PETA does it again: Unhappy Meals!

[Sightless Wisdom]

Well now PETA, that's not very creative is it?

 

[Michizane]

damnit PETA, now I'm hungry again.

mmm... burgers

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

I will eat a chicken for every chicken argument in this thread.

I estimate I'll die of a heart attack within 3 days.

 

[jboking]

Well if they're so moral they should stop killing plants to make their food!

What?! How is this funny or make any sense?!

It makes sense. A plant is just as alive as you or me. It has been proven that when you kill a plant it has a chemical scream, it notices the pain of its death. This seems to be ignored because we can't comprehend how the plant feels. Odd, because even though I can't understand a chicken, I'm told I should still recognize it's suffering and should ignore the plants.

I think that is what he was driving at anyway.

A lot of their messages are done in satire. Only people with blind hatred for them seem to mistake that. For example, they once attacked an icecream company saying that cow milk is for baby cows and that they should use human milk. They didn't mean, 'use human milk' but rather bring awareness to the cow calfs who do not get their mothers milk due to companies taking it from them.

But what was their ultimate goal. If they could have just wished for the perfect outcome, what would they have wished for? For people to stop using cow milk and return to breast feeding? Or simply for us to feel bad for drinking cow milk?

I still don't understand both your points George144 and Ninja_X. Did you gather the point I was talking about a single person? A person in its natural form. Planes are unnatural and so are guns. You cannot build a gun nor can you fly a plane. You really think you could trap animals and work out venomous insects from edible ones?

Yes, yes I do believe I can. Yay for Boy Scouts and a few specific classes. (this is just a caveat, carrying one with the rest of the quote now)

Society provides us with factory made weapons, specially trained people, food, water, everything is provided for us. Why do we need skills to know how to survive? Outside of society, we're royally screwed. I only know how to slow poison in my blood using a stick. If I were n a desert, I'd be screwed then as well. We can't survive. Chickens however, in their natural habitat can survive. They have knowledge of food, as well as a structured body to eat and to keep themselves at a desired temperature. Put them in a foreign environment and they will die. Like my horse argument from before.

Really, this is all knowledge and simple facts. You guys keep bringing in factors that were not the arguing point. He said that how do you know chickens are more stupid then people. A single human vs a single chicken. No unnatural factors provided.

And [HEADING=2]NO![/HEADING] People can't fly. Where's my wings? How do I gain this ability to levitate? Cause I wish I could. Everyday. Planes are not people.

What they were arguing was Humans as a race vs chickens as a race. You can add in all of human achievement at this point and say that we have learned to invent planes and other such things to allow us to do things we naturally couldn't. Just clarifying. If you don't want to adapt to this argument, that is fine.

You could say humans are superior to chickens for the fact that we have to give them rights instead of them being able to fight for what they want naturally. Or for the fact that they allow themselves to be caught.

OP: You know, PETA actually had a pretty good point this time around. You shouldn't have to make a chicken suffer so it can become you McNuggets. and the CAK looks like a great solution to this problem. However, their logical point got lost in the 'it' version of Ronald McDonald and the blood stains. It seems that they often have a good point, they just make it seem less logical than it is with all of this excessive fanfare.

 

[PurpleRain]

Well if they're so moral they should stop killing plants to make their food!

What?! How is this funny or make any sense?!

It makes sense. A plant is just as alive as you or me. It has been proven that when you kill a plant it has a chemical scream, it notices the pain of its death. This seems to be ignored because we can't comprehend how the plant feels. Odd, because even though I can't understand a chicken, I'm told I should still recognize it's suffering and should ignore the plants.

I think that is what he was driving at anyway.

What I am arguing is that you want them to starve? A plant may have a death throw, but no nerves like animals nor would it have a sense of the world around it. It must have some way to sense objects around it, the sun, etc, so it can grow. And it is normal for it to sense death or tears within its leaves to continue growing. But without nerves, it cannot make out pain, actual real pain like animals.
But my point really was, out of plants and animals, it is less moral to eat animals then plants, like it is less moral to eat humans then animals (I hope I got that the right way around). But, as animals, we must eat. And to choose out of farms that breed animals which throughout life may have so many problems and create so many environmental problem, or vegetable farms which are a lot better for the environment, I'd choose the latter.

A lot of their messages are done in satire. Only people with blind hatred for them seem to mistake that. For example, they once attacked an icecream company saying that cow milk is for baby cows and that they should use human milk. They didn't mean, 'use human milk' but rather bring awareness to the cow calfs who do not get their mothers milk due to companies taking it from them.

But what was their ultimate goal. If they could have just wished for the perfect outcome, what would they have wished for? For people to stop using cow milk and return to breast feeding? Or simply for us to feel bad for drinking cow milk?

No. To give baby cows their mothers milk when they need it. I thought that was simple to understand.

I still don't understand both your points George144 and Ninja_X. Did you gather the point I was talking about a single person? A person in its natural form. Planes are unnatural and so are guns. You cannot build a gun nor can you fly a plane. You really think you could trap animals and work out venomous insects from edible ones?

Yes, yes I do believe I can. Yay for Boy Scouts and a few specific classes. (this is just a caveat, carrying one with the rest of the quote now)

What if not in an environment you are common in? Like the chicken? But I've had Cadet training, so I know a lot. You've had Scouts, so you would too. But not everyone has. That was my point.

Society provides us with factory made weapons, specially trained people, food, water, everything is provided for us. Why do we need skills to know how to survive? Outside of society, we're royally screwed. I only know how to slow poison in my blood using a stick. If I were n a desert, I'd be screwed then as well. We can't survive. Chickens however, in their natural habitat can survive. They have knowledge of food, as well as a structured body to eat and to keep themselves at a desired temperature. Put them in a foreign environment and they will die. Like my horse argument from before.

Really, this is all knowledge and simple facts. You guys keep bringing in factors that were not the arguing point. He said that how do you know chickens are more stupid then people. A single human vs a single chicken. No unnatural factors provided.

And [HEADING=2]NO![/HEADING] People can't fly. Where's my wings? How do I gain this ability to levitate? Cause I wish I could. Everyday. Planes are not people.

What they were arguing was Humans as a race vs chickens as a race. You can add in all of human achievement at this point and say that we have learned to invent planes and other such things to allow us to do things we naturally couldn't. Just clarifying. If you don't want to adapt to this argument, that is fine.

You could say humans are superior to chickens for the fact that we have to give them rights instead of them being able to fight for what they want naturally. Or for the fact that they allow themselves to be caught.

OP: You know, PETA actually had a pretty good point this time around. You shouldn't have to make a chicken suffer so it can become you McNuggets. and the CAK looks like a great solution to this problem. However, their logical point got lost in the 'it' version of Ronald McDonald and the blood stains. It seems that they often have a good point, they just make it seem less logical than it is with all of this excessive fanfare.

A lot of good points, but again, it started by saying a chicken vs a person, singular. So I took it as that. So I brought to the argument a sole person and chicken in their natural forms.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

I somewhat agree with this protest.

Something just feels...wrong about killing them so brutally like that.

 

[Dave Rain]

I don't eat anything that had a shadow.

 

[Joey245]

Wait did you guys read any of it ? I suggest you go look at the Controlled atmospheric killing video which is a nice informative video about viable options to killing birds rather than electrocution throat slitting and then scalding. All they want is the birds killed in a more humane way how is this a bad thing am i missing something here by being British?

It's not the cause we're upset about. It's their way of going about it.

From what I've been able to tell, PETA as an organization attempts to use outlandish ways to try and get their message across, when all they could just do is, say, do things the peaceful way (i.e. hold rallies, set up charities.)

But since society as a whole is filled with too many boneheads to care, they've tried a different approach: Shock, throwing fits over the most asinine of things, and taking things out of context.

So, rather than provoking true feelings from their targets, they just make bigger @$$es of themselves with each new campaign launched.

Again, we're not upset about the cause (or at least I'm not), Prevention of animal cruelty is, in theory, a good idea. But PETA is blowing things out of proportions, and they are showing a complete disregard for common sense in their attempts to get publicity.

That's what it all really boils down to. PETA is just doing these things to get publicity. Why do you think the angry monkeys flinging their poo and screaming in their cages are so popular among zoo visitors? And so far, based on the 10+ pages of posts here, it seems to be working.

There, I threw in my two cents. Now I'm flat broke.

 

[DirkGently]

I still don't understand both your points George144 and Ninja_X. Did you gather the point I was talking about a single person? A person in its natural form. Planes are unnatural and so are guns. You cannot build a gun nor can you fly a plane. You really think you could trap animals and work out venomous insects from edible ones?
Society provides us with factory made weapons, specially trained people, food, water, everything is provided for us. Why do we need skills to know how to survive? Outside of society, we're royally screwed. I only know how to slow poison in my blood using a stick. If I were n a desert, I'd be screwed then as well. We can't survive. Chickens however, in their natural habitat can survive. They have knowledge of food, as well as a structured body to eat and to keep themselves at a desired temperature. Put them in a foreign environment and they will die. Like my horse argument from before.

Really, this is all knowledge and simple facts. You guys keep bringing in factors that were not the arguing point. He said that how do you know chickens are more stupid then people. A single human vs a single chicken. No unnatural factors provided.

And [HEADING=2]NO![/HEADING] People can't fly. Where's my wings? How do I gain this ability to levitate? Cause I wish I could. Everyday. Planes are not people.

It's arguable that human's natural habitat is society. Have you never heard the sentiment that "nothing natural can do anything unnatural?" by the sheer fact that we exist, we are natural and cannot do anything that is unnatural.

And what the hell do you mean that I can't build a plane or a gun? How do you know I'm not a skilled gunsmith? Or that I make planes for a living? The very reason we have such things at all, or why we have them in such readiness is that it is our natural habitat where such things re common, easily obtainable and part of everyday life. Our natural habitat contains factories, airports gun stores and police. Our habitat allows for specialization; like how ants have workers and soldiers and such, we have those that fight, those that repair, those that make, and those that heal.

Tl;dr, modern society is the natural habitat for man, not the woods or the desert or whatever. Our natural society is so radically different than that of the chicken, or the shark, or the Ravenous Bug Blatter Beast of Traal, that if you put us in an environment that is far more similar to their habitat than ours, we would be at a serious disadvantage.

 

[Sovvolf]

Well if I see them out side my Local Mikie D's I'le get arrested.

 

[jboking]

Well if they're so moral they should stop killing plants to make their food!

What?! How is this funny or make any sense?!

It makes sense. A plant is just as alive as you or me. It has been proven that when you kill a plant it has a chemical scream, it notices the pain of its death. This seems to be ignored because we can't comprehend how the plant feels. Odd, because even though I can't understand a chicken, I'm told I should still recognize it's suffering and should ignore the plants.

I think that is what he was driving at anyway.

What I am arguing is that you want them to starve? A plant may have a death throw, but no nerves like animals nor would it have a sense of the world around it.

It must have some way to sense objects around it, the sun, etc, so it can grow. And it is normal for it to sense death or tears within its leaves to continue growing. But without nerves, it cannot make out pain, actual real pain like animals.
But my point really was, out of plants and animals, it is less moral to eat animals then plants, like it is less moral to eat humans then animals (I hope I got that the right way around). But, as animals, we must eat. And to choose out of farms that breed animals which throughout life may have so many problems and create so many environmental problem, or vegetable farms which are a lot better for the environment, I'd choose the latter.

I can see the sense in that. Of course, I'm not one to argue the morality of the action.

A lot of their messages are done in satire. Only people with blind hatred for them seem to mistake that. For example, they once attacked an icecream company saying that cow milk is for baby cows and that they should use human milk. They didn't mean, 'use human milk' but rather bring awareness to the cow calfs who do not get their mothers milk due to companies taking it from them.

But what was their ultimate goal. If they could have just wished for the perfect outcome, what would they have wished for? For people to stop using cow milk and return to breast feeding? Or simply for us to feel bad for drinking cow milk?

No. To give baby cows their mothers milk when they need it. I thought that was simple to understand.[/quote] So they expected an Icecream company to figure out that they were being satirical instead of just being fucking direct. I think we have run into the problem with most PETA protests.

I still don't understand both your points George144 and Ninja_X. Did you gather the point I was talking about a single person? A person in its natural form. Planes are unnatural and so are guns. You cannot build a gun nor can you fly a plane. You really think you could trap animals and work out venomous insects from edible ones?

Yes, yes I do believe I can. Yay for Boy Scouts and a few specific classes. (this is just a caveat, carrying one with the rest of the quote now)

What if not in an environment you are common in? Like the chicken? But I've had Cadet training, so I know a lot. You've had Scouts, so you would too. But not everyone has. That was my point.

We went to the Sahara, an environment that is not my own. We only took water for safety reasons. I learned how to retrieve water from a cactus without harming myself, as well as how to purify urine, and some of the sources of food(how to catch certain animals, and what animals to avoid catching).

Think about this, the chicken would have to learn how to survive in the new environment on its own, likely dieing in the process. However, we are intelligent enough to learn how to do it from each other(like you an I have) or to reason and figure out how to survive. This is what we mean when we say humans are intelligent. We are also have the ability to adapt to a new environment.

In this sense, we are far superior to the chicken.

Society provides us with factory made weapons, specially trained people, food, water, everything is provided for us. Why do we need skills to know how to survive? Outside of society, we're royally screwed. I only know how to slow poison in my blood using a stick. If I were n a desert, I'd be screwed then as well. We can't survive. Chickens however, in their natural habitat can survive. They have knowledge of food, as well as a structured body to eat and to keep themselves at a desired temperature. Put them in a foreign environment and they will die. Like my horse argument from before.

Really, this is all knowledge and simple facts. You guys keep bringing in factors that were not the arguing point. He said that how do you know chickens are more stupid then people. A single human vs a single chicken. No unnatural factors provided.

And NO! People can't fly. Where's my wings? How do I gain this ability to levitate? Cause I wish I could. Everyday. Planes are not people.

What they were arguing was Humans as a race vs chickens as a race. You can add in all of human achievement at this point and say that we have learned to invent planes and other such things to allow us to do things we naturally couldn't. Just clarifying. If you don't want to adapt to this argument, that is fine.

You could say humans are superior to chickens for the fact that we have to give them rights instead of them being able to fight for what they want naturally. Or for the fact that they allow themselves to be caught.

OP: You know, PETA actually had a pretty good point this time around. You shouldn't have to make a chicken suffer so it can become you McNuggets. and the CAK looks like a great solution to this problem. However, their logical point got lost in the 'it' version of Ronald McDonald and the blood stains. It seems that they often have a good point, they just make it seem less logical than it is with all of this excessive fanfare.

A lot of good points, but again, it started by saying a chicken vs a person, singular. So I took it as that. So I brought to the argument a sole person and chicken in their natural forms.[/quote]
See above for why I think we are still superior in a singular person vs a singular chicken standard. Oh screw it, It's because we can reason and it aids to our survival.

To Clarify: In no way am I saying that being superior to a chicken gives us the right to torture it. Which I recognize is what McDonalds does to it's chicken.

 

[TikiShades]

People aren't getting the point here.

Of course chickens aren't as smart or advanced as humans. That's obvious. I could also argue that YOU aren't as smart or advanced as I am. Can I torture you? It's a stretch, yes, but that's not the point.

PETA isn't all one massive intelligence. There are extremists in every group, so don't blame the group for it. I don't blame the Catholic Church for the KKK, and I don't blame a Christian for the KKK either, unless he was a founding member or something. The KKK is responsible for the KKK. Muslims aren't responsible for terrorists, Muslim extremists are responsible.

Now they DO do crazy things, even the non-extremists, because it's the only way the news will surface. They just start saying stuff, no one notices. Why? Because people already believe that the entire group is batshit crazy and shouldn't be noticed. When they do something extreme or over-the-top, you get media attention. Then maybe, JUST MAYBE, someone will notice it and see what they were trying to convey. Maybe someone just might see that "Oh, hey, McDonald's SHOULD change how they kill their chickens."

Maybe you'll argue that "They kill all of those puppies and kittens in those shelters. They are hypocrites." You are correct. They shouldn't kill them. No sir, just let them sit there and slowly die alone. PETA isn't made of money; they can't take care of 10,000 upward animals all at once. There's only so much they can do. They aren't against putting animals down; they understand that it has to be done sometimes, however much it sucks. At least they put them down HUMAINLY, and not just paralyze them and chop them up. There's a difference, but you won't notice that, because if you use this arguement, then you're already set upon making them out to be evil.

Here's their point: We shouldn't torture a chicken when there's a way we wouldn't have to. Even if it isn't super-duper cheap, I'm positive that McDonald's wouldn't be missing much profit, seeing as how they make about a cool hundred mill every day selling their fucking coffee.

Spoiler: To all this survival discussion

A human could survive, but almost all humans are domesticated, and a lot of chickens are domesticated too. Domesticated chickens could do a bit better in a natural habitat, since they still have animal instincts, but a bit better isn't much better off when it comes to survival. Besides, survival isn't always correlated to intelligence, so I don't know why we are talking about it.

 

[AR34SHOOTER]

im part of P.E.T.A....People Eating Tasty Animals MWHAHAHAHAHA

 

[cheese_wizington]

Now little children are going to be scared of Ronald McDonald.

:O

 

[TheZapper]

I am so tired of PETA and their pathetic publicity stunts. They need to stop trying to force their message down peoples throats. I doubt many people that go to McDonalds really care where the food comes from.

 

[PurpleRain]

im part of P.E.T.A....People Eating Tasty Animals MWHAHAHAHAHA

Aha. It seems people love this joke after repeating it hundreds of times.

And what the hell do you mean that I can't build a plane or a gun? How do you know I'm not a skilled gunsmith? Or that I make planes for a living?

Because not one person builds a plane by them self, nor guns. Did you dig up the metal, meld it into shape, make the tools, make the electrical wires, etc, etc. Even a gunsmith can't make a gun outside society.

A lot of their messages are done in satire. Only people with blind hatred for them seem to mistake that. For example, they once attacked an icecream company saying that cow milk is for baby cows and that they should use human milk. They didn't mean, 'use human milk' but rather bring awareness to the cow calfs who do not get their mothers milk due to companies taking it from them.

But what was their ultimate goal. If they could have just wished for the perfect outcome, what would they have wished for? For people to stop using cow milk and return to breast feeding? Or simply for us to feel bad for drinking cow milk?

No. To give baby cows their mothers milk when they need it. I thought that was simple to understand.

So they expected an Icecream company to figure out that they were being satirical instead of just being fucking direct. I think we have run into the problem with most PETA protests.

It was a bit tricky quoting this, but I agree with you on your points (I'm not being sarcastic, but I'm so glad you're not like the rest of the people on this thread), so I decided just to go on this point.
The company was a big one, and if I remember the protest it was quite easy to see and did contain their direct message within. Each would have to be utterly idiotic to have missed their points.
Things like the Cooking Mama thing as well, people on the Escapist went way too far and acted like massive dicks to the point where it got locked. That was also very light hearted.

 

[jboking]

A lot of their messages are done in satire. Only people with blind hatred for them seem to mistake that. For example, they once attacked an icecream company saying that cow milk is for baby cows and that they should use human milk. They didn't mean, 'use human milk' but rather bring awareness to the cow calfs who do not get their mothers milk due to companies taking it from them.

But what was their ultimate goal. If they could have just wished for the perfect outcome, what would they have wished for? For people to stop using cow milk and return to breast feeding? Or simply for us to feel bad for drinking cow milk?

No. To give baby cows their mothers milk when they need it. I thought that was simple to understand.

So they expected an Icecream company to figure out that they were being satirical instead of just being fucking direct. I think we have run into the problem with most PETA protests.

It was a bit tricky quoting this, but I agree with you on your points (I'm not being sarcastic, but I'm so glad you're not like the rest of the people on this thread), so I decided just to go on this point.
The company was a big one, and if I remember the protest it was quite easy to see and did contain their direct message within. Each would have to be utterly idiotic to have missed their points.

Ba-dum tish. Given the nature of most of their protests I find the idea of their points being obvious hard to believe. My real problem in this one is that they didn't think to go a more logical route. That being the legislative one. What was happening to those calves was nothing short of abuse(being denied milk), so it would have made more sense to me to propose some sort of legislation regarding current farming standards to ensure animals such as calves get the appropriate amount of natural nourishment. I imagine the protest they went with got nearly nothing done, a legislative approach could.

Things like the Cooking Mama thing as well, people on the Escapist went way too far and acted like massive dicks to the point where it got locked. That was also very light hearted.

There was a major difference between the milk protest and the Cooking Mama incident. That is the intended change and audience. The cooking mama thing was just to get normal citizens to consider alternatives to the usual thanksgiving food. I would even say that the incident was well done and that the only real problem was the initial shock factor, that's what most of the escapists responded to. They need to get out of this habit of trying to shock people into supporting them or they will simply end up distancing themselves even further from their intended audience.

(This reminded me of their "Go veg" superbowl add. If they want to be taken seriously they need to act the part and in general, stop this bullshit.)

 

[lizards]

I don't understand what they are complaining about, cruelty is what makes the food taste so good.

Cows and chickens are to retarded to suffer.

Before anyone says otherwise, go meet a farm animal. They are fucking stupid.

Your saying we can torture retarded humans and that is fine because they are retarded and therefore can't suffer?

Humans taste bad.

In all seriousness, it seems like PETA is just upset that Macdonald's isn't using the PETA approved method of humanely killing the animals.

But they don't say much about the method that Macdonald's IS using. I'm pretty sure Macdonald's is humane enough with its food otherwise a real government agency would shut them down by now.

sigh i was going to argue with you but apparently you did not watch the video or maybe you didnt pay attention either way you have convinced me you are thick and argueing will have no effect

WoW that was rude and uncalled for.

And yes I failed to notice the video link, just read the article. My bad, but still.

So you are right, Macdonald's suppliers are unnecessarily cruel to those chickens.

But we are talking about an animal that can live for an hour without its head, thats how little it uses its brain.

so? is it alright to cut a dogs tail off because it doesnt use it much? no its not

thats a bad arguement

The difference is a chicken can barely feel it.

A chicken can live for an hour without its head? A chicken can barely feel it (pain)? What on earth are you talking about? A chicken dies after its head is chopped off. To say it doesn't is moronic. It can still run around because of nerves jolting in its body. Would you say a human can live after its head is chopped off? It can still excrement and grow hair.

Also, what on earth are you talking about that a chicken can barely feel it? I assume 'it' is pain, because I'm sure, with the same nervous system, they can feel it on a similar level. You have no feeling or care for battery hens or the crappy conditions they are put through. If it were a human it would be considered torture. Why is it different because the animal can't speak?

Didn't I already say I missed the vid, had just read it and admitted that the suppliers where unnecessarily cruel? Why are you still digging at me?

Oh well, I still maintain that chickens are stupid. As for my points, I am to tired to go into it much, but weather or not the animal could speak never factored into my argument.

i see so we can rip the organs out of sepa patients because "they will barely feel it"

No, human beings>>>>>>>>>>>>>chickens.

why?

give me one good reason why chickens arent as good as us

Survival of the fittest. They could not live without us raising them on farms, they are only kept around by us in order to get eggs and meat off them.

thats wonderful but doesnt have anything to do with the earlier conversations

 

[lizards]

I don't understand what they are complaining about, cruelty is what makes the food taste so good.

Cows and chickens are to retarded to suffer.

Before anyone says otherwise, go meet a farm animal. They are fucking stupid.

Your saying we can torture retarded humans and that is fine because they are retarded and therefore can't suffer?

Humans taste bad.

In all seriousness, it seems like PETA is just upset that Macdonald's isn't using the PETA approved method of humanely killing the animals.

But they don't say much about the method that Macdonald's IS using. I'm pretty sure Macdonald's is humane enough with its food otherwise a real government agency would shut them down by now.

sigh i was going to argue with you but apparently you did not watch the video or maybe you didnt pay attention either way you have convinced me you are thick and argueing will have no effect

WoW that was rude and uncalled for.

And yes I failed to notice the video link, just read the article. My bad, but still.

So you are right, Macdonald's suppliers are unnecessarily cruel to those chickens.

But we are talking about an animal that can live for an hour without its head, thats how little it uses its brain.

so? is it alright to cut a dogs tail off because it doesnt use it much? no its not

thats a bad arguement

The difference is a chicken can barely feel it.

A chicken can live for an hour without its head? A chicken can barely feel it (pain)? What on earth are you talking about? A chicken dies after its head is chopped off. To say it doesn't is moronic. It can still run around because of nerves jolting in its body. Would you say a human can live after its head is chopped off? It can still excrement and grow hair.

Also, what on earth are you talking about that a chicken can barely feel it? I assume 'it' is pain, because I'm sure, with the same nervous system, they can feel it on a similar level. You have no feeling or care for battery hens or the crappy conditions they are put through. If it were a human it would be considered torture. Why is it different because the animal can't speak?

Didn't I already say I missed the vid, had just read it and admitted that the suppliers where unnecessarily cruel? Why are you still digging at me?

Oh well, I still maintain that chickens are stupid. As for my points, I am to tired to go into it much, but weather or not the animal could speak never factored into my argument.

i see so we can rip the organs out of sepa patients because "they will barely feel it"

No, human beings>>>>>>>>>>>>>chickens.

why?

give me one good reason why chickens arent as good as us

They can't fly. We can. They can't open doorhandles. We can.

Seriously the chicken has basically evolved to be tasty and defenceless, its like nature wants us to eat it, and who am I to argue with nature.

so you are saying its because nature seems to have it be that way?

well fine thats good enough lets stop making hearing aides for people who cant hear or fake limbs and hell lots not make a bionic heart because hey its almost as if nature inteaded for them to not have any of those things if they lost it.....right?

 

[101194]

Yeah, But I like Popeyes better so...F off Peta.

Edit: Forgot to point out the fact that Billions of insects are killed by chemical Suffering every year. Insects arn't just as cute as bunnies I'm afraid.