Paranoid Android
Elite Member
- Jun 20, 2010
- 2,864
- 4,209
i knew someone who used to run a poultry farm, they used to debeek the hens just so that their husbands (cocks) aren't henpecked. 
KFC cuts chicken beaks!
- Thread starter soyafan
- Start date
dirtbag
BANNED
- Jul 24, 2008
- 990
- 534
Well, I wouldn't recommend slapping a couple fried eggs on top and having one for breakfast every morning, lol...
Unfortunately that post doesnt give a whole lot of details on that "study". It doesnt mention what they used as a control in their experiment, so it really doesnt proove that the puff of air in the chicks face is what caused the hens stress. I tried finding more details on the experiment but couldnt find it on the university of bristol website. More details would need to be provided, such as what were the hens reactions when the chicks were removed and a puff of air was still introduced into the environment, were the hens right next to the chicks or in close proximity, or further away? Do you have a link that shares more specific details on that study?
Getwhatchuwant
Elite Member
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,998
- 1,336
Exactly for all we know the hen could have not given a rats ass about the chicks (even though most animals have some sort of protective instinct) but rather was concerned about the noise or that it would be next.
All animals and even plants evolve to survive, hence why they exist at all. It does not really prove to me that it feels "love" a gator has one of the smallest brains around and it too guards its eggs yet later on down the line the gator may actually eat those same young it protected a few months earlier!
Code:
http://alligatorfur.com/alligator/alligator.htmSo what some might call love, others may call a basic instinct to preserve the survival of the species. I certainly would not eat my young just months after they were born simply because they were an easy meal!
dirtbag
BANNED
- Jul 24, 2008
- 990
- 534
The problem with this as a source, is that he doesn't link to the scientific papers. What you get is some highly biased eco-activist's interpretation of a scientific paper. It's like all the potheads roaming around claiming marijuana is a cure for cancer after reading a couple grossly misinterpreted articles in High Times.
What blows my mind is how this guy really considers himself some sort of "open minded" highly intelligent individual. It's laughable. For having such an open mind you could squeeze his widerange vision through the eye of a needle. He's got nothing but the ol' ad hominem attack going in full force. The only thing that he can come up with to support his argument is one short article, from a highly highly biased source. The rest of the time he relies on emotional pleas and insulting his naysayers' intelligence.
Fact is that humans were meant to eat meat. We've eaten meat for millions of years. Our own anatomy stands as proof that we are Omnivorous by nature. Our systems are very well suited for the consumption of animal proteins. Many pure herbivores have the ability to digest cellulose via naturally occurring enzymes in their systems. The human digestive system is completely void of such enzymes and the ability to digest cellulose at all. At some point many many millions of years ago, perhaps man was a herbivore, but that was long long ago when we were also simple minded animals, we've evolved since then, and so has a anatomy. Even had we been herbivores at some point, we adapted to become omnivorous life forms as our intelligence evolved and we became intelligent enough to hunt. If Mr shaddlelick wants to trade blows about evolution and intelligence, and pick out who exactly is the neanderthal, we could point this out.
Vegetarians also like to fling the argument that man is most like his fellow wild primates, and that they are herbivores. Wrong. Even Jane Goodall herself documented the fact that apes in the wild hunt and consume smaller mammals from time to to time.
What blows my mind is how this guy really considers himself some sort of "open minded" highly intelligent individual. It's laughable. For having such an open mind you could squeeze his widerange vision through the eye of a needle. He's got nothing but the ol' ad hominem attack going in full force. The only thing that he can come up with to support his argument is one short article, from a highly highly biased source. The rest of the time he relies on emotional pleas and insulting his naysayers' intelligence.
Fact is that humans were meant to eat meat. We've eaten meat for millions of years. Our own anatomy stands as proof that we are Omnivorous by nature. Our systems are very well suited for the consumption of animal proteins. Many pure herbivores have the ability to digest cellulose via naturally occurring enzymes in their systems. The human digestive system is completely void of such enzymes and the ability to digest cellulose at all. At some point many many millions of years ago, perhaps man was a herbivore, but that was long long ago when we were also simple minded animals, we've evolved since then, and so has a anatomy. Even had we been herbivores at some point, we adapted to become omnivorous life forms as our intelligence evolved and we became intelligent enough to hunt. If Mr shaddlelick wants to trade blows about evolution and intelligence, and pick out who exactly is the neanderthal, we could point this out.
Vegetarians also like to fling the argument that man is most like his fellow wild primates, and that they are herbivores. Wrong. Even Jane Goodall herself documented the fact that apes in the wild hunt and consume smaller mammals from time to to time.
Last edited:
dirtbag
BANNED
- Jul 24, 2008
- 990
- 534
You don't have to look far to find tons of examples of this in the ol' animal kingdom. Take your average happy house cat for example. I don't think you'd have to try to hard to argue with most people that a cat is a much more affectionate animal than a chicken. Hell, my cat is perched on my shoulder right now as I type this She loves to sit her butt on the back on my chair and lean over my shoulder pirate parrot style when I sit at the computer. They're lovable little animals. But it's not uncommon at all for a tomcat to come around and kill entire litters of kittens after a mother gives birth to his own offspring. Thus is nature, and if you think man is above the laws of nature in any way, you're kidding yourself. Or simply denying the laws of nature in favor of morality, which is nothing more than a man made concoction to convince one's self of his own worthiness.
Last edited:
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
what are you talking about dirtbag?? Thats exactly what you, pkalico, and Getwhatchuwant are saying! And they are still saying it. You three stooges have no clue :dunce:
Like someone commented before, its people like you guys who prove that this world is over populated.
Getwhatchuwant , you sound very ignorant. You should start reading more and talking less :dunce: Grow some common sense also. It doesnt take a genious to know chickens have feelings. You can find many studies online to back it up, just read on it :dunce:
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
You'll find many studies on the matter here https://www.google.com/#hl=en&biw=1...or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=bfbad756b3e0f08f
Getwhatchuwant
Elite Member
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,998
- 1,336
Ok now on to the insults, which I have not done to you ONCE! But hell I pointed out a fact using real examples from a real site (Louisiana Alligator Advisory Council) and you pointed to some hippy blog with no scientific facts at worst and at best a very poorly controlled case study.
BTW it does not take a GENIUS to spell Genius either! LOL Sorry if facts from a real source regarding animal behavior upsets you but there you have it, the love of a mother Gator who will eat it's own young! Now that is love, isn't it?
BTW last night alone I cooked over 50 whole chickens in 4 hours, not once did they complain.
You are kidding right? 90% of those links reference the same crappy study we are talking about and that you avoid addressing regarding controls of the study itself.
But like any extremist it is easier to avoid facts and argue based on emotion (and insults) as opposed to facts.
Last edited:
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
You are right, the insults were wrong, but i didnt have you in mind when i said them, i should not have included you, very sorry.
There are plenty of real sources that animals have feelings. I dont doubt that aligators eat there young, but did you know chickens protect there young? Thats what the article i showed you was explaining. Also It is something very plain to see.
But my point is this, if a being clearly shows that they have feelings similar to ours, such as fear, or pain, then we should consider this. With our human morality, we should be able to put ourselves in the shoes of another being that has feelings. Now with our human morality, we can see if it is a good thing or a bad thing that we are doing from there point of view since we can put ourselves in there shoes. I am saying we should consider all this. I am not saying we should do what aligators do or what chickens do, i am that we shouldnt limit the principle of doing one to others based on if we feel we are superior or anything of the sort. And that is what i am asking you to consider in order for me to continue with my point
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
You are saying none of them made a sound or showed any sign of attempting to escape? I find that hard to believe unless they were unable to make a noise or unless they were killed quickly. Nonetheless they were killed, and i am sure they didnt want that for them or there's the same way you wouldnt want that for you and yours
Getwhatchuwant
Elite Member
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,998
- 1,336
I am sorry but it is not that plain to see and here is why.
How did the Chicken react to the same sound without the chicks present? We dont know, the study never discusses that.
How did the chicken react to the same sound only using a different animal, perhaps a parrot or some other bird? We dont know the study never talks about that.
We cant just make the leap that the chicken LOVES its young because it reacted to a sound with it's young present, when the fact is the chicken is likely to react to that sound under MANY circumstances not relating to it's young.
Also, I never discounted that animals protect their young, it is a basic instinct which helps preserves the species. That is why I spoke about the Gator, but you cannot confuse the instinct to preserve the species with love, again that is why the Gator example.
Finally as we know many animals react to stress from other animals, that is once again a survival instinct. If they did not react to an animal in distress then it is very likely they will be the NEXT distressed animal, like when a predator is nearby.
Last edited:
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
Instinct is what to you? Even if you want to label it instinct, within instinct there is a complexity in instincts that involves a desire, a feeling.
So you are saying you honestly believe that chickens dont have feelings?
That was a real study. Also there are many studies that show chickens have feelings. I dont think you are being honest with yourself when you are trying to refute this one study. Do not act like a politician and try to discredit something you know is true. Chickens have feelings, they have emotions, they feel pain just like you and me. I know chicken has feelings, you know it, and the world knows it, be honest to yourself.
dirtbag
BANNED
- Jul 24, 2008
- 990
- 534
Just quit arguing this fucking idiot. Seriously. There is no point, and no amount of logic will penetrate his pink pony rainbow love shield of happy good vibes and positive karma. He's proven my point over and over. That it's a lifestyle choice made to boost ego and feed into a pathetic little superiority complex. All he can resort to is insulting anyone's intelligence who argues him. It's all ad hominem and strawman attacks. He'd rather study up on his biased information sources and dream about the day when chickens are freed from slavery and given the right to vote, than offer any sort of reasonable argument for nature's support of veganism.
He keeps telling us to "be honest with ourselves" and "admit chickens have feelings". I'm pretty sure all of us have admitted that chickens have feelings. We just don't give a shit because they are food. All the calls for honesty, yet he can't be honest with himself in admitting that he supports a vegan lifestyle because it makes him feel like a better person. It's pure ego stroking. All primates are omnivorous in nature, as proven by respected biologists observing the acts taking place in nature. Not some hippie on a blog.
He keeps telling us to "be honest with ourselves" and "admit chickens have feelings". I'm pretty sure all of us have admitted that chickens have feelings. We just don't give a shit because they are food. All the calls for honesty, yet he can't be honest with himself in admitting that he supports a vegan lifestyle because it makes him feel like a better person. It's pure ego stroking. All primates are omnivorous in nature, as proven by respected biologists observing the acts taking place in nature. Not some hippie on a blog.
Last edited:
Getwhatchuwant
Elite Member
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,998
- 1,336
Chickens have feelings (instincts) but not at the same level we humans do, they have the most basic semblance of a feeling which is needed in order for a species to survive, nothing more nothing less.
In any event they were bred and raised to be food, think about it, if not for us the chicken could be extinct! They don't fly well or far, they are relatively small, they are pretty dumb and they are very tasty. They are an easy target for even small predators like ferrets or weasels, if not for us they likely would be endangered.
See so our eating of chickens may be their salvation also...ironic isn't it?
In any event they were bred and raised to be food, think about it, if not for us the chicken could be extinct! They don't fly well or far, they are relatively small, they are pretty dumb and they are very tasty. They are an easy target for even small predators like ferrets or weasels, if not for us they likely would be endangered.
See so our eating of chickens may be their salvation also...ironic isn't it?
Techxan
Elite Member
- Dec 7, 2011
- 3,091
- 3,620
you gonna eat him?
Tensegrity
Elite Member
- Apr 22, 2009
- 1,849
- 988
This whole debate is irrelevant.
There is absolutely no purpose to life besides entertaining ourselves and survival. At least humans do something interesting with their food. Animals literally eat their own shit, eat other animals without even killing them first and without any sort of moral filter, and have a tendency to eat everything they can in an ecosystem until it's depleted and then they migrate to another ecosystem to do the same thing. At least humans contain their livestock to a farm.
And anyway, poor treatment of livestock is already being dealt with through regulations and the promotion of "free range" chickens, etc. I'm all for fighting against the perils of the food industry, but going vegan is going too far. It's not natural and in many cases is unhealthy, depending on the person. I actually know people who CAN'T eat most veggies due to how their system processes it. Being an omnivore is natural, safest and the most rational.
There is absolutely no purpose to life besides entertaining ourselves and survival. At least humans do something interesting with their food. Animals literally eat their own shit, eat other animals without even killing them first and without any sort of moral filter, and have a tendency to eat everything they can in an ecosystem until it's depleted and then they migrate to another ecosystem to do the same thing. At least humans contain their livestock to a farm.
And anyway, poor treatment of livestock is already being dealt with through regulations and the promotion of "free range" chickens, etc. I'm all for fighting against the perils of the food industry, but going vegan is going too far. It's not natural and in many cases is unhealthy, depending on the person. I actually know people who CAN'T eat most veggies due to how their system processes it. Being an omnivore is natural, safest and the most rational.
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
So slaughtering chickens is doing them a favor is what your trying to make me believe? And you said they run away because of instincts and you attribute most of there actions due to instincts. So how is our actions not instincts? If someone more powerful then you triest to slaughter you and yours and says 'oh they are running for thier lives because of instincts' would that make sense to you?
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
No ones talking to you, you can leave dirtbag. You wouldnt be able to wrap your mind around basic concepts, this conversation isnt for you :dunce:
^^^ this is dirtbag.... on a good day lol
shaddelick
Regular Member
- Sep 14, 2008
- 368
- 131
If he were to eat him, then it would make it ok?