, PETA had put down quite a few hundred or thousand animals...


As Ron White said: "I didnt climb to the top of the food-chain to eat grass..."

Well animal rights activists cannot tell the average person how to eat.

Also one other thing, these animals are meant for consumption. People need to eat you know. They can't all be vegans.

Just because an animal is raised for consumption does not mean that it has to be treated like crap. I love eating chicken, I'd never say 'stop killing chickens for food! Think of the poor animals!' because stuff dying to feed other stuff is a part of nature. However, raising things in horrible conditions, is not, and is unnecessary.

Just because an animal is raised for consumption does not mean that it has to be treated like crap. I love eating chicken, I'd never say 'stop killing chickens for food! Think of the poor animals!' because stuff dying to feed other stuff is a part of nature. However, raising things in horrible conditions, is not, and is unnecessary.

Actually it can be treated badly because it is just meant for food (it'll die anyways because it is meant for food). I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into that argument. I'm not going to pay more for food because the company was forced to improve conditions that were adequate already.

Just because an animal is raised for consumption does not mean that it has to be treated like crap. I love eating chicken, I'd never say 'stop killing chickens for food! Think of the poor animals!' because stuff dying to feed other stuff is a part of nature. However, raising things in horrible conditions, is not, and is unnecessary.

And the first time I see one of those chickens protesting their living conditions, perhaps I'll change my mind...

I'm not an animal right's activist. I'm a meat eater. I've hunted and killed and fished. I've cleaned and cooked what I've killed. I do prefer to see the game/prey treated with a bit more respect. I dont hunt anymore, but when I did-it was one shot,one kill. I would take a shot if it wasnt absolutely clear. I am against needless and irresponsible causes of suffering.
I think that if more people were aware of how their chicken, turkeys or cows or pigs were raised and slaughtered-they would be upset and outraged. Probably disgusted too.
I dont eat KFC because to me, its lousy food to begin with. Same for McDonald's, Burger King, etc. I dont know how their specific animals are treated first hand, but I wouldnt be at all surprised if all the allegations were true.
Cleaner environments and humane treatment for animals raised for our food would cut into profits too much, so I'm sorry to say, I dont think it will ever happen.

Some of these farmers have learned that they can actually mix a certain ratio of the animal's excrement back into their feed as cheap filler.

Do you think you could convince a mind like that to improve the animal's conditions/treatment.

And the first time I see one of those chickens protesting their living conditions, perhaps I'll change my mind...


if animals could ever express themselves, we'd certainly be treating them a lot better.

if animals could ever express themselves, we'd certainly be treating them a lot better.

So, you're saying that dogs dont bite back? Horses dont kick? Cats dont scratch? etc...

And the first time I see one of those chickens protesting their living conditions, perhaps I'll change my mind...

So something being too stupid or oblivious to protest it's living conditions is an excuse to treat it like crap? So I guess we can go out and use seriously mentally disabled people as test subjects, then.

The reason chickens are battery-farmed is price - if the consumers were willing to pay the significant difference, the farmers would happily raise only free-range. KFC chickens are raised no differently than any other battery hen. Luckily, the consumer can choose free-range or battery in most markets.

If cutting the beaks harmed the critter or reduced it's ability to gain weight, they wouldn't do it. It's done because chickens peck the hell out of each other ("pecking order" ring a bell?), and this indeed harms the bird. They will even kill each other, and they do this on the range too.

I have raised a lot of chickens, and except for home use the battery is the way to go. Much more efficient, and keeps the cost down where poor people can afford to eat chicken.

The chicken protesters are asking to raise the price of chicken and asking low income families to sacrifice. Not everybody wants to be a vegetarian, and chicken is all the meat some families get.

So something being too stupid or oblivious to protest it's living conditions is an excuse to treat it like crap? So I guess we can go out and use seriously mentally disabled people as test subjects, then.

When it's been raised specifically to be eaten, yes.

I just want to say that most of the meat that i eat is home grown, all of the pork, beef and lamb is raised by 4-H kids and i buy it at the county junior livestock sale and its the best tasting meat on the planet, and i raise my own chicken......peta is just off its rocker

Just a few points to make:
1)your a dumb ass if you eat KFC anyway
2)I believe in protecting animal rights but peta is just rediculous read this timeline if you don't believe me
http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/peta/ , and if you don't read anything else on this link, you have to at least read the part about Timothy McVeigh(so freaking funny).

The chicken protesters are asking to raise the price of chicken and asking low income families to sacrifice. Not everybody wants to be a vegetarian, and chicken is all the meat some families get.

And often with KFC, many people who go there are lower income.. or college students. I cannot afford the high prices for buying free range chicken. I have to go to KFC because they are inexpensive and in my opinion, taste good.

Kiwi:

So something being too stupid or oblivious to protest it's living conditions is an excuse to treat it like crap? So I guess we can go out and use seriously mentally disabled people as test subjects, then.

That's a slippery slope argument and doesn't really add up.

Just a few points to make:
1)your a dumb ass if you eat KFC anyway

Why exactly? I eat at KFC, so I'm a dumbass? Why? I can't afford to buy expensive chicken. I'm sorry, but I need to eat with the limited budget I have.

That's a slippery slope argument and doesn't really add up.

There is no slope. That's never going to happen (and if it does... what the hell?) and people probably aren't going to stop treating food animals badly. But if someone is saying that they aren't stopping something just because the recipient isn't protesting...

Sure it was probably a bad analogy, but it was all I could think up on short notice and I don't really care all that much.

There is no slope. That's never going to happen (and if it does... what the hell?) and people probably aren't going to stop treating food animals badly. But if someone is saying that they aren't stopping something just because the recipient isn't protesting...

Sure it was probably a bad analogy, but it was all I could think up on short notice and I don't really care all that much.

It was a slippery slope argument and a horrid analogy. Some of us can't be vegans and can't afford expensive free range chicken. You know we have to eat. Animal rights activists have a complete disregard for people with limited income.

It was a slippery slope argument and a horrid analogy. Some of us can't be vegans and can't afford expensive free range chicken. You know we have to eat. Animal rights activists have a complete disregard for people with limited income.

Eh, perhaps. But if a person is going to say that it's okay because the chickens aren't complaining, they should apply it to the rest of what they think. Or something.

I'm not an animal rights activist. I made find it distasteful, but I don't really care all that much. Shit happens. Though I do think it's stupid that 'humanely' raised food is an inaffordable quantity nowadays.

There is no slope. That's never going to happen (and if it does... what the hell?) and people probably aren't going to stop treating food animals badly. But if someone is saying that they aren't stopping something just because the recipient isn't protesting...

Sure it was probably a bad analogy, but it was all I could think up on short notice and I don't really care all that much.

I guess you missed where I said that since the animals were breed specifically to be food, it somewhat changes things. But, I guess we grow mental patients for food nowadays?

I'm not an animal right's activist. I'm a meat eater. I've hunted and killed and fished. I've cleaned and cooked what I've killed. I do prefer to see the game/prey treated with a bit more respect. I dont hunt anymore, but when I did-it was one shot,one kill. I would take a shot if it wasnt absolutely clear. I am against needless and irresponsible causes of suffering.
I think that if more people were aware of how their chicken, turkeys or cows or pigs were raised and slaughtered-they would be upset and outraged. Probably disgusted too.
I dont eat KFC because to me, its lousy food to begin with. Same for McDonald's, Burger King, etc. I dont know how their specific animals are treated first hand, but I wouldnt be at all surprised if all the allegations were true.
Cleaner environments and humane treatment for animals raised for our food would cut into profits too much, so I'm sorry to say, I dont think it will ever happen.

Some of these farmers have learned that they can actually mix a certain ratio of the animal's excrement back into their feed as cheap filler.

Do you think you could convince a mind like that to improve the animal's conditions/treatment.

I understand the concerns regarding cruelty, though I think some of the PETA types are going too far.

The difficult question is the definition of cruelty, and the fact that we anthropomorphise animals. We look at the battery and wonder what it would be like to live such a brief squalid life. We empathize with the animal, so our judgement is not objective. Honestly, it's hard to understand how a chicken thinks or feels - they're a chicken, after all, with a brain the size of a pea. Not an emotionally complex creature, either.

Having raised chickens and livestock, I think the only way to determine whether critters are "happy" is to observe their behavior under all conditions and see whether they exhibit symptoms of distress. Another objective measure is normal weight gain, or symptoms of disease or stress disorders.

I've been in chicken batteries, and raised my own in the barnyard. There's no question the chicken would prefer to be outside, but I can honestly state that the battery hens were treated adequately.

The issue of feed is simple - it is in the farmers interest to have hens gain weight as quickly as possible. Even one day sooner to slaughter is profit. The feeding of manure or fillers is counterproductive to profit, and any farmer who substitutes filler for feed is foolish - there is no nutrition in the stuff.

The reason for a small amount of manure is for antibiotic purposes - really! - they peck at their own on the range, and if deprived of the 'inoculant' their immune system is reduced. This was only discovered in the last few decades.

Cruel farmers go out of business quickly, since anything that reduces weight gain reduces profit. Animal "happiness", on the other hand, probably does not exist in the production livestock industry.

I think we need to intellectually separate the two issues before legislating standards for farmers, and I propose that a free market may solve the problems of conscience for some people. If people will pay dearly for free-range, then the suppliers will oblige - this has been adequately proven to work in the organic vs. inorganic vegetable business.

Eh, perhaps. But if a person is going to say that it's okay because the chickens aren't complaining, they should apply it to the rest of what they think. Or something.

I'm not an animal rights activist. I made find it distasteful, but I don't really care all that much. Shit happens. Though I do think it's stupid that 'humanely' raised food is an inaffordable quantity nowadays.

It requires more time, labor and money, therefore it falls onto the consumer. It isn't stupid. It just costs more money because that is how the market is. I have a right to be able to afford chicken and KFC happens to be what will fit in my budget.

It requires more time, labor and money, therefore it falls onto the consumer. It isn't stupid. It just costs more money because that is how the market is. I have a right to be able to afford chicken and KFC happens to be what will fit in my budget.

Of course you do. I understand that it requires more effort the other way. However, if there had never been another way to raise livestock, do you think it would still have been more expensive than a lot of people could have afforded?

As with many of humanity's problems, this once again leads back to money. Whoo.

I guess you missed where I said that since the animals were breed specifically to be food, it somewhat changes things. But, I guess we grow mental patients for food nowadays?

But if people did raise mental patients for food, and they didn't complain, it would be okay?

Of course you do. I understand that it requires more effort the other way. However, if there had never been another way to raise livestock, do you think it would still have been more expensive than a lot of people could have afforded?

As with many of humanity's problems, this once again leads back to money. Whoo.

Yes again it has to do with market forces. It would require more time, money and labor.. and therefore would be more expensive. Besides, it doesn't matter how they are treated because they are destined for consumption.

And some of us can't afford expensive food, so stop mocking us.

But if people did raise mental patients for food, and they didn't complain, it would be okay?

Slippery slope. We are not talking about cannabalism.

I understand the concerns regarding cruelty, though I think some of the PETA types are going too far.

The difficult question is the definition of cruelty, and the fact that we anthropomorphise animals. We look at the battery and wonder what it would be like to live such a brief squalid life. We empathize with the animal, so our judgement is not objective. Honestly, it's hard to understand how a chicken thinks or feels - they're a chicken, after all, with a brain the size of a pea. Not an emotionally complex creature, either.

Having raised chickens and livestock, I think the only way to determine whether critters are "happy" is to observe their behavior under all conditions and see whether they exhibit symptoms of distress. Another objective measure is normal weight gain, or symptoms of disease or stress disorders.

I've been in chicken batteries, and raised my own in the barnyard. There's no question the chicken would prefer to be outside, but I can honestly state that the battery hens were treated adequately.

The issue of feed is simple - it is in the farmers interest to have hens gain weight as quickly as possible. Even one day sooner to slaughter is profit. The feeding of manure or fillers is counterproductive to profit, and any farmer who substitutes filler for feed is foolish - there is no nutrition in the stuff.

The reason for a small amount of manure is for antibiotic purposes - really! - they peck at their own on the range, and if deprived of the 'inoculant' their immune system is reduced. This was only discovered in the last few decades.

Cruel farmers go out of business quickly, since anything that reduces weight gain reduces profit. Animal "happiness", on the other hand, probably does not exist in the production livestock industry.

I think we need to intellectually separate the two issues before legislating standards for farmers, and I propose that a free market may solve the problems of conscience for some people. If people will pay dearly for free-range, then the suppliers will oblige - this has been adequately proven to work in the organic vs. inorganic vegetable business.


Its clear you have more knowledge on the subject than I do- and if what you say is so, it restores a little of my faith.

My point is that while I do eat meat of all kinds, I dont feel good about the reports of poor conditions, etc, that we've all heard.

Yes again it has to do with market forces. It would require more time, money and labor.. and therefore would be more expensive. Besides, it doesn't matter how they are treated because they are destined for consumption.

And some of us can't afford expensive food, so stop mocking us.

What is this mocking? I am not mocking people that can't afford expensive food.

Slippery slope. We are not talking about cannabalism.

Stop bringing up the slippery slope, the slippery slope is not the point. The point is you saying that it's okay because the chickens don't complain. The chickens are too stupid to complain. So I ask you if something is unable to complain, then is it okay to treat it badly. I happened to use humans as an example. You did not deny that it wasn't okay, you simply added one that it was because the chickens were being raised for food that made it okay. So I asked if you would apply the 'raised for food, can't complain' thing to people.

Apparently your answer to that question would be, 'No.'

Whoo, I think I need more sleep.

Its clear you have more knowledge on the subject than I do- and if what you say is so, it restores a little of my faith.

My point is that while I do eat meat of all kinds, I dont feel good about the reports of poor conditions, etc, that we've all heard.

Ditto.

Stop bringing up the slippery slope, the slippery slope is not the point. The point is you saying that it's okay because the chickens don't complain. The chickens are too stupid to complain. So I ask you if something is unable to complain, then is it okay to treat it badly. I happened to use humans as an example. You did not deny that it wasn't okay, you simply added one that it was because the chickens were being raised for food that made it okay. So I asked if you would apply the 'raised for food, can't complain' thing to people.

Apparently your answer to that question would be, 'No.'


Don't you dare put words in my mouth.

KFC really does treat their chickens horribly. The chickens they use spend their lives in cramped cages, unable to move about. Their beaks are roughly burned off with hot irons (instead of simply cutting just the tip of their beaks), and as a consequence, their tongues are occasionally burned off as well, causing some birds to die of starvation. They are fed anti-biotics because the conditions that they are living in would otherwise kill them. Because of their lack of excersize and their heavy diet, their legs sometimes snap beneath their weight.
PETA's a little weird, but you should still educate yourselves on animal rights and those who aim to protect them. What irks them so much about the treatment of animals? Why are factory farms so detrimental to the environment? And, if you are enlightened, what can I do about it?

Ummm you do realise you are going to cut off their head pull out all their feathers , gut them , then cut them into pieces and put them into hot oil after breading, and then eat them . So why are you worried about their lack of excersise etc . ?

Don't you dare put words in my mouth.

Oh wait, I had a response to that, but I just realized that you weren't the person I was talking to before. Which means... nothing in what you quoted from me applies to you in any way.

Sorry there. Apparently I really do need more sleep... or better observational skills. Both.

Its clear you have more knowledge on the subject than I do- and if what you say is so, it restores a little of my faith.

My point is that while I do eat meat of all kinds, I dont feel good about the reports of poor conditions, etc, that we've all heard.

I know you're a reasonable guy, that's why I took the time to explain. I think it's fair to ask the question, and no reasonable person, myself included, wants to be cruel. It really is an issue of animal "happiness" more than cruelty.

I have more issues with how veal is raised than I do with chickens, that can be borderline cruel depending on the farmer. The large-scale production of veal is fine, but every dairy farmer raises some veal calves out of necessity, and some are kept in dark, sloppy pens - kind of as an afterthought.

...eat bugs...

actualy it is a corn and grain mix
with a bunch of other stuff that nobody can spell...

yes, i live on a chicken farm

Are you seriously defending your constitutional right to throw chicken at people?
It's just as funny to stand there right next to them and just munch on the chicken, it's even funnier if you offer them some.

actualy it is a corn and grain mix
with a bunch of other stuff that nobody can spell...

yes, i live on a chicken farm

good you can help me with something ...what part of the chicken is the mcnugget ? :D

Or born without a brain or a head and they are synthetically developed in a lab and just grow.

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with giving chickens antibiotics. What's teh big deal? I get antibiotics.
Lab-grown meat is an interesting new development that I support.

What's wrong with giving chickens anti-biotics? Well, I don't take them, and I don't want to eat anti-biotics when I eat chicken.

Hahahah... that looks like something I would do. KFC Chickens are meant to be for consumption. I could care less how they are treated. Animal rights activists are often time not thinking. Now when it comes to pets and stuff, yes I like to see those treated well (and if there are signs of abuse then action should be taken). But these chickens were always destined to be fried.

So... if a human couple decides to have a child with the specific goal in mind to sell it as a slave, or to harvest its body for organs at the age of 3, keeping it in a cage and forcefeeding it in the meantime - that would perfectly fine according to you because it is the sole reason he was bred ?

If not, why do you claim the exact same argument is valid for chickens ?

EDIT: ah - I see a similar argument has already been used. Then again, noone bothered to give a decent answer to it...

now that's how you do it. No confrontation. the guy with the bull horn was ready for a fight but when he realized that the other guy wasn't going to say anything, he couldn't do anything but continue protesting.

oh, and there is a difference between raising chickens and raising Children. also in most contries, slavery is illegal and so is organ harvesting.

now if you said that you bought a puppy and will raise it for the sole purpose of killing it and eating it (some cultures eat Dog and keep Chickens as pets.) does that give you the right to keep it in a cage and force feed it? then you have an argument.

As for me, I like Chicken, so really, I don't care how they're treated because they will be dismembered and cooked up anyway. and did you know that chopping the head off doesn't kill the bird out right? it's a slow and laborous death. where do you think the phrase "Running like a chicken without it's head" came from?

Well animal rights activists cannot tell the average person how to eat.I never said anything, anywhere in this thread about eating habits. It's all about how we treat living creatures, and not causing unnecessary suffering.
And not throwing chicken at people.


Also one other thing, these animals are meant for consumption. People need to eat you know. They can't all be vegans.Yes we can all be vegans. Whether you chose to or not is up to you, but it's not like being a vegan is some special skill that only the chosen few can master. "I can't" is not a valid reason to not be vegan.
Aside from that, raising meat requires much more energy and resources to produce the same amount of end product food calories than growing crops does. Ethiopia was exporting grain that was fit for human consumption to the UK to be fed to cows during the worst famine of recorded history.
People do need to eat, and you are consuming more than your share of the world's food resources. People are starving on their feet for want of calories, and you are eating meat that required 3-8 times as many calories in the form of animal feed to produce it as will be derived from the meat.

It's just as funny to stand there right next to them and just munch on the chicken, it's even funnier if you offer them some.Eat fried chicken in front of me all you want. I fail to see how that is funny.
Offer me some, and I will take it and give it to the homeless.
Throw it at me, and I'll have you charged with assault.

Stop bringing up the slippery slope, the slippery slope is not the point.

As the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, it is completely acceptable to point it out when engaging in a debate.

My $0.02

As for me, I like Chicken, so really, I don't care how they're treated because they will be dismembered and cooked up anyway. and did you know that chopping the head off doesn't kill the bird out right? it's a slow and laborous death. where do you think the phrase "Running like a chicken without it's head" came from?So, if an animal is going to end up dead, it's perfectly acceptable to mistreat it while it lives? Ok, using that logic, it's ok to torture all living creatures. Argue that chickens don't have rights all you want, but you're assertion that you don't care how a living creature is treated if it will end up dismembered is ridiculous. Organ donors need to watch their backs around you.
And chickens die the second that their heads are seperated from their bodies. They appear to be alive, but they're not.

good you can help me with something ...what part of the chicken is the mcnugget ? :DDo you really want to know?
On that note, I think that meat eaters should have to dress their own dead animals. Too squeamish to kill and skin an animal? Then stop ingesting corpses.

It was a slippery slope argument and a horrid analogy. Some of us can't be vegans and can't afford expensive free range chicken. You know we have to eat. Animal rights activists have a complete disregard for people with limited income.I am an animal rights activist, and a dirt poor student too. Meat is expensive, and being a vegan is the cheapest possible way to get enough calories and nutrients to stay healthy. And again, yes you can be a vegan. Stop saying that you can't do something just because you don't want to.

I have no desire to be a vegan . I like to eat meat and when hunting always dress out my " catch " . I let the butcher do his thing with it after I dress it .
My grandmother had a small farm so I am very well aware of what " happens" tp chickens , pigs , veal calves ..etc. I learned not to make pets out of things that I might have to eat , at an early age. ;)
If being a vegan is what suits YOUR character and morsal compass , I say go for it ! More meat for me !! Just dont preach at me because of your choice .
a chicken to me is no different than an ear of corn . Grow it - harvest it- cook it - eat it .

So what happened exactly?

So, if an animal is going to end up dead, it's perfectly acceptable to mistreat it while it lives? Ok, using that logic, it's ok to torture all living creatures. Argue that chickens don't have rights all you want, but you're assertion that you don't care how a living creature is treated if it will end up dismembered is ridiculous. Organ donors need to watch their backs around you.
And chickens die the second that their heads are seperated from their bodies. They appear to be alive, but they're not.
and if you equate Humans and Animals as being the same station, then I pray you have nothing to do with Human Healthcare, for I will really pity your patients.

So, if an animal is going to end up dead, it's perfectly acceptable to mistreat it while it lives? Ok, using that logic, it's ok to torture all living creatures. Argue that chickens don't have rights all you want, but you're assertion that you don't care how a living creature is treated if it will end up dismembered is ridiculous. Organ donors need to watch their backs around you.
And chickens die the second that their heads are seperated from their bodies. They appear to be alive, but they're not.

Chickens =/= Humans

It's really just that damn simple.

But if people did raise mental patients for food, and they didn't complain, it would be okay?

Chickens =/= Humans

It's really just that damn simple.

And, yes, I know I responded the same to both posters. It's because well...


Chickens =/= Humans

and

It's really just that damn simple.


Both posters were arguing essentially the same argument, and were doing so without taking into account that:


Chickens =/= Humans


and just how simple that concept is to understand.

And, yes, I know I responded the same to both posters. It's because well...
Chickens =/= Humans
and
It's really just that damn simple.
Both posters were arguing essentially the same argument, and were doing so without taking into account that:
Chickens =/= Humans
and just how simple that concept is to understand.
well, they're trying to Anthropormophsise the Chickens. make then equal to humans by trying to transfere the same values we place on humans and transfere them to animals to make their arguments valid.

Neut, these aren't chicken activists these are animal rights activists, they protest for the rights of all animals. Surprisingly, humans like chickens are animals. If we as animals have rights do chickens as animals have rights?

So, what happened? I can't see the site.

well, they're trying to Anthropormophsise the Chickens. make then equal to humans by trying to transfere the same values we place on humans and transfere them to animals to make their arguments valid.

Well, when the overwhelming majority of chickens (or any other animal) can complain about their living conditions, I'll listen. Until then...these activists can take their signs and shove em somewhere I wont mention...

Neut, these aren't chicken activists these are animal rights activists, they protest for the rights of all animals. Surprisingly, humans like chickens are animals. If we as animals have rights do chickens as animals have rights?I say No, because we no longer follow the laws of the Animal world, but now base our lives off of the Laws of the Human world. we don't argue about humans being allowed rights by the laws of the Wild, but by the rights given through the laws of man. We impose those laws with animals who live with us, and we take away their rights granted to them by the Laws of the Wild.

So, what happened? I can't see the site.basically, you have a small group of protesters standing on the sidewalk out side a KFC store chaning slogans like "Ban KFC" "KFC is Kentucky Fried Cruelty" and other such stuff.

then this man comes out of KFC eating chicken out of their Signature Bucket. he just stands there, eating. one of the Protesters, the leader with a Bull horn, moves to stand next to the man (Expecting trouble I expect) but the guy just stands there eating KFC chicken... so for a couple of minutes, to the cars passing by, you have these protesters, protesting KFC while one of them has a bucket in his arms, calmly eating KFC Chicken. after a couple of minutes, the guy with the bucket leaves.

And often with KFC, many people who go there are lower income.. or college students. I cannot afford the high prices for buying free range chicken. I have to go to KFC because they are inexpensive and in my opinion, taste good.KFC is not inexpensive. Fast food is not at all an economical way to eat. If you're so poor, make your own fried chicken. For a few dollars and an hour of your time, you can make the same thing that you are buying from KFC for $15.99 a bucket. It's not only cheaper, but you know where the animals came from, and you can ensure that they did not have to suffer for your supper.

It requires more time, labor and money, therefore it falls onto the consumer. It isn't stupid. It just costs more money because that is how the market is. I have a right to be able to afford chicken and KFC happens to be what will fit in my budget.There is no such thing as the "right to be able to afford chicken". That's completely ridiculous. Aside from that, like I said, KFC is not inexpensive. Cooking your own food is inexpensive.

and if you equate Humans and Animals as being the same station, then I pray you have nothing to do with Human Healthcare, for I will really pity your patients.Like I said, you can argue that chickens don't have rights all you want. Go ahead, argue that chickens don't have the same rights as humans.
Guess what? I agree.
You cannot, however say that it's ok to mistreat an animal because it's going to die anyway. Your arguement is flawed since you have said yourself that you think this doesn't apply to humans. Don't quote the fact that an animal will end up dead anyway as an excuse for needless cruelty.

And, yes, I know I responded the same to both posters. It's because well...


Chickens =/= Humans

and

It's really just that damn simple.


Both posters were arguing essentially the same argument, and were doing so without taking into account that:


Chickens =/= Humans


and just how simple that concept is to understand.Has anyone here argued that chickens = humans?
No.
It's just that damned simple.
None of your posts are valid rebuttals to the posts that you quoted, because none of the posts or posters have claimed that chickens and humans are equal.

As the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, it is completely acceptable to point it out when engaging in a debate.

My $0.02

It is, when it actually has something to do with the question posed. What I said had nothing to do with the mistreatment of chicken leading to the mistreatment of mental patients or so. The question was: did the poster apply the idea that 'if it's raised to be eaten and can't complain then it's okay to mistreat it' to everything, including humans. That's all I really wanted to know.

Has anyone here argued that chickens = humans?
No.
It's just that damned simple.
None of your posts are valid rebuttals to the posts that you quoted, because none of the posts or posters have claimed that chickens and humans are equal.

Wrong. When the argument is made that we should allow the mistreatment of mental patients because they cant protest in rebuttal to my statement that mistreating chickens isnt wrong because chickens cant protest, the comparison is implicitly made.

And again when the argument is presented tha tall living beings should be treated the same, that argument implys that chickens are equal to humans. It doesnt help that the comment about organ donors needing to watch their backs was thrown in.

But if you'd like to continue to attack me instead of my arguments, go right ahead.

Firstly, to Oxwana, we can't all be vegans. If the government tried I doubt people wouldn't simply take such a thing. That's like trying to make the entire populace become catholic. Simply wouldn't happen. Some people simply cannot believe in such a religion. As some people simply cannot eat plant products alone. And besides, plants are alive. You have to kill them when you eat them. Just like animals. Any self-sufficent person would rely on meat. You can go out, and there will be some form of flesh out there. One kill can bring you food, whereas it takes time to grow a crop. Not only that but you kill away some of the land to grow this crop. Meat is very good for you, it has more protein in it than a similar-sized plant ever could. Not only that, but humans are natural omnivores; we need meat. Our bodies were designed for it. Our brains increased numerous cubic centimeters(really can't remember the exact specifics) because we started eating meat. Being so we wouldn't be what we are now without it, e.t.c e.t.c. Some vegans call killing an animal for meat is murder(not targetting you here Oxwana). Yet I can recall the definition of murder being somewhere on the grounds of: "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another."
Besides...food-chain. Very fun thing it is. If a human killing an animal is murder, is an animal killing an animal not murder also? Humans are animals, so really it wouldn't be murder. What about all the other predatory animals out there? Lets go hunt all the wolves, coyotes, sharks, and snakes out there because they kill animals too.
Some of the worst living conditions humans provide to such animals is minimal compared to what some animals do. Look at felines. A cat will bat around a living mouse, bite it, e.t.c e.t.c before killing it. A lion, when full, will kill and play about with a corpse.
I fish, hunt, and used to farm. The two former are leauges easier than farming food. Eating animals are, in a way, more pro-enviroment than eating plants. Plow a plot of land, plant the seeds, keeping other animals and insects from getting their own food, then killing each and every plant. Whereas you kill the animal, slaughter it, then cook it. The two latter aren't even needed in the most desperate situations. Sure, you can live off plants, but you'll live better by eating meat.
I now desire a protest to arise near the local KFC. That way I could come out in a mink coat & hat, snake-skin boots, alligator leather briefcase while eating from a large bucket of KFC chicken. Lets just hope that it isn't summer when it happens.
And for the coupe de grace: Chickens are humans are not equal. Once more the food-chain arises into argument.

KFC is not inexpensive. Fast food is not at all an economical way to eat. If you're so poor, make your own fried chicken. For a few dollars and an hour of your time, you can make the same thing that you are buying from KFC for $15.99 a bucket. It's not only cheaper, but you know where the animals came from, and you can ensure that they did not have to suffer for your supper.

If you knew anything about me, you would realize I do not buy those huge buckets. I am one person. Additionally, last I checked three chicken breasts in the supermarket were $4-$5 (I did my grocery shopping yesturday). THat's not cheap. A bunch of BBQ chicken stripes (like 8 or 9) in KFC is $8, and not to mention I get student discount of 20%. So yes it is cheaper for me, and students. You again are grossly misinformed about the facts. I don't care if they suffer. If they have to for the butchering process to be faster and more efficient, then so be it. I'm not going to make my own fried chicken! I do not have the damn time for it. Vegans are so very illogical.

There is no such thing as the "right to be able to afford chicken". That's completely ridiculous. Aside from that, like I said, KFC is not inexpensive. Cooking your own food is inexpensive.

I have a damn right to pay for what I want. I have a right to eat what I want. You cannot go around telling people to be vegans and shove it down there throats. You cannot be the food police.

Yes we can all be vegans. Whether you chose to or not is up to you, but it's not like being a vegan is some special skill that only the chosen few can master. "I can't" is not a valid reason to not be vegan.

AGAIN NO WE CANNOT. We did not evolve to be vegans. If I were, being a vegan would deprive me of essential nutrients I need. Take the Dalai Lama. HE IS NOT A VEGAN. HE EATS YAK MEAT. He tried to become a vegan but he got terribly sick because of it. There are plenty of reasons why the great majority of peopple cannot be vegans. A vegans (those who don't even consume dairy products) are not the most healthy people.

Aside from that, raising meat requires much more energy and resources to produce the same amount of end product food calories than growing crops does. Ethiopia was exporting grain that was fit for human consumption to the UK to be fed to cows during the worst famine of recorded history.

Argentina as more then enough land for agricultural and cattle. Again you are showing great illogic in your arguments. Ethiopia was basically mismanaging its own situation.

People do need to eat, and you are consuming more than your share of the world's food resources. People are starving on their feet for want of calories, and you are eating meat that required 3-8 times as many calories in the form of animal feed to produce it as will be derived from the meat.

You are lying about me. I am consuming what I have to live. I don't care what you think. I can't be a vegan because I would get sick since i would lack nutrients. I'm eating what i fucking want to. People in this world are starving because of bad government... where a government does not help its own people. And it doesn't require 3-8 times as many calories.. that's unsubstantiated.

I am an animal rights activist, and a dirt poor student too. Meat is expensive, and being a vegan is the cheapest possible way to get enough calories and nutrients to stay healthy. And again, yes you can be a vegan. Stop saying that you can't do something just because you don't want to.

Again more lies. Being a vegan is actually extremely expensive (esp if you buy alternative foods). If you only eat lettuce.. well you won't be too healthy. Being a vegan.. well you lack nutrients. You get more nutrients and a sufficient calories when eating meat, which you lack with vegetarianism. I don't want to? I can't be a vegan, because I would get sick without proper nutrients like any other human being.

I'm eating a 12" steakhouse sub sandwich with provolone cheese, teriyaki sauce, lettuce and mushrooms. Damn good. I paid for it with my hard earned money. I deserve it because I worked for it. That's another fact.

Are you seriously defending your constitutional right to throw chicken at people?
Who was throwing it? They were just eating it in front of them.

I want the juiciest, tastiest, most genetically-enhanced, bred-for-eating chicken that under twenty bucks can buy. No one I know is a chicken, and I feel no sympathy. Also, the guy with the bullhorn is, in all likelyhood, just there to sleep with the protest girls.

This reminds me of that time that the hippies on my old college campus were protesting the visit of the Queen to our city, and myself and three other guys went over to their little protest party and sang "God Save the Queen" for them.

Who was throwing it? They were just eating it in front of them.

Yep, funny thing is these assholes feel they can get away with harassing everyone for eatting meat. However, bob help the person who does something like what this guy did. It works both ways guys... Ugg, I really hate ARA's.

Any assertion that being a vegetarian, especially a vegan, is cheap is ludicrous. Vegans take the extremely ludicrous step of not eating anything that comes from animals, no milk, no eggs, nothing (if I recall). I would propose to know how you meat the various nutrional needs without spending more than you would just eating meat, or at least not be an overwhelmingly obsessed person and no products from animals at all.

Chickens, cows, who gives a damn? They are lesser creatures. Compplain and whine as much as you want, but they are not sentient, not intelligent, and are nothing but resources. Unlike coal, they move. Like wheat and corn, they must be cultivated for maximun efficiency. They are food and really serve no other purpose. To exist is not a reason, one must accomplish something significant to justify one's existance. To be eaten by a superior life form (humans) is the best that chickens, cows, pigs, fish, etc, have to live for.

We rule this world for a reason. We, humans, are the superior life form. If you believe in evolution or creationism, either way it is obvious to any sensible person that we rule this world. To deny other humans from taking their rightful place in the food chain is to demote yourself on it.

Yum yum.

Chickens, cows, who gives a damn? They are lesser creatures. Compplain and whine as much as you want, but they are not sentient, not intelligent, and are nothing but resources. Unlike coal, they move. Like wheat and corn, they must be cultivated for maximun efficiency. They are food and really serve no other purpose. To exist is not a reason, one must accomplish something significant to justify one's existance. To be eaten by a superior life form (humans) is the best that chickens, cows, pigs, fish, etc, have to live for.

We rule this world for a reason. We, humans, are the superior life form. If you believe in evolution or creationism, either way it is obvious to any sensible person that we rule this world. To deny other humans from taking their rightful place in the food chain is to demote yourself on it.

Yum yum.

HAhahaha thats right everyone we can not allow the evil cows and chicken to be given time to develope their brain and overtake us!!! Already the evil dolphin army is posing for an attack. ONWARD COMRADS EAT for the human race!!!

All these talks is making me hungry.

I feel like having cold chicken salad MmMMmmMm.

All these talks is making me hungry.

I feel like having cold chicken salad MmMMmmMm.

I had wings for dinner tonight...

...marinated in hot sause with a side of ranch dressing.
This was partnered with a basket of beer batted fries covered in a nice beefy chili. Good stuff! :)

All I know is, take a chicken, cut its beak off, break its legs, hell, you can even sodomize it! Just fry it up good,and don't forget the mashed potatoes!

I prefer Bojangles .. but anyway... I watched some video on chickens, cattle, swine and ducks.. the only one that bothered me were the ducks because they force fed them until they were about to explode (within about 3 seconds)making them so full they couldn't help but shake their head and vomit after the feeding tube was pulled out. I don't eat duck (or veal) because I don't like the taste, but if I did eat duck, after seeing that I wouldn't eat duck produced from commercial farms(or whatever you call them). All the stuff that gets put into these animals to make them grow faster, bigger etc is what I'm most concerned with. I hope to one day be able to raise and kill my own chickens(I love chicken!).

Wrong. When the argument is made that we should allow the mistreatment of mental patients because they cant protest in rebuttal to my statement that mistreating chickens isnt wrong because chickens cant protest, the comparison is implicitly made.No one argued that we should mistreat mental patients. You said that chickens can't protest and are raised for food, and that is the reason that it is ok to mistreat them. In those respects, chickens and some severly mentally handicaped people are the same.


And again when the argument is presented tha tall living beings should be treated the same, that argument implys that chickens are equal to humans. It doesnt help that the comment about organ donors needing to watch their backs was thrown in.I never said that all living beings should be treated the same. Inflicting unnecessary suffering to any living creature is unaceptable. The organ donor remark was made to point out the fallacy of your assertion that the fact that a chicken will be dismembered in the end makes it acceptable to abuse them while they are alive.

Firstly, to Oxwana, we can't all be vegans. If the government tried I doubt people wouldn't simply take such a thing. That's like trying to make the entire populace become catholic. Simply wouldn't happen. Some people simply cannot believe in such a religion. As some people simply cannot eat plant products alone.I never suggested that I believe that all people should be vegans. All people, however, can be, if they so choose. I do not support compulsory veganism. That's just another way of saying fascism.

And besides, plants are alive. You have to kill them when you eat them. Just like animals. Any self-sufficent person would rely on meat. You can go out, and there will be some form of flesh out there. One kill can bring you food, whereas it takes time to grow a crop. Not only that but you kill away some of the land to grow this crop.Plants are alive. They do not, however, suffer for my supper. Aside from that, I never said that killing chickens is wrong. Torturing them is.
So I'm not self-sufficient because I don't eat meat? My homemade soy milk says different. Plant matter consumed as food does not need to come from a farm. Long before the human race discovered agriculture, we still ate plants. It's called foraging. Hunting for plants, if you will. :p

If you knew anything about me, you would realize I do not buy those huge buckets. I am one person. Additionally, last I checked three chicken breasts in the supermarket were $4-$5 (I did my grocery shopping yesturday). THat's not cheap. A bunch of BBQ chicken stripes (like 8 or 9) in KFC is $8, and not to mention I get student discount of 20%. So yes it is cheaper for me, and students. You again are grossly misinformed about the facts. I don't care if they suffer. If they have to for the butchering process to be faster and more efficient, then so be it. I'm not going to make my own fried chicken! I do not have the damn time for it. Vegans are so very illogical.I never thought for a moment that you were more than one person. While I do not presume to know you, I do know that much.
Seriously, how much do you pay for food each month? $8 a meal, three squares... $800 a month sound right? There is no way that you can believe that $8 for a meal is a good deal.


I have a damn right to pay for what I want. I have a right to eat what I want. You cannot go around telling people to be vegans and shove it down there throats. You cannot be the food police.I never said that you did not have the right to pay for chicken. You said that you have the right to be able to afford chicken, and the price should therefore be kept low enough so that you can afford it. I disagree. If you can't afford chicken, your rights are not being violated. You're just poor.


AGAIN NO WE CANNOT. We did not evolve to be vegans. If I were, being a vegan would deprive me of essential nutrients I need. Take the Dalai Lama. HE IS NOT A VEGAN. HE EATS YAK MEAT. He tried to become a vegan but he got terribly sick because of it. There are plenty of reasons why the great majority of peopple cannot be vegans. A vegans (those who don't even consume dairy products) are not the most healthy people.Yes you can. I am a vegan. I am perfectly healthy. While B12 is one of the vitamins that almost all doctors agree cannot be obtained by eating only plant-based food, the miso in my fridge tells me otherwise. Almost all of us grew up meat eaters. You need to know quite a bit about nutrition to be a healthy vegan, but those of us who do it right are some of the healthiest people on the planet. Contrary to popular belief, it is not difficult or time-consuming to be a vegan.
George bush eats meat too. That is no reason why we all should. I really don't care what the Dali Lama eats either.
The majority of the people on the planet do not consume dairy on a regular basis. Since when did humans evolve to chase down an animal, drink its milk, and repeat the process 3-4 times a day? Since humans have only been drinking milk past infancy for a few centuries, no, we have not evolved to require it or thrive on it.


You are lying about me. I am consuming what I have to live. I don't care what you think. I can't be a vegan because I would get sick since i would lack nutrients. I'm eating what i fucking want to. People in this world are starving because of bad government... where a government does not help its own people. And it doesn't require 3-8 times as many calories.. that's unsubstantiated.Not wanting to be a vegetarian is a perfectly valid reason not to be. Please stop arguing that you cannot be a vegetarian. You can be. I have yet to tell anyone to be a vegan (on this board or off it). I really don't care what you eat.
When did this discuaaion stop being about animal cruelty and start being about your eating habits?

And again when the argument is presented tha tall living beings should be treated the same, that argument implys that chickens are equal to humans. It doesnt help that the comment about organ donors needing to watch their backs was thrown in.

Who says they should be treated the same ?

Chickens are not human, yes. So say they have less rights. That is not the same as saying they have none - which is what most KFC fans are doing in this topic.

Lets try this comparision. Assume two living things are drowning. One is your dog, which you have had for 5 years and in that time has saved you and your children from dying in a fire twice. The other one is the childrapist that mentally scarred your 12 year old daughter and made sure she can never have children of her own.
Who will you save ? And if you pick the human - which you should if you truly think animals have 0 worth - will you *hesitate* ?

People that now want to use the "chickens are not dogs" argument - please explain what your criteria to give one more rights than the other are.
People that want to use the "bred for that life" argument - please explain why that argument would not be valid for breeding human babies for organ harvesting. Assume the harvesting takes place at a time the child has a mental development similar to a dog.

click! (http://www.alldumb.com/item/11696/)

:D Thats good chicken!It was pretty lame, if you ask me...

Who will you save ? And if you pick the human - which you should if you truly think animals have 0 worth - will you *hesistate* ?

A child rapist has zero worth too. So, if animals and child rapists are worth nothing to me, then whoever I save will be a matter of preference. I'd prefer a dog to a child rapist.

A child rapist has zero worth too. So, if animals and child rapists are worth nothing to me, than whoever I save will be a matter of preference. I'd prefer a dog to a child rapist.

But then you can not use the argument "humans are by definition worth more than animals" any longer ;)

But then you can not use the argument "humans are by definition worth more than animals" any longer

I take the statement "human life" as any innocent person. If one is scum like that, rapist or such, you're worth as much to me as a chicken is.

People in this world are starving because of bad government... where a government does not help its own people. And it doesn't require 3-8 times as many calories.. that's unsubstantiated."The world must create five billions vegans in the next several decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land."
-Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues

"...
This means that only a percentage of the energy that farmed animals obtain from plant foods is converted into meat or dairy products. Estimates of efficiency levels vary, but in a recent study [7], Professor Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba, Canada, calculated that beef cattle raised on feedlots may convert as little as 2.5% of their gross feed energy into food for human consumption. Estimated conversion of protein was only a little more efficient, with less than 5% of the protein in feed being converted to edible animal protein. These figures are especially damning since the diet of cattle at the feedlot consists largely of human-edible grains.

Feedlot-raised beef is an extreme example, being the least feed-efficient animal product, but even the most efficient - milk - represents a waste of precious agricultural land. Prof Smil calculates that the most efficient dairy cows convert between 55 and 67% of their gross feed energy into milk food energy."Raising animals is a fairly inefficient way to produce calories. Creating a single calorie of beef, for instance, a cow or steer must eat seven calories of grain. That 7:1 relationship is called the caloric ratio. Pork has a caloric ratio of 4:1. For chicken, it's 2:1.Supposing we all ate just cereals, which provide roughly 3,300 k calories per kg. We would need to grow three billion tonnes of cereals to feed the 10 billion and this would require about 1,300 million ha of land because the current world average yield of cereals is about 2.3 tonnes per ha. There are almost exactly 1,300 million ha of arable land in the world so it would be possible to feed the 10 billion on such a diet.
Few people want to live on cereals alone. However, since most fruits and vegetables yield more calories per ha than cereals, whilst most protein and oil crops yields less, they balance out so that a varied diet can in fact be produced for 10 billion people from 1.3 billion ha of arable land. In addition to the arable land, we also have over three billion ha of pasture in the world which can be used for the production of meat from herbivores. No one need go hungry even if the average yields of our domesticated plants and animals decline to 70% of what they are today. The planet can feed 10 billion people. (See table.)Inefficient use of agriculture. 70% of U.S. grain production is used to feed farm animals. The grains and soybeans fed to animals to produce the amount of meat consumed by the average American in one year could feed seven people for the same period. http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/
http://www.ecohealth101.org/whats_left/eat3.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn33/pn33p23.htm
http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/15_reasons.asp
http://www.farmusa.org/issues.htm
http://www.jhsph.edu/Environment/CLF_Press/CLF_publications/WhitePaper.html

Hey, Oxwana, not to be backstabbing you, but the ratios thing is pretty irrelevant. Raising animals has proven to be a very efficient way of harnessing the calories of things we don't eat anyway (like grass).

Any assertion that being a vegetarian, especially a vegan, is cheap is ludicrous. Vegans take the extremely ludicrous step of not eating anything that comes from animals, no milk, no eggs, nothing (if I recall). I would propose to know how you meat the various nutrional needs without spending more than you would just eating meat, or at least not be an overwhelmingly obsessed person and no products from animals at all.I buy all my groceries for less than $100 CAN a month. I'm healthy, too.

Hey, Oxwana, not to be backstabbing you, but the ratios thing is pretty irrelevant. Raising animals has proven to be a very efficient way of harnessing the calories of things we don't eat anyway (like grass).True story. These days, however, most farm animals eat food grown on land that could be growing human food.

True story. These days, however, most farm animals eat food grown on land that could be growing human food.

Of course, that doesn't mean you can make the grain taste like a hamburger. And no, I've never had any soy burger that tastes anything like a hamburger.

Now back to my regularly scheduled watching.

Of course, that doesn't mean you can make the grain taste like a hamburger. And no, I've never had any soy burger that tastes anything like a hamburger.

Now back to my regularly scheduled watching.My cats beg for fake meat when my mum makes it (from scratch). These are hardcore, outdoor, bird killing machines, and they go crazy for millet. You have no idea what you're missing.

True story. These days, however, most farm animals eat food grown on land that could be growing human food.I don't mind. It would have been much harder for us Boy Scouts to get permission to romp on the farmer's fields if he was raising corn instead of cows. (capture the flag or snipe hunts in a cornfield might be fun, but I doubt we'd be allowed to camp there again, if that was the case :D)

Edit: Oh, forgot the fallow thing. Since there's no lack of food in Europe, and plants tend to drain nutrients from the soil, a lot of farmers will let their fields lie fallow for a while and let herds of cattle or sheep renutrify (shit on) them.

My cats beg for fake meat when my mum makes it (from scratch). These are hardcore, outdoor, bird killing machines, and they go crazy for millet. You have no idea what you're missing.

That might be a possibility, but there's no store-bought soy burger that tastes anything like a hamburger. My sister-in-law is a vegetarian, so I've tried it all.

Who says they should be treated the same ?

Chickens are not human, yes. So say they have less rights. That is not the same as saying they have none - which is what most KFC fans are doing in this topic.
Comparisons have been made. If you choose to ignore that such comparisons have been made, I refuse to debate this subject further with you.

Lets try this comparision. Assume two living things are drowning. One is your dog, which you have had for 5 years and in that time has saved you and your children from dying in a fire twice. The other one is the childrapist that mentally scarred your 12 year old daughter and made sure she can never have children of her own.
Who will you save ? And if you pick the human - which you should if you truly think animals have 0 worth - will you *hesitate* ?
Was the dog breed to be food? What exactly is the situation? It'd take quite the extreme situation to not be able to save both, so perhaps a better question is which would I save first. Chances are, I'd save whichever was worse off first and then go back for the other - however, keep in mind that I was at one time a lifeguard, so I have a bit more experience in such matters.


People that now want to use the "chickens are not dogs" argument - please explain what your criteria to give one more rights than the other are.
Depends on the situation. Were both creatures breed specifically and genetically to be food? If not, does the dog really have more rights - or is it just treated better because it's a pet, not food? Just because an animal is treated better doesnt mean it has those rights - that's a personal preference of the owner.

People that want to use the "bred for that life" argument - please explain why that argument would not be valid for breeding human babies for organ harvesting. Assume the harvesting takes place at a time the child has a mental development similar to a dog. Human =/= chicken? I thought I'd clarified that before. And, not surprisingly, you're comparing the rights of chickens to the rights of humans - thereby implying chickens should have the same rights as humans and thus contradicting your first argument of the post...

The ignorance of some human beings who have the audacity and egotism to assume that the world is here to be their playground and that animals don't experience fear, pain, and other physical and emotional conditions makes me truly ill.

If you've ever taken the time to actually research the depth and inhumanity of various types of cruelty to animals that occurs in this world and don't start to doubt the nature of some human beings, I'd be surprised.

I can't imagine what kind of a person you have to be to inflict torture on any living creature, listening to it scream in agony and fear. I have visited the PETA website. If I visited the fur farm where men were skinning animals alive while they writhed in pain, screaming and crying, only to be tossed into a huge vat on top of hundreds of other animals that had been skinned alive, left to die being eaten alive by bugs and smothered by their fellow victims...you can bet your life I'd do whatever it took to stop the sick individuals committing such sadistic acts.

Let's see...when we see this on A&E...it's usually in a documentary about a serial killer that started off by torturing animals. Such lack of compassion is easily transferred into human interaction.

If you are going to take life to sustain your own, you should respect the creature that gave it's life to keep you well-fed (or obese as with a quickly-growing percentage of the US) or clothed and breathing.

People that use the uneducated argument that an animal is "stupid" or not as smart as "domesticated animals" so its life obviously has no meaning should remember that pigs are smarter than your pet dogs...what's your argument for allowing them to be tortured?

One note though...at least where I live, it's expensive to be a true vegetarian or vegan (which in my opinion is sad). I nannied for a vegan family for awhile, and it's surprisingly easy to make sure you take in the protein and other nutrients you may miss out on from excluding meat from your diet.

However, farming these days has become so merged with biological engineering that you have to be extremely careful even where you buy your fruit and vegetables. The only way to make sure you're buying naturally grown and produced foods that may not include some kind of animal bi-product is to go to a naturalist or health food store, and the producers have to jack up their prices to stay afloat against warehouse farms that use genetic short cuts to produce more product, bigger and quicker than the old-fashioned way is able.

It's really interesting to actually sit down and research what you're putting into your system. Both animals and plants are genetically altered to increase certain aspects of production--or in some cases, to keep bugs away from their products.

If humans are such a superior life form, why did we start destroying the earth and everything on it that sustains us the minute we arrived, and why do we continue to be surprised/complain about global warming, all the while worsening it with our irresponsible conduct with the environment? We've done the studies. We know we're killing our planet. I've never known a chicken, cow, or pig to be that dense.

I really don't buy it.

No one argued that we should mistreat mental patients. You said that chickens can't protest and are raised for food, and that is the reason that it is ok to mistreat them. In those respects, chickens and some severly mentally handicaped people are the same.
Ya know, you should read all the posts in a thread before you start debating in it. The point had been presented by Kiwi.


I never said that all living beings should be treated the same. Inflicting unnecessary suffering to any living creature is unaceptable. The organ donor remark was made to point out the fallacy of your assertion that the fact that a chicken will be dismembered in the end makes it acceptable to abuse them while they are alive.
You did argue that all living creatures have the same rights. That's the premise of your arguments (except that perhaps humans have more rights...)

Just a thought I had...I wonder if people that get really upset about humans "playing God" by genetically altering/cloning humans and animals/stem cell research own cross-breeds of domesticated animals that never would have occured on their own, but were specifically forced together by humans to serve some kind of specific purpose (some of said purposes being rather pointless to begin with).

Isn't that basically the same thing, without the chemistry set?

Just a thought I had...I wonder if people that get really upset about humans "playing God" by genetically altering/cloning humans and animals/stem cell research own cross-breeds of domesticated animals that never would have occured on their own, but were specifically forced together by humans to serve some kind of specific purpose (some of said purposes being rather pointless to begin with).

Isn't that basically the same thing, without the chemistry set?

People do get upset about that. There's protests every once in a while if you care to look. I don't, but every once in a while I get informed about one.

I never thought for a moment that you were more than one person. While I do not presume to know you, I do know that much.
Seriously, how much do you pay for food each month? $8 a meal, three squares... $800 a month sound right? There is no way that you can believe that $8 for a meal is a good deal.

I am one person. And how about this for you? Three chicken breasts for $4-$5? I also have to buy the oil and do the cleaning (so dish soap is needed). There are too many little costs for me to do cooking on my own. Also it was $3.90 last time I got the popcorn chicken and it was more then enough for me. You again aren't thinking. I don't go to KFC every day either. So more falsehoods on your part. At most once a week. I typically have chinese food at this one place that has specials priced at $5-$6. It happens to be that buying food here is more expensive then eating out.

I never said that you did not have the right to pay for chicken. You said that you have the right to be able to afford chicken, and the price should therefore be kept low enough so that you can afford it. I disagree. If you can't afford chicken, your rights are not being violated. You're just poor.

You just don't know what you are saying. I should be able to pay for whatever I want. It isn't up to you to control what I buy or what I consume. You aren't the food police. I'm just poor so I should shut up? Really? I have a right to eat.

Yes you can. I am a vegan. I am perfectly healthy. While B12 is one of the vitamins that almost all doctors agree cannot be obtained by eating only plant-based food, the miso in my fridge tells me otherwise. Almost all of us grew up meat eaters. You need to know quite a bit about nutrition to be a healthy vegan, but those of us who do it right are some of the healthiest people on the planet. Contrary to popular belief, it is not difficult or time-consuming to be a vegan.

Being a vegan is very bad for my health, so no I cannot. I would have a serious lack in nutrients that vegetables can never make up. Almost all doctors AGREE WITH ME. Not you. You need to learn some before you speak wrongly on the matter, not me. Vegans are typically lacking in several key nutrients that are found in great amounts in meat, and in inadequate amounts in some vegetables.

FAce it: We evolved to be omnivores, not herbivores. And there is nothing ridiculous diet plans can do about that. NOTHING.


George bush eats meat too. That is no reason why we all should. I really don't care what the Dali Lama eats either.
The majority of the people on the planet do not consume dairy on a regular basis. Since when did humans evolve to chase down an animal, drink its milk, and repeat the process 3-4 times a day? Since humans have only been drinking milk past infancy for a few centuries, no, we have not evolved to require it or thrive on it.

The majority of people on this planet consume meat in one form or another. Even the poorest in Tibet eat yak meat. In Mongolia it is pretty much the same thing. I personally wouldn't eat yak meat, but that is their culture. I'm not trying to infringe on what other people eat like you are. Humans have been killing animals since the beginning of time. There is substantial evidence for this. First it was big game animals like mammoth.. and then smaller game animals in greater amounts. This was when the species was in hunting and gathering mode. Now you are just playing ignorant.

Not wanting to be a vegetarian is a perfectly valid reason not to be. Please stop arguing that you cannot be a vegetarian. You can be. I have yet to tell anyone to be a vegan (on this board or off it). I really don't care what you eat.

YOU ARE SO DEAD WRONG. I CANNOT BE A VEGAN. IT WILL SEND ME TO THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE I WON'T HAVE ENOUGH NUTRIENTS. I will fall ill. That's a fact.

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/
http://www.ecohealth101.org/whats_left/eat3.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn33/pn33p23.htm
http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/15_reasons.asp
http://www.farmusa.org/issues.htm
http://www.jhsph.edu/Environment/CLF_Press/CLF_publications/WhitePaper.html

First off that's pretty much irrelevant. First off, you still failed to counter that humans get a lot of nutrients they require from meat. And that alone is reason to maintain these farms. How about some facts from qualified studies, and qualified doctors:

Some dangerous facts about vegans.. the reality:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/17/vegan_risk.htm


This study echoes one published last year.

Of the many nutrients vegans lack, vitamin B12 is the most significant because it can have permanent neurological complications and even result in blindness.

Contrary to what many vegetarians believe, vitamin B12 is not absorbed very well, if at all, from plant sources. Previous studies have consistently shown low B12 levels in vegetarians and vegans because they do not eat meat and other animal by products.

For further information please review the comprehensive vitamin B12 page.

These studies do not document some of the major dangers with choosing to be a vegetarian. For those of you who have a teenage vegetarian or who are health care practitioners treating these individuals, this is very important information. You can view the list below for that information.

One clearly needs to be sensitive to the fact that a teenager showing sudden changes in their eating patterns may have an eating disorder and would benefit from an effective intervention. My current recommendation for an intervention for an eating disorder would be EFT. You can find EFT practitioners on the Gary Craig's EFT Referral page or you can use my free EFT manual to start the process.

If you are a health care practitioner and are interested in attending one of the top energy training events of 2002, you will want to be certain to come to Chicago in September for Dr. Larry Nims's BSFF course.

(For females):
http://www.mercola.com/2000/feb/6/vegetarian_pregnancy.htm

The evidence continues to mount. Just because you are a vegetarian does not mean you are healthy. One of the main reasons is due to the soy issue addressed here. It appears that the soy phytoestrogens increased the risk of the birth defect by 500%. Not only are the soy phytoesrogens an issue, but most vegetarians consume far too little protein and far too many grains. However, the vegetables, or course, are a huge benefit and to provide some partial compensation in some areas.

Refutations on lifestock causing famines:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

Some have argued that cows and sheep require pasturage that could be better used to raise grains to feed starving millions in Third World countries. Additionally, claims are made that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods. Both arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The pasturage argument ignores the fact that a large portion of our Earth's dry land is unsuited to cultivation. The open range and desert and mountainous areas yield their fruits to grazing animals (1).

Unfortunately, the bulk of commercial livestock are not range fed, but stall fed. They do not ingest grasses and shrubs (like they should), but are fed an unnatural array of grains and soybeans. It is true that these foods could be fed to humans. The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth's resources, but that commercial farming methods do. Such methods also subject livestock to deplorable living conditions where infections, antibiotics, steroids and synthetic hormones are common. These all lead to an unhealthy animal and, by extension, an unhealthy food product. Organically raised livestock, then, is a healthier and more humane choice (see myth #15 for more on this topic).

As for the claims that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods, water that livestock drink would be drunk by them anyway, even if they were not being raised for food. Additionally, the urine of grazing animals, which mostly comprises water, is rich in nitrogen which helps replenish the soil. Much of the water used in commercial livestock farming, however, is used up in growing the various grains and soybeans fed to the animals. If a concerted effort were made to return to the ecologically sound "mixed farm," (described below), then such huge expenditures of water would be unnecessary.

A far more serious threat to humanity, and the Earth, is the monoculture of grains and legumes, advocated by some vegetarian groups, which depletes the soil and requires the heavy use of artificial fertilisers and dangerous pesticides; pesticides that must first be tested on animals for safety (2). The solution? Astute writers on this dilemma have pointed out:

The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is
combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free
in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in
woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger
and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems. (3)

The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. British organic farmer and dairyman Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (4). Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" by saying:

Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business- besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] amd salmoella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems. (5)

Other important sources:

Vegetarian Diet INCREASES alzheimers risk: http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/19/alzheimers.htm

Vegetarian diet dangerous for growing teens:
http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/29/vegetarian.htm

It is possible to be a healthy vegan. The family I worked for was actually put on a vegan diet by their family physician, largely because the father and son were extraordinarily obese with extremely unhealthy diets [the 9 year old was already over 150 pounds at 4 ft something). As with any drastic life change you decide to make, you just have to be responsible about it, and read up on how to stay healthy.

If you find you can't write up a menu to satisfy what your body needs to keep you healthy, your doctor can offer vitamins that will balance out the remaining proteins missing from the absence of meat.

I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian, but I'm not much of a meat-eater, and so my doctor suggested this (and calcium vitamins) to me.

I personally think it's hard for people who might want to become vegan to do so mainly because of the cost it takes to make sure you're not buying anything at all with animal by-products in it, especially in this day and age.

Unless you grew your own food, I suppose...

It is possible to be a healthy vegan. The family I worked for was actually put on a vegan diet by their family physician, largely because the father and son were extraordinarily obese with extremely unhealthy diets [the 9 year old was already over 150 pounds at 4 ft something). As with any drastic life change you decide to make, you just have to be responsible about it, and read up on how to stay healthy.

If you find you can't write up a menu to satisfy what your body needs to keep you healthy, your doctor can offer vitamins that will balance out the remaining proteins missing from the absence of meat.

I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian, but I'm not much of a meat-eater, and so my doctor suggested this (and calcium vitamins) to me.

I personally think it's hard for people who might want to become vegan to do so mainly because of the cost it takes to make sure you're not buying anything at all with animal by-products in it, especially in this day and age.

Unless you grew your own food, I suppose...

I provided documented studies showing it is not possible to be a healthy vegan. From qualified sources and doctors. You provided no evidence.

People do get upset about that. There's protests every once in a while if you care to look. I don't, but every once in a while I get informed about one.

I've surprisingly never seen/heard of it before.

My point was mainly that it seems ironic that some people who do complain about other people "playing God" most likely own animals that are quite similarly the result of people "playing God" when creating new breeds.

I provided documented studies showing it is not possible to be a healthy vegan. From qualified sources and doctors. You provided no evidence.

It's three AM here and so at the moment I'm merely speaking from personal experience, statements to me from my own doctors, and my own past research...and don't claim to be doing otherwise. I was quite concerned when I started working for the family I'm talking about, because they also had an already-skinny-for-her-age-six-year-old in their ranks. So I read up on it quite a bit, especially since she seemed to be the neglected one of the bunch, for some reason.

Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to provide some hard evidence. Sorry, too tired atm (but somehow can't resist the urge to reply :D).

It's three AM here and so at the moment I'm merely speaking from personal experience, statements to me from my own doctors, and my own past research...and don't claim to be doing otherwise. I was quite concerned when I started working for the family I'm talking about, because they also had an already-skinny-for-her-age-six-year-old in their ranks. So I read up on it quite a bit, especially since she seemed to be the neglected one of the bunch, for some reason.

Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to provide some hard evidence. Sorry, too tired atm (but somehow can't resist the urge to reply :D).

Seems like my studies contradict everything you have been saying. There is no way anyone can be a healthy vegan. They lack vitamin B12, and that can lead to brain damage, increased risk of alzheimers, and in females cause birth defects in children. This is supported by scientific studies and the evidence has only been mounting.

For your information, I'm an energetic, 20 year old male.. 6'2" and weighing about 155. I have a light build and have an incredibly high amount of energy. I need meat just to keep up because I'm a very fast moving and very athletic person. I just don't feel I would have an adequate amount of nutrition being a vegan.. and I don't want to increase my chance for disease.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

MYTH #3:

The body can convert omega-6 fatty acids into omega-3 fatty acids as it needs.

This falsehood is akin to myth number two. Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fats of which two, linolenic (an omega-3) and linoleic (an omega 6), are essential to human life and must be obtained from food as the body cannot synthesise them. Although very small amounts of omega 3 linolenic acid are found in whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables, it is principally found in animal foods (especially fish and eggs), as well as flax seed oil. Omega 6 linoleic acid is mostly found in vegetables, but small amounts are present in certain animal fats. To assuage vegans who fear they may not get enough omega 3 linolenic acid, some vegetarian sources assert that the body can simply convert excess omega 6 linoleic acid into omega 3 linolenic acid, and other omega 3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA, two fatty acids intimately involved in the health of the brain and immune system.

Renowned lipid biochemist Dr Mary Enig, of the University of Maryland, and other authorities have shown that the body cannot change the omega number of fatty acids. The body can change the fatty acid's degree of saturation and also its molecular length, but not its omega number (12). In other words, omega 6 fatty acids can only be converted into other omega 6 fatty acids; omega 3s only into other omega 3s.

Again, I have seen the results of this misinformation in my practice. I've had several patients of Northern European descent with severe mental and immune problems caused by a lack of EPA and DHA, two omega-3 fatty acids not found in plant foods (DHA is found in small amounts in some algae). People native to warmer climates in the world can manufacture these fatty acids from other omega-3s, but those of Northern European or Innuit descent cannot. Since their ancestors ate so much EPA- and DHA-rich fish, their bodies eventually lost the ability to manufacture these fatty acids (13). For these people, vegetarianism is impossible; they must consume either eggs or fish in order to survive.

There is also a very real danger from consuming too many omega-6 fatty acids, principally found in vegetables. The body requires both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, when the body's cells are overloaded with omega-6s, their ability to utilise the omega-3 is inhibited (14).
Chronically low levels of omega-3 fatty acids are associated with higher cancer rates and immune dysfunction. Excessive levels of omega-6 fatty acids are also strongly correlated with a high incidence of cardiovascular disease (as is excessive consumption of refined sugar and trans-fatty acids) [15].

MYTH #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant foods.

Vitamin A is principally found in animal products. Plants do contain beta-carotene, a substance that the body can convert into vitamin A. The impression given by some vegetarian sources is that beta-carotene is just as good as vitamin A. This is not true.

Firstly, the conversion from carotene to vitamin A can only take place in the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with the carotenes to stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and people with hypothyroidism, gall bladder problems or diabetes either cannot make the conversion or do so very poorly. Lastly, the body's conversion from carotene to vitamin A is not very efficient: it takes 46 units of carotene to make one unit of vitamin A. What this means is that the sweet potato (containing about 25,000 units of beta-carotene) you just ate will only convert into about 4,000 units of vitamin A (assuming you ate it with fat and do not have a thyroid or gall bladder problem) [16].

Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea. This is why good-old-fashioned butter is a virtual must in any diet. Butter from pasture-fed cows is rich in vitamin A and will provide the intestines with the fatty material needed to convert vegetable carotenes into active vitamin A. Vitamin A is all-important in our diets, for it enables the body to use proteins and minerals (17).

MYTH #5: Meat-eaters have higher rates of heart and kidney disease, cancer, obesity and osteoporosis than vegetarians.

Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for thousands of years. Further, there are several native peoples around the world (the Innu, Masai, Swiss, Greeks, etc.) whose traditional diets are very rich in animal products, but do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (18). This shows that other factors besides animal foods are at work in these diseases.

Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of heart disease, cancer and bone loss, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing (19). For example, the studies that supposedly proved that meat consumption among the Innuit caused high rates of osteoporosis, failed to note other dietary factors that contributed to bone loss (and to the other chronic diseases listed in myth #5). Things such as refined sugar consumption, alcoholism and a junk food consumption equalled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders (20).

Certainly, when protein is consumed in such an unnatural fashion, separated from the fat-soluble nutrients required for its absorption and assimilation, it will lead to problems. Because of this, the current use of fat-free protein powders as "food supplements", and low-fat or non-fat dairy products should be avoided. Trimming off visible fat from meats and removing duck and chicken skin before eating should also be discouraged.

Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the risk for heart disease (21), their authors actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian), H. A. Kahn concluded, "Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives" (21). A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (21). Despite these startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.

Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Statistician Dr. Russel Smith concluded, "In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives." When all of the data are taken into account, the actual differences of heart disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies was less than 1%: hardly a significant amount (22).

It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower risk for heart disease and cancer (but see the last paragraph in this section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee or tea, all of which may be factors in promoting cancer and heart disease (23).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, declared a diet devoid of animal products as "not of God." As with the Adventists, Mormons avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average (24). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (25). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat consumption by itself does not correlate with cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, or obesity (26). Obviously, other factors are at work.

It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of California Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian) showed that, while they did have lower rates of some cancers (e.g., breast), they had significantly higher rates of several others (brain, skin, uterine, cervical and ovarian)! (27)

MYTH #6:

Saturated fats cause heart disease and cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people.

Despite claims that primitive societies are/were largely vegetarian, diets of native peoples the world over are rich in saturated fats and animal foods (28) and, as noted above, heart disease and cancer are primarily modern diseases. Saturated fat consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. As with the poorly done studies of the Inuit, modern-day researchers fail to take into account other dietary factors of people who have heart disease and cancer. As a result, the harmful effects of eating refined sugar, nutrient-poor "foods," trans-fats (found in margarine and hydrogenated oils) and vegetable oils get mixed up with animal fat consumption. It is commonly believed that saturated fats and cholesterol "clog arteries", but such ideas have been shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, George Mann, John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig and others (29). On the contrary, studies have shown that arterial plaque is primarily composed of UNsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones, and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (30).

Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other assorted diseases (31).

A recent study of thousands of Swedish women showed no correlation between saturated fat consumption and increased risk for breast cancer. However, the study did show a strong link between vegetable oil intake and higher breast cancer rates (32).

The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill health. Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups over several years at five-year intervals. One group consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat, while the other consumed high amounts. Surprisingly, Dr William Castelli, the study's director, is quoted in the Archives of Internal Medicine (July 1992) as saying:

In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.

It is true that the study did show that those who weighed more and had higher serum cholesterol levels were more at risk for heart disease, but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other words, there was no correlation at all (33).

In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, sponsored by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared mortality rates and eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate less saturated fat and cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate of coronary heart disease (CHD), but had an overall mortality rate much higher than the other men in the study (34).

The few studies that indicate a correlation between saturated fat reduction and a lower CHD rate also clearly document a sizeable increase in deaths from cancer, suicide, violence and brain haemorrhage (34). Like the bone density experiments, such things are not told to the public.

Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are decidedly not healthier for people. Studies have proven over and over that such diets are associated with depression, cancer, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide (35).

Children on low-fat diets suffer from growth problems, failure to thrive, and learning disabilities (36). Despite this, sources from Dr. Benjamin Spock to the American Heart Association recommend low-fat diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those unfortunate youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents taken in by such misinformation.

There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the fat in question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid, a potent antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also contains appreciable amounts of caprylic acid, also an effective antifungal (37). Butter from free-range cows is rich in trace minerals, especially selenium, as well as all of the fat-soluble vitamins and beneficial fatty acids that protect against cancer and fungal infections (38).

In general, however, saturated fats provide a good energy source for the vital organs, protect arteries against damage by the atherogenic lipoprotein (a), are rich in fat-soluble vitamins, help raise HDL levels in the blood, and make possible the utilisation of essential fatty acids. They are excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not break down under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's diet, then, is ill-advised (39).

MYTH #7:

Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.

Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54%). (40)

Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).

It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)

Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).

It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46).

And the most dangerous myth that can actually be deadly to a person:

MYTH #10:

Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy products.

The billion-dollar soy industry has profited immensely from the anti-cholesterol, anti-meat gospel of current nutritional thought. Whereas, not so long ago, soy was an Asian phenomenon, now soy products proliferate in the North American market. While the traditionally fermented soy products of miso, shoyu, tempeh and natto are definitely healthful in measured amounts, the hyper-processed soy "foods" are not.

Non-fermented soybeans are extremely high in phytic acid (54), an anti-nutrient that binds to minerals in the digestive tract and carries them out of the body. Vegetarians are known for their high rates of iron and zinc deficiencies (55).

Soybeans are also rich in trypsin inhibitors, which hinder protein digestion. Textured vegetable protein (TVP), soy "milk" and soy protein powders, and popular vegetarian meat and milk substitutes are entirely fragmented foods made by treating soybeans with high heat and various alkaline washes to extract the beans' fat content or to neutralise their potent enzyme inhibitors. These practices completely denature the beans' protein content, rendering it very hard to digest. MSG, a neurotoxin, is routinely added to TVP to make it taste like the various foods it imitates (56).

On a purely nutritional level, soybeans, like all legumes, are deficient in cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids (56). Soybeans are also lacking in tryptophan, another essential amino acid (56).

Furthermore, soybeans contain no vitamins A or D, required by the body to assimilate and utilise the beans' proteins (56). It is probably for this reason that Asian cultures that do consume soybeans usually combine them with fish or fish broths, The New Zealand government is considering removing soy formula from the market and making it available only by prescription (58).

Though research is still ongoing, some recent studies have indicated that soy's phyto-oestrogens could be causative factors in breast cancer and infantile leukaemia (59). Regardless, soy's phyto-oestrogens, or isoflavones, have been shown to depress thyroid function and cause infertility in some animals (60). As a practitioner, I have seen more than my share of vegetarians with hypothyroidism. They invariably rely on soy foods to get their protein.

Vegan ideas are dangerous for people. It should be discouraged, and people should be educated on the reality.

Well, like I said, I think it's another one of these personal-risk things...if you want to do it, you should be well-informed (as you are) of the potential dangers and ways to correct it.

This article doesn't mention vitamins, which is what my doctor's advice revolved around. I just don't eat that much meat (I have a strange stomach in general :rolleyes:), but she lectured me more for not drinking the recommended amount of milk a day than she emphasized the lack of meat in my diet.

Out of curiosity, do you have any non-dotcoms as reference? Preferably org, gov, edu, etc instead? I'm particularly interested in the comment about Alzheimers, since as far as I've heard the causes of the disease are still virtually unknown, or tentative at best.

(and I do apologize if anything I say is incoherent...slleeeppy)

Well, like I said, I think it's another one of these personal-risk things...if you want to do it, you should be well-informed (as you are) of the potential dangers and ways to correct it.

This article doesn't mention vitamins, which is what my doctor's advice revolved around. I just don't eat that much meat (I have a strange stomach in general :rolleyes:), but she lectured me more for not drinking the recommended amount of milk a day than she emphasized the lack of meat in my diet.

Read the sources I posted. It mentioned vitamin B12. The fact remains you do eat some meat, and that helps in supplementing B12 deficiencies that happen in vegans. There is no way around it. Vegans cannot get enough vitamin B12. And you also failed to mention that my article also talks about vitamin A. You are ridiculously dismissing my sources without even reading them.

The only way to correct this deficiency is by eating meat.

Out of curiosity, do you have any non-dotcoms as reference? Preferably org, gov, edu, etc instead? I'm particularly interested in the comment about Alzheimers, since as far as I've heard the causes of the disease are still virtually unknown, or tentative at best.

Many of those sources I provided are from documented studies, and educational organizations. The doctor who owns the site merely provides these citations and his own analysis. The causes of the disease are not known exactly, but there are things that have been established that can lead to an increased risk. Please again read the sources, instead of providing this dribble with no evidence.

Couldnt such a vegan, siimply supplement thier diet with a multi-vitamin, and get the required amount of b-12?

Also, I have a couple of friends who are Vegetarians, and they substitute meat, with peanut butter, to obtain protiens.
I dont have ant vegan friends, admittedly, and know little of the subject, as I find animals tasty.

Especially cows.

Its thier own fault for tasting good.

You are ridiculously dismissing my sources without even reading them.

No, excuse me, but you have just been ridiculously rude. That's not necessary. I'm not some "green" pro-vegan activist, I'm posting what my experience has taught me, and relating this to your experience, which you are being extremely forceful about, without considering that others might have different sources and experiences than yourself. There's no need to be rude...it is possible to have a conversation from different points of view without taking the stance of the know-all aggressor.

Read what I said, then re-read your article. Notice that I said it doesn't mention the ingestion of vitamins...vitamins in pill form. Vitamin supplements. Combined with a responsible vegan diet, you can live a healthy life style.

Please again read the sources, instead of providing this dribble with no evidence.

"Dribble"...drop the flamebait, now. I didn't come here to argue with a wall, I posted here to share my insight gained through experience. I told you repeatedly that this is all I'm posting at this point of the night.

The first thing you learn in college is to never use internet sources from .com websites. If it's not from a professional domain (.org, .edu, .gov, etc), you posting what someone claims to be true on a .com site and calling it hard evidence amounts to me posting my opinion and personal experience here and saying that's all it is, then you rudely calling my thoughts "dribble" and criticizing my lack of presented hard evidence. :rolleyes:

Couldnt such a vegan, siimply supplement thier diet with a multi-vitamin, and get the required amount of b-12?

Also, I have a couple of friends who are Vegetarians, and they substitute meat, with peanut butter, to obtain protiens.
I dont have ant vegan friends, admittedly, and know little of the subject, as I find animals tasty.

Especially cows.

Its thier own fault for tasting good.

Ah, but do they really taste good? What exactly is a good taste? If we were a different kind of society (like say, Indian), would our tastes be different? If you were from China, would you think your pet Fido was yummy? :p

*hugs BS since she's BSing him* ;)

Ah, but do they really taste good? What exactly is a good taste? If we were a different kind of society (like say, Indian), would our tastes be different? If you were from China, would you think your pet Fido was yummy? :p

*hugs BS since she's BSing him* ;)


Hezzer!

Youre "ribbing" me!

Its ok, though...Ive got no "beef" with you.
I know you can dish it out as good as you get it.
Youre no chicken!

Heck, sometimes you such a ham.


Sorry...I took a tall glass of Pun-Juice, or something.

:D

Aren't you an hour later than me? How do you manage to stay so punny at this time of night/morning? :p

*investigates the prune juice for signs of genetically-engineered superpowers*

...I just like conversations to stay civil, no matter how heated, and find unnecessary insults/condescention juvenile and unproductive.

Where's the fun in discussing the taste of your dog if you're going to turn around and take my bone away with extreme prejudice? :p

:D

Aren't you an hour later than me? How do you manage to stay so punny at this time of night/morning? :p


I main-line RedBull.

The real question is:

"Where do I put the needle?"

My cats beg for fake meat when my mum makes it (from scratch). These are hardcore, outdoor, bird killing machines, and they go crazy for millet. You have no idea what you're missing.
Cat licks thier butts. Whats your point?

There's no need to be rude...it is possible to have a conversation from different points of view without taking the stance of the know-all aggressor.

You get rude to me about what sources I can use or not. I demonstrated why you were wrong in that regard.

Read what I said, then re-read your article. Notice that I said it doesn't mention the ingestion of vitamins...vitamins in pill form. Vitamin supplements. Combined with a responsible vegan diet, you can live a healthy life style.

Vitamins in pill form is not adequate. Please actually read my sources. There is no such thing as a responsible vegan diet. It is very dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. There are other problems besides vitamin deficiencies.

"The first thing you learn in college is to never use internet sources from .com websites. If it's not from a professional domain (.org, .edu, .gov, etc), you posting what someone claims to be true on a .com site and calling it hard evidence amounts to me posting my opinion and personal experience here and saying that's all it is, then you rudely calling my thoughts "dribble" and criticizing my lack of presented hard evidence. :rolleyes:

That's total nonsense. It seems to me you don't know what college is about. In college you can very well use those sites, if they have proper backing to them. Obviously, I happen to be in university (and have been for two years now, on my third year currently). The evidence I post happens to be corroborated. You just don't seem to understand what valid sources are. Typical for someone who doesn't even bother reading what evidence I posted.

You can use .com sources for college if they have relevant backing. Just because it is .com does not mean it is unprofessional. Sheesh, how ridiculous can your attacks get? You should look that the evidence I posted is backed by studies.

Take this .com website:

http://encarta.msn.com/

It is applicable as a source.

What was said on the website was not just claims, but claims backed by evidence and studies. I'm sick of people who just blatantly dismiss it because they can't formulate an argument.

Oh and it doesn't quite frankly matter what a site ends with. There are sources out there that end with .edu but they can often be without evidence. The domain integer does not determine validity. Other factors do that. So please don't make these blanket generalizations.

So really nice try attacking the source when you didn't even read it. These are actual studies. Not unsubstantiated personal opinions. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

good you can help me with something ...what part of the chicken is the mcnugget ? :D

I think they are derived from the chicken's left nut..

I think they are derived from the chicken's left nut..just the left? where does the right one go... into the "Popcorn" chicken?

That might be a possibility, but there's no store-bought soy burger that tastes anything like a hamburger. My sister-in-law is a vegetarian, so I've tried it all.Try BOCA brand soy burgers. They rock my socks.

First off that's pretty much irrelevant. First off, you still failed to counter that humans get a lot of nutrients they require from meat. And that alone is reason to maintain these farms. How about some facts from qualified studies, and qualified doctors:

Some dangerous facts about vegans.. the reality:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/17/vegan_risk.htmB12 does not come from meat. If you eat meat, you are getting an excellent source of B12, but it is not the meat that is supplying it. B12 is produced by bacteria, the kind that grow on meat and in many fermented foods, and in the soil around the root systems of some kinds of beans. I googled to find a source... And got this http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/30/vitamin_b12_a.htm. Look familiar?
Where Do B12 Supplements Come From?
Vitamin B12 is obtained through bacteria cultures. More details will eventually be published online at http://www.veganoutreach.org and in updated versions of this article.If anything, vegetarians do have to be more careful to ensure that they do not become B12 deficient, but it's not difficult at all.

B12 deficiency among vegetarian Indians has been found with relatively high frequency in Indian immigrants in England, whereas it is uncommon among native Indians with identical dietary patterns.2 Healthy Indian subjects have a more extensive amount of microflora in their small intestines than people in the West.2Meat consumption is not required to get adequate B12.
It is not only possible, but easy and cheap to be a healthy vegan. My mother made me get blood tests done at the doctors a few years in. Zinc, calcium, iron, B12, etc; all the nutrients that many vegetarians are deficient in. Mine were all at very healthy levels, which is more than most teenage girls can say.


Refutations on lifestock causing famines:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htmAgain, I'm using information from the sources you quoted... I don't think that you interpreted it, or anything that I have said correctly. I do not think that we should all be vegans. I think that the amount of meat that we eat (especially in the west) is obscene, and it's production is killing our planet and taking food from the mouthes of our brothers. The way that most livestock are raised these days is a bad use of resources. We should return to traditional ways of farming. The only problem is, were we to do so, meat production would be back to the levels it was at a century ago. In other words, we would all have to eat more like we did in those days; far less meat, all organic produce, and cruelty-free farming practises. Sounds to me like paradise.
Unfortunately, the bulk of commercial livestock are not range fed, but stall fed. They do not ingest grasses and shrubs (like they should), but are fed an unnatural array of grains and soybeans. It is true that these foods could be fed to humans. The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth's resources, but that commercial farming methods do. Such methods also subject livestock to deplorable living conditions where infections, antibiotics, steroids and synthetic hormones are common. These all lead to an unhealthy animal and, by extension, an unhealthy food product. Organically raised livestock, then, is a healthier and more humane choice (see myth #15 for more on this topic).

Tofu is good, but chicken is better. I've raised 'em. No different than fish on land, as far as intelligence goes.

Chicken is fowl .

Ya know, you should read all the posts in a thread before you start debating in it. The point had been presented by Kiwi.I have been here since the original post. I have read all the posts (most more than once). I still maintain that no one actually suggested that we mistreat the mentally handicaped; that was pointed out to you to make you realize the fallacy of your argument that if a creature cannot protest and was raised for food we should be able to mistreat them.

You did argue that all living creatures have the same rights. That's the premise of your arguments (except that perhaps humans have more rights...)No, we do not all have the same rights. There are some rights common to all living creatures, but your interpretation of that to mean that we all have the same rights is flawed.

just the left? where does the right one go... into the "Popcorn" chicken?Yes.

Seriously though, what's worse: eating testes or eating mystery meat that could be testes, or something even worse?

Speaking as an ex-moderator here:


Mesa, Ox, everyone else...Knock off the flamebait and ad hominem attacks. They're not needed. It's entirely possible to debate the topic without attacking each other.

Remember, regardless of who "wins" this argument, I'm still gonna eat a big fucking steak tonight, and no one can stop me.

Yes.

Seriously though, what's worse: eating testes or eating mystery meat that could be testes, or something even worse?Rocky Mountain Oysters?
I really couldn't care as long as it's patable to me.

heck, I had Chocolate Covered Cockroaches and ants once. was pretty good too.

There are people who eat Gastropods too.

click! (http://www.alldumb.com/item/11696/)

:D Thats good chicken!

I've done something similar. I showed up to an anti meat protest with a grill and some steaks in the back of my pick up, and showed up to an anti fur rally wearing a coon skin cap and carrying buckets of paint.

Protesting protesters is fun.

I have been here since the original post. I have read all the posts (most more than once). I still maintain that no one actually suggested that we mistreat the mentally handicaped; that was pointed out to you to make you realize the fallacy of your argument that if a creature cannot protest and was raised for food we should be able to mistreat them. Wait a sec...he presented the damn argument, not I. Regardless of his intent in doing so, he did compare chickens to mental patients. Taking my words out of context and applying them to a completely different situation is hardly the way to win a discussion. You then took my responses out of context (as did others) in an effort to refute my simple point that chickens =/= humans.


No, we do not all have the same rights. There are some rights common to all living creatures, but your interpretation of that to mean that we all have the same rights is flawed.
ironically, all I was doing is taking what you said and turning it back on you...sucks when your words are taken out of context to mean something they dont, huh?

Cat licks thier butts. Whats your point?That cats are carnivores, and my mother's millet loaf is so meaty-tasting that it fools said meat-eaters.
What was the point of your post?

Wait a sec...he presented the damn argument, not I. Regardless of his intent in doing so, he did compare chickens to mental patients. Taking my words out of context and applying them to a completely different situation is hardly the way to win a discussion. You then took my responses out of context (as did others) in an effort to refute my simple point that chickens =/= humans.I believe that said poster's intent was to show you that your arguement is invalid by citing another situation that would fit your criteria (can't protest, and was raised for food) but is obviously not acceptable. It was a way of pointing out the flaws in your argument, not a serious suggestion.


ironically, all I was doing is taking what you said and turning it back on you...sucks when your words are taken out of context to mean something they dont, huh?So you purposely took my words out of context? Very sporting of you.

My god ... this is still going on.

Points I'd like to make:

1] Oxwana has not once ever told anyone they should be Vegan, just that they *can* be if they want to be. Big difference.

2] I've been Vegan. Spent years at it. I was healthy. Very healthy. Now I will eat meat (decided I was way too nihilistic to be Vegan), but still enjoy the Boca pizzas and wheatroast fajitas. I am still healthy. It's not what you eat, it's how you eat that matters.

3] You cannot, I repeat, cannot be cruel to food. Not because of its purpose, but because of the result. If you mistreat a cow, the stress and whatnot causes the meat to toughen or the milk to sour. Mistreating food is just pointless. Your production will fail. KFC seems to be doing a pretty good amount of business, so they must be doing something right.

4] Homemade fried chicken is the best thing any human will ever eat in their entire lives.

5] I've slaughtered, plucked, gutted, carved, and fried my very own chicken raised from an egg. They don't put up much of a fight. Also ... see #4.

Ok ... that's all.

I believe that said poster's intent was to show you that your arguement is invalid by citing another situation that would fit your criteria (can't protest, and was raised for food) but is obviously not acceptable. It was a way of pointing out the flaws in your argument, not a serious suggestion.
The situation isn't the same. unless you are saying that you eat humans.
EDIT: I mean 'You' as a anyone who supports that argument about raising mentally ill people to eat. Not you personally Oxwana.


and as for equal rights?
1) A person steals something from you, you take that person to court and the criminal gets punnished.
2) An animal steals something from another animal, the victim will fight back and if one is killed, it's call the law of the Wild.
3) A person steals something from an animal, that animal will defend itself but the human will kill that animal and it's the animal that is labled 'mad' and the human praised.
Where is the animals rights then? These are not animals we are eating for food.

if you are guilty of taking something from the animals, would you give it back to them?

I believe that said poster's intent was to show you that your arguement is invalid by citing another situation that would fit your criteria (can't protest, and was raised for food) but is obviously not acceptable. It was a way of pointing out the flaws in your argument, not a serious suggestion. The argument was still presented...regardless of why it was there, it was there. jeez.

And, just to point this out: comparing mental patients to chickens didnt come close to pointing out a fallacy in what I'd stated. I stated that when chickens that were breed for food can protest their plight, I'll listen. We're not discussing mental patients, we're discussing chickens. This then led to my post that Chickens =/= Humans which you tried to then argue was invalid because no one compared chickens to humans - when in fact, they had been.

Since when were mental patients breed for food?


So you purposely took my words out of context? Very sporting of you.
So, it was OK for Kiwi to take my words and completely blow away the context by comparing what I said to an extremely different group...but it wasnt OK for me to take your words out of context?

Debate the point, not how it was made (especially not how it was made when you're on the side making the point).

The point was made comparing chickens to mental patients. By taking my refutation of that point and attempting to turn it into a "non-argument" because of what you consider a "technicality" (the fact that it wasnt a "serious" and / or "literal" suggestion that we mistreat mental patients), you dropped my argument - which leaves it a valid point, and thus a win for my side (at least on that point).

That cats are carnivores, and my mother's millet loaf is so meaty-tasting that it fools said meat-eaters.
What was the point of your post?

Um...his point was that cats lick their butt - something quite untasty I'm sure (although, I've never licked a cat's butt to be able to speak from personal experience here...)

The best argument for not mistreating animals being raised for food that I have seen in this thread is " they will not taste as good " if you mistreat them .
I say again I see no difference between an ear of corn and a chicken when it comes to treatment . They are being raised for consumption . If being nice to your food makes it taste better then I am all for it . If not ..who cares ?

The best argument for not mistreating animals being raised for food that I have seen in this thread is " they will not taste as good " if you mistreat them .
I say again I see no difference between an ear of corn and a chicken when it comes to treatment . They are being raised for consumption . If being nice to your food makes it taste better then I am all for it . If not ..who cares ?

This is true. If you have ever had to track a deer or other game animal for along ways, and then butchered it, it doesn't taste near as good as one that is dropped within a few steps.

Some refutations...

Look familiar?
If anything, vegetarians do have to be more careful to ensure that they do not become B12 deficient, but it's not difficult at all.

The problem is vegetarians are not careful enough when it comes to vitamin B12.

And it seems like you didn't address any of the other points I brought up like with alzheimers. Those other issues I brought up have to do with other things other then vitamin deficiency.

Meat consumption is not required to get adequate B12.

Yes it is.

It is not only possible, but easy and cheap to be a healthy vegan. My mother made me get blood tests done at the doctors a few years in. Zinc, calcium, iron, B12, etc; all the nutrients that many vegetarians are deficient in. Mine were all at very healthy levels, which is more than most teenage girls can say.

Actually no. It is very expensive and I can take you to any kind of organic food store, supermarket, or any other kind of food store and show you this. I do investigating on it myself because many of the foods I cook do include vegetables. Alternative foods to meat are in fact the most expensive out there.

Again, I'm using information from the sources you quoted... I don't think that you interpreted it, or anything that I have said correctly. I do not think that we should all be vegans.

That's typical flamebaiting. I have interpreted the information I posted correctly. That's why I usually cite Argentina as a model (they have managed to get ride of BSE), and their cows are grain and grass fed.

that the amount of meat that we eat (especially in the west) is obscene, and it's production is killing our planet and taking food from the mouthes of our brothers.

My own source refutes that, and that's ridiculous. That's totally unsubstantiated because most of the meat comes from our own country or Canada (not so much because of mad cow). Did you know the US does a lot of exporting too? We have the resources for our level of meat consumption in our own country. And that's a fact!

The way that most livestock are raised these days is a bad use of resources. We should return to traditional ways of farming. The only problem is, were we to do so, meat production would be back to the levels it was at a century ago. In other words, we would all have to eat more like we did in those days; far less meat, all organic produce, and cruelty-free farming practises. Sounds to me like paradise.

I don't agree at all. I think it is just fine. We can't eat less meat because often a lot of us depend on it for our diet. For me it sounds like starvation.

You get rude to me about what sources I can use or not. I demonstrated why you were wrong in that regard.

No, I simply stated that .coms are not widely accepted as authority in any educational study. I wasn't rude in the slightest, and it was even after your first flamebait.

Vitamins in pill form is not adequate. Please actually read my sources. There is no such thing as a responsible vegan diet. It is very dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. There are other problems besides vitamin deficiencies.

Incorrect. I did read your source, whether I thought it verifiable or not. It speaks of vitamins derived directly from plants, and not of supplements specifically referred or supplied by a physician.

That's total nonsense. It seems to me you don't know what college is about. In college you can very well use those sites, if they have proper backing to them. Obviously, I happen to be in university (and have been for two years now, on my third year currently). The evidence I post happens to be corroborated. You just don't seem to understand what valid sources are. Typical for someone who doesn't even bother reading what evidence I posted.

Again with the flamebait. I assume you've never taken any kind of debating courses? The little jabs at the person you are discussing things with are generally considered poor form.

You're in college, that's great. I'm on my way to grad school, so what? .com resources are never accepted in research studies unless you can step-by-step describe where the .com derived their information...which is usually found back on reputable domains in the first place (so you'd be better off just citing those), if the information is indeed accurate.

If you want information on Fox News, I'm sure the Fox website would suffice. If you want hard, documented evidence on the affects of a vegan diet on the body, neither vegan.com or novegans.com will be accepted, as each can say whatever they want on their own website, and site just as many experts as the other side has to back them up.

This is why we're only allowed to site reputable, verifiable sources.

You can use .com sources for college if they have relevant backing. Just because it is .com does not mean it is unprofessional. Sheesh, how ridiculous can your attacks get? You should look that the evidence I posted is backed by studies.

It's a personal attack to alledge that research studies using un-substantiated source pages are not published in scholarly journals or accepted by professors as legitimate sources? Um...no, calling what someone replies "dribble" is a personal attack. Anyone can claim a .com in this day and age. Perhaps your school has less stringent academic requirements as per sources, I don't know. If that's the case it's simply a difference in requirements. Sorry, but I thought this was common knowledge.

Take this .com website:

http://encarta.msn.com/

It is applicable as a source.

What was said on the website was not just claims, but claims backed by evidence and studies. I'm sick of people who just blatantly dismiss it because they can't formulate an argument.

It wouldn't be applicable as a source in any class I've ever taken at a college level. We're expected to use scholarly journals and accredited educational, medical, and government sources when presenting an educated study. Perhaps you could use it if you needed a straight definition of a word, but I haven't needed to do that since middle school for any paper.

I'm perfectly capable of formulating arguments. You're perfectly capable of repeating yourself and your opinions as fact. You completely and purposefully overlooked the fact that last night I stated quite clearly that I was tired, and wasn't going to post any hard evidence. I was posting my experience. Oh, luckily it's no longer three in the morning here, and I have time to do a little research to completely refute your arguments.

Oh and it doesn't quite frankly matter what a site ends with. There are sources out there that end with .edu but they can often be without evidence. The domain integer does not determine validity. Other factors do that. So please don't make these blanket generalizations.

You have to be an accredited educational institution to receive a .edu domain, last I checked. Any school is going to have persuasive resources as well as straight fact, if that is what you're referring to.

So really nice try attacking the source when you didn't even read it. These are actual studies. Not unsubstantiated personal opinions. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I read your source, even with as little credit as I gave the site, purely out of courtesy for you. When I first started exchanging posts with you, before you began your rude attacks, I wrongly assumed you might be someone with some knowledge I might find interesting who would actually hold a conversation, not someone who would digress into the "I'm right, you're wrong, period" mentality.

What I was expecting from you, when I quite politely asked you if you had any credible sources such as .edu or .gov, was something like this, from one of the most obvious sources to look at...the FDA.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdaveget.html

..which says, amongst other things...

If appropriately planned, vegan diets, though restrictive, can provide adequate nutrition even for children, according to the American Dietetic Association and the Institute of Food Technologists.

oh and...

"Registered dietitian Johanna Dwyer, of Tufts University Medical School and the New England Medical Center Hospital, Boston, summarizes these plant food benefits:

"Data are strong that vegetarians are at lesser risk for obesity, atonic [reduced muscle tone] constipation, lung cancer, and alcoholism. Evidence is good that risks for hypertension, coronary artery disease, type II diabetes, and gallstones are lower. Data are only fair to poor that risks of breast cancer, diverticular disease of the colon, colonic cancer, calcium kidney stones, osteoporosis, dental erosion, and dental caries are lower among vegetarians."

and...

In its position paper on vegetarian diets, the American Dietetic Association states that, with a plant-based daily diet, eating a variety of foods and sufficient calories for energy needs will help ensure adequate intakes of calcium, iron and zinc. (See "Replacing Animal Sources of Nutrients.")

The mixture of proteins from grains, legumes, seeds, nuts, and vegetables provides a complement of amino acids so that deficits in one food are made up by another. Not all types of plant foods need to be eaten at the same meal, since the amino acids are combined in the body's protein pool.

"Soy protein," the paper states, "has been shown to be nutritionally equivalent in protein value to proteins of animal origin and, thus, can serve as the sole source of protein intake if desired."

The Institute of Food Technologists also recommends careful diet planning for vegetarians. This is especially important when the diet excludes dairy foods, to ensure adequate intake of calcium, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin D. For these vegetarians, the institute recommends calcium supplements during pregnancy, when breast-feeding, and for infants and children.

...and one my my favorites, your point about how B12 is irreplacable...

They also point out that vegan diets should include a reliable source of vitamin B12 (see "Replacing Animal Sources of Nutrients"), because this nutrient occurs only in animal foods. Vitamin B12 deficiency can result in irreversible nerve deterioration.

the solution to which is clearly described in this section:

Replacing Animal Sources of Nutrients

Vegetarians who eat no animal products need to be more aware of nutrient sources. Nutrients most likely to be lacking and some non-animal sources are:

vitamin B12--fortified soy beverages and cereals
vitamin D--fortified soy beverages and sunshine
calcium--tofu processed with calcium, broccoli, seeds, nuts, kale, bok choy, legumes (peas and beans), greens, lime-processed tortillas, and soy beverages, grain products, and orange juice enriched with calcium
iron--legumes, tofu, green leafy vegetables, dried fruit, whole grains, and iron-fortified cereals and breads, especially whole-wheat. (Absorption is improved by vitamin C, found in citrus fruits and juices, tomatoes, strawberries, broccoli, peppers, dark-green leafy vegetables, and potatoes with skins.)
zinc--whole grains (especially the germ and bran), whole-wheat bread, legumes, nuts, and tofu
protein--tofu and other soy-based products, legumes, seeds, nuts, grains, and vegetables

And please, take this advice:

Mesa, Ox, everyone else...Knock off the flamebait and ad hominem attacks. They're not needed. It's entirely possible to debate the topic without attacking each other.

I'm not going to participate in what should be a friendly discussion if you continue to make the environment hostile.

Remember, regardless of who "wins" this argument, I'm still gonna eat a big fucking steak tonight, and no one can stop me.

Can I come over and cook it for you? :p

No, I simply stated that .coms are not widely accepted as authority in any educational study. I wasn't rude in the slightest, and it was even after your first flamebait.

I've been in university long enough it takes a lot more then just that. And it seems like you won't go through the variables of what makes a source credible or not.


Again with the flamebait. I assume you've never taken any kind of debating courses? The little jabs at the person you are discussing things with are generally considered poor form.

Actually I assume you never taken debating courses, because I simply outgunned you in content. So really who is the one flame baiting? Not me.

I'm on my way to grad school, so what? .com resources are never accepted in research studies unless you can step-by-step describe where the .com derived their information...which is usually found back on reputable domains in the first place (so you'd be better off just citing those), if the information is indeed accurate.

There are a lot more different variables then just saying so. And your word is not good enough. I know for a fact some .com sources are credible. .com sites are not always bogus. And they can very well be accepted. I know that for a fact.

It's a personal attack to alledge that research studies using un-substantiated source pages are not published in scholarly journals or accepted by professors as legitimate sources? Um...no, calling what someone replies "dribble" is a personal attack. Anyone can claim a .com in this day and age. Perhaps your school has less stringent academic requirements as per sources, I don't know. If that's the case it's simply a difference in requirements. Sorry, but I thought this was common knowledge.

These sources I cited were backed by relevant studies. You need to get off your shortcomings in this argument and concede. And that dribble comment was more so directed at your statements. Not you as a person. I don't know you.. so can't say. My school has less stringent academic requirements? Excellent, now attack my education.


I'm perfectly capable of formulating arguments. You're perfectly capable of repeating yourself and your opinions as fact. You completely and purposefully overlooked the fact that last night I stated quite clearly that I was tired, and wasn't going to post any hard evidence. I was posting my experience. Oh, luckily it's no longer three in the morning here, and I have time to do a little research to completely refute your arguments.

I am the one formulating arguments and using proper studies to back myself up. You can't refute anything I said.

You want a cookie for failing in this argument?

-snip-
I have addressed most of these points. I refuse to type out responses to these again. Those points that I have not yet addressed, I do not agree with, for the record. I do not, however, see the point in debating this when your refuse to concede a single point and continue to insist that things that I do every day (get B12 from my vegan diet, buy cheap vegan food etc.) are impossible. I am a pretty amazing chica, I'll admit, but the impossible remains outside my realm of expertise. Thank you for thinking so highly of me, though. I appreciate it. :fluffle:

I have addressed most of these points. I refuse to type out responses to these again. Those points that I have not yet addressed, I do not agree with, for the record. I do not, however, see the point in debating this when your refuse to concede a single point and continue to insist that things that I do every day (get B12 from my vegan diet, buy cheap vegan food etc.) are impossible. I am a pretty amazing chica, I'll admit, but the impossible remains outside my realm of expertise. Thank you for thinking so highly of me, though. I appreciate it. :fluffle:

No, I'm sorry but I have investigated this myself and I can even walk you through a supermarket. It is just simply more expensive. I'm not going to concede anything in this regard.

Actually I assume you never taken debating courses, because I simply outgunned you in content. So really who is the one flame baiting? Not me.

*buzzer*

Wrong. And as I said, flaming does not constitute a valid form of debate. Flaming is what you do when you have nothing more constructive to say in your argument.

There are a lot more different variables then just saying so. And your word is not good enough. I know for a fact some .com sources are credible. .com sites are not always bogus. And they can very well be accepted. I know that for a fact.

Read what I wrote. In most colleges and universities, .coms are not thought highly of as legitimate sources. If you can back up to where they gathered their information and document all of that as well, they will let it slide. However it's usually back at a .edu or .gov or in a scholarly journal to begin with, so that's taking the long way around. I already said this in my last post.

These sources I cited were backed by relevant studies. You need to get off your shortcomings in this argument and concede. And that dribble comment was more so directed at your statements. Not you as a person. I don't know you.. so can't say. My school has less stringent academic requirements? Excellent, now attack my education.

You assumed that was an attack. I'm simply saying that it's possible your school has less strict standards than what I'm accustomed to, because I would never be allowed to use the site you did in a research paper without thoroughly researching the sources it cites and tracing it back to its origin.

Excuse me. I'll concede nothing. I just proved your entire argument wrong with factual statements from the most credible source given this subject--the Food and Drug Administration.

I am the one formulating arguments and using proper studies to back myself up. You can't refute anything I said.

Again, I just did. Re-read the above posts, and you can spend time needlessly refuting what the FDA says instead of personally attacking me.

You want a cookie for failing in this argument?

You really that badly want reported for flaming, when this whole conversation could have stayed civil were it not for your flamebait?

My god ... this is still going on.

Points I'd like to make:

1] Oxwana has not once ever told anyone they should be Vegan, just that they *can* be if they want to be. Big difference.

2] I've been Vegan. Spent years at it. I was healthy. Very healthy. Now I will eat meat (decided I was way too nihilistic to be Vegan), but still enjoy the Boca pizzas and wheatroast fajitas. I am still healthy. It's not what you eat, it's how you eat that matters.

3] You cannot, I repeat, cannot be cruel to food. Not because of its purpose, but because of the result. If you mistreat a cow, the stress and whatnot causes the meat to toughen or the milk to sour. Mistreating food is just pointless. Your production will fail. KFC seems to be doing a pretty good amount of business, so they must be doing something right.

4] Homemade fried chicken is the best thing any human will ever eat in their entire lives.

5] I've slaughtered, plucked, gutted, carved, and fried my very own chicken raised from an egg. They don't put up much of a fight. Also ... see #4.

Ok ... that's all.Well said.
Marry me?

No, I'm sorry but I have investigated this myself and I can even walk you through a supermarket. It is just simply more expensive. I'm not going to concede anything in this regard.It can be more expensive. The fact that I buy my groceries incredibly inexpensively from ethnic groceries proves that it can also be much less expensive.

*buzzer*

Wrong. And as I said, flaming does not constitute a valid form of debate. Flaming is what you do when you have nothing more constructive to say in your argument.

Uh huh, but ask yourself who is the one doing this?

Read what I wrote. In most colleges and universities, .coms are not thought highly of as legitimate sources. If you can back up to where they gathered their information and document all of that as well, they will let it slide. However it's usually back at a .edu or .gov or in a scholarly journal to begin with, so that's taking the long way around. I already said this in my last post.

Again it falls upon several variables. Not just the domain extension.

You assumed that was an attack. I'm simply saying that it's possible your school has less strict standards than what I'm accustomed to, because I would never be allowed to use the site you did in a research paper without thoroughly researching the sources it cites and tracing it back to its origin.

No. My school has high standards thank you very much. You have to check a source for several variables.

Excuse me. I'll concede nothing. I just proved your entire argument wrong with factual statements from the most credible source given this subject--the Food and Drug Administration.

No you didn't. In fact you didn't address most of my argument. Neither did those links to the FDA. Again, you can't prove my argument wrong because I backed it up with relevant studies.


You really that badly want reported for flaming, when this whole conversation could have stayed civil were it not for your flamebait?

I'm not flaming. I'm also trying to be civil. I'm not flame-baiting at all.

It can be more expensive. The fact that I buy my groceries incredibly inexpensively from ethnic groceries proves that it can also be much less expensive.

Been there.. and in fact those tend to be more expensive.

Kool. To bad more people didn't join him eating chicken. :eek: :D

Okay, well I guess i apologize for how I reacted to other arguments. Don't expect me to stop with my eating habits as it is necessary for me.. but i did react a bit too strongly and harshly. Sorry.

Been there.. and in fact those tend to be more expensive.Ethnic food stores, not specialty food stores. I'm talking about the "for North African immigrants by North African immigrants" kind of places.
Here:
Get a 10 kg bag of rice for $12, pick up 2.5 kg of black olives for $4, some halal mango jello for $.75, and a bag of fresh whole-wheat pitas 10/$1 ... (all Canadian dollars). Check.
Drop by the bulk food store and get some chickpea flour ($.28/100g), millet ($.18/100g) and TVP($.46/100g). Check
Buy some in-season produce from the Price Chopper in West London (by far the best prices, just fyi). Check.
Buy some samosas from the Indian food store ($.40/each). Check.
Eat a samosa to fortify myself for the 20 minute uphill bike ride. Check. Yum.

Your very own virtual tour of cheap places to pick up good vegan food. I'll buy produce a few times a week, and make the trek out to east London to hit up the Asian food stores about once a month (or two), but that's my basic weekly grocery shopping. I pick up different staples each time, depending on what I'm running out of.
It's all delicious, and healthy, and cheap. Honestly, I'm not BSing you here. It can be done. Veganism is not expensive, but trust me, I know that it can be. My stepmother is really into the weird specialty foods, and pre-packaged meat substitutes, and it's hella expensive. It doesn't have to be like that.

So... if a human couple decides to have a child with the specific goal in mind to sell it as a slave, or to harvest its body for organs at the age of 3, keeping it in a cage and forcefeeding it in the meantime - that would perfectly fine according to you because it is the sole reason he was bred ?

If not, why do you claim the exact same argument is valid for chickens ?

EDIT: ah - I see a similar argument has already been used. Then again, noone bothered to give a decent answer to it...

I haven't gotten all the way through this thread, so maybe someone will say this, but the reason no decent answer was given is that...

Nobody believes you all are serious about raising children as slaves or for organ harvesting, or mentally-deficient people for food. If you really are advocating that, then I have an answer---ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE!

Now, I believe that my pets are all individual, intelligent creatures, whom I care for and try not to hurt (watch your tail there, Caesar!). But food animals are generally not the brightest or top of the food chain, or anywhere close to the top. We are!

So, until we are really talking about raising children (cloned or natural) for food, organ harvesting or slavery, let's not compare chickens to children. Not even dumb children.

Ethnic food stores, not specialty food stores. I'm talking about the "for North African immigrants by North African immigrants" kind of places.

I fully understand what you are saying. That also goes for muslim food stores. More expensive. And when I go to asian food stores, I buy meat anyways.


Your very own virtual tour of cheap places to pick up good vegan food. I'll buy produce a few times a week, and make the trek out to east London to hit up the Asian food stores about once a month (or two), but that's my basic weekly grocery shopping. I pick up different staples each time, depending on what I'm running out of.
It's all delicious, and healthy, and cheap. Honestly, I'm not BSing you here. It can be done. Veganism is not expensive, but trust me, I know that it can be. My stepmother is really into the weird specialty foods, and pre-packaged meat substitutes, and it's hella expensive. It doesn't have to be like that.

I'm not going to become a vegan because I would fall ill. I need to have meat in my diet. And today, I'm goiing to enjoy another steak house sandwich. Veganism is horridly expensive, and I can do cheaper then that. It wouldn't be healthy for me eithere. I need to have meat in my diet.

Must be some damn good finger-lickin chicken

So, until we are really talking about raising children (cloned or natural) for food, organ harvesting or slavery, let's not compare chickens to children. Not even dumb children.What about ugly children?

No, no one was seriously advocating raising little kids to harvest their organs.

I haven't gotten all the way through this thread, so maybe someone will say this, but the reason no decent answer was given is that...

Nobody believes you all are serious about raising children as slaves or for organ harvesting, or mentally-deficient people for food. If you really are advocating that, then I have an answer---ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE!

Now, I believe that my pets are all individual, intelligent creatures, whom I care for and try not to hurt (watch your tail there, Caesar!). But food animals are generally not the brightest or top of the food chain, or anywhere close to the top. We are!

So, until we are really talking about raising children (cloned or natural) for food, organ harvesting or slavery, let's not compare chickens to children. Not even dumb children.

I was really hoping no one would have to spell it out for em, but I guess such was not the case...

What about ugly children?

No, no one was seriously advocating raising little kids to harvest their organs.

Then dont use that as an example in a debate. Sure, it has 'shock' value, and it makes it appear more difficult to argue my original point (except that I kept arguing it and you guys refused to refute my point, just kept arguing about whether people were serious about mental patients and such) but it's hardly the way to win an argument.

Quit attacking me for something one of your compatriots stated...

So I was watching this PETA propaganda film, and the only thing that disturbed me was the castration bit of cattle. But that's because Im a man. Other than that, the movie was pretty funny. And damn, that chicken must've been 10x more satisfying to eat it right in front of those hippies.

So I was watching this PETA propaganda film, and the only thing that disturbed me was the castration bit of cattle. But that's because Im a man. Other than that, the movie was pretty funny. And damn, that chicken must've been 10x more satisfying to eat it right in front of those hippies.They're not hippies... :rolleyes:

With regard to the supposition that the flesh of cruelly-treated animals necessarily tastes - or, rather, is perceived to be – inferior to that of more humanely-treated counterparts:

Amongst Korean consumers of gaegogi (literally, “dog meat”), it is typically contended that atypically brutal or otherwise prolonged slaughter (e.g., by way of protracted electrocution*, hanging, beating, burn trauma, etc.) produces meat of better flavor and/or medicinal/salutary benefit. The supposedly enhanced flavor conferred by diffusion of adrenaline is often put forward as explanation of these measures, but they predate such modern medical concepts and likely have their roots in traditional Chinese views of physiology and motive life-energy.

* - Generally favored, when rapidly conducted, on grounds of efficiency or allegedly lesser infliction of suffering

They're not hippies... :rolleyes:

Yes they are.

No, they're not. It's really not fair to stereotype people like that. I have plenty of friends who have participated in many protests (if you're into labels, "jocks," "intellectuals," etc) that are by no means hippies.

And Eolam...that makes me sick, but I think I've actually heard the opposite theorized in US agriculture (although that may have been in regards to cows and milk production or chickens and eggs, it escapes me at the moment).

Rofl

*picks you up off the floor and dusts your clothes off for you* :p

That cats are carnivores, and my mother's millet loaf is so meaty-tasting that it fools said meat-eaters.
What was the point of your post?


My cat loves pinto beans and carrots .. and ofcourse any meat she could get her fangs on.. but I don't feed her meat from the table.

My question is .. Why would a vegan want to eat something that tastes anything similar to meat? The few vegetarians I know don't even like the smell of meat or meat cooking .... much less eating something that tastes like it. I would think a vegan would be even more turned off by something that tastes like hamburger. :boggle:

With regard to the supposition that the flesh of cruelly-treated animals necessarily tastes - or, rather, is perceived to be – inferior to that of more humanely-treated counterparts:

Amongst Korean consumers of gaegogi (literally, “dog meat”), it is typically contended that atypically brutal or otherwise prolonged slaughter (e.g., by way of protracted electrocution*, hanging, beating, burn trauma, etc.) produces meat of better flavor and/or medicinal/salutary benefit. The supposedly enhanced flavor conferred by diffusion of adrenaline is often put forward as explanation of these measures, but they predate such modern medical concepts and likely have their roots in traditional Chinese views of physiology and motive life-energy.

* - Generally favored, when rapidly conducted, on grounds of efficiency or allegedly lesser infliction of suffering

Never heard of that, but have never had dog either. I know from experiance that deer, boar, pheasant, and quail all seem to taste diffrently when its not a clean kill.

No, they're not. It's really not fair to stereotype people like that. I have plenty of friends who have participated in many protests (if you're into labels, "jocks," "intellectuals," etc) that are by no means hippies.

And Eolam...that makes me sick, but I think I've actually heard the opposite theorized in US agriculture (although that may have been in regards to cows and milk production or chickens and eggs, it escapes me at the moment).well I know that when you torture chicken eggs by beating them, whacking their shells against hard objects hard enough to crack em and even sticking them in boiling water makes em taste better than just popping em in your mouth. :D

Hehehe...good point.

I guess that means you're not supposed to whack the chicken around before it lays the egg...not that scrambled eggs don't turn out yummy. :p

My cat loves pinto beans and carrots .. and ofcourse any meat she could get her fangs on.. but I don't feed her meat from the table.

My question is .. Why would a vegan want to eat something that tastes anything similar to meat? The few vegetarians I know don't even like the smell of meat or meat cooking .... much less eating something that tastes like it. I would think a vegan would be even more turned off by something that tastes like hamburger. :boggle:I have my reasons for being a vegan. Not liking the taste of meat is not one of them. Aside from that, my mother still eats meat, but we can't really afford it, so she eats a mostly vegetarian diet. We still go for the fake meat, but I like the stuff that doesn't really taste like meat just as much as the meaty-tasting stuff.

Then dont use that as an example in a debate. Sure, it has 'shock' value, and it makes it appear more difficult to argue my original point (except that I kept arguing it and you guys refused to refute my point, just kept arguing about whether people were serious about mental patients and such) but it's hardly the way to win an argument.

Quit attacking me for something one of your compatriots stated...My comment was not an attack on you. It had nothing to do with you.
I was answering the question of another poster.

My comment was not an attack on you. It had nothing to do with you.
I was answering the question of another poster.

LOL

I'll allow the attempt at a graceful withdrawal to proceed, although the excuse you give is hardly correct.

Bygones are now bygones...

Now that I can finally respond. I have to ask a question.

What is wrong with drinking milk and eating cheese? Its not like the animals miss it. :p

Now I know that some people cannot be vegans or vegetarians. Take for example my mom, she used to be a vegetarian but her doctor told her she needed to eat meat because she kept on getting sick.

So not all people can be vegans or vegetarians.

Now I don't go to KFC because I don't like it. I get my fried chicken from my supermarket but I also don't really care what happens to the chickens. I also hate ELF.

I haven't gotten all the way through this thread, so maybe someone will say this, but the reason no decent answer was given is that...

Nobody believes you all are serious about raising children as slaves or for organ harvesting, or mentally-deficient people for food. If you really are advocating that, then I have an answer---ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE!

I am NOT advocating it and consider the idea appaling.
However, I fail to see why so many people think it is perfectly ok to allow practices which they would consider abhorrent on humans on animals "because they are not human". Can't animals suffer? Does the statement that animals are "lesser beings" justify maltreating by humans ? If *we* are supposed to be enlightened superior creatures, why do we cause so much misery for those below us ?

And of course... what is the criterium to call them "lesser animals" ? Chickens and cows are MUCH brighter than late embryos and justborn babies. Hell, they are definately more "alive" than a human fetus - and many people here seem to think that killing a fetus which has no thoughts at all is a heinous crime.
So intelligence is obviously not an argument...

thats great, i should find a protest and do something like that

I did exactly that at a McDonalds when PETA was protesting outside playing a video of a slaughterhouse and nobody put my damn face on the internet :(

I'm all for less animal cruelty, but I don't advocate vegetarianism, and I certainly don't see the point in trying to ruin other people's dinners. The funny thing is, I don't like McDonalds and was on my way to Wendy's at the time. I only went in because I was annoyed at the protest.

I did exactly that at a McDonalds when PETA was protesting outside playing a video of a slaughterhouse and nobody put my damn face on the internet :(

I'm all for less animal cruelty, but I don't advocate vegetarianism, and I certainly don't see the point in trying to ruin other people's dinners. The funny thing is, I don't like McDonalds and was on my way to Wendy's at the time. I only went in because I was annoyed at the protest.


Did the protesters do anything?

"Ok guys, there are a lot of protesters, so its going to take a really coordinated effort to take them out..."

"Lets do this... LEEROY!!! JENKINS!!!"

"Oh my god, he just ran into the crowd... Lets go guys!"

"Ohh fuck, I can't see anything... Shit, im dead..."

"Leeroy, you idiot"

"At least I got chicken"

"Ok guys, there are a lot of protesters, so its going to take a really coordinated effort to take them out..."

"Lets do this... LEEROY!!! JENKINS!!!"

"Oh my god, he just ran into the crowd... Lets go guys!"

"Ohh fuck, I can't see anything... Shit, im dead..."

"Leeroy, you idiot"

"At least I got chicken"

:p That video is hilarious.