Buehrle vs. Vick

[JorgeFabregas]

The point I've been trying to get across, is that if an animal is harvested correctly, there is no "suffering". When an animal is shot through a vital organ, especially the heart/lungs they die instantly. They do not suffer. And that is the problem with what Michael Vick did, and what factory farms do everyday.

I'm not buying a violent death sans suffering. However, I am just jumping in at the tail end of the thread here and was only commenting on that single post. Hunting seems much more ethical to me than eating animals raised in a factory farm, but I don't do either.

[lasttriptotulsa]

f*** it, I'm taking it to the next level. Michael Vick is just like Hitler because they both owned dogs at some point and were responsible for the deaths of living things in some way.

 

Ha Ha. Sounds logical to me.

[Soxbadger]

Your saying that there is no way to compare a murderer who is a torture murderer versus some one who is just a murderer. You can justify murder however you want, I killed that person/animal for food, I killed that person/animal economic gain. Murder in the most simple sense is the killing intentionally with premeditation (I am taking out legal definition of murder because laws are defined by humans and therefore should be irrelevant when discussing animal rights as animals have no representation or say in the laws that are being created.).

 

So its completely comparable, it just is a different way of doing the same action. Furthermore, the actual act of hunting an animal, if done to a human, would be considered the equivalent of mental torture (depending on if you could prove the animal/human knew that it was being hunted).

 

The end result is an animal is killed. I cant speak with dead animals, I cant speak with dead humans, how do I know whether instant death is painless? What if instant death is the most painful experience in the world? What if some how by being tortured endorphins are released to make the moment of death much less painful?

 

We can pretend that there is such thing as a less painful death, but there is no person or animal alive who can tell us what death feels like. We as humans like to believe that we are some how humane if we kill something quickly, but that just may not be true.

 

There are people out there who believe that I as some one who just consumes meat products can be compared to Vick and I dont even actively kill animals. So if you cant see the connection, its just because innocence is bliss.

[Soxbadger]

What does an illegal gambling ring have to do with anything here?

 

Did Mark say that he wanted Vick hurt because he illegally gambled?

 

I mean if Mark hates gamblers, that wouldnt be hypocritical at all. Ive never heard of him illegally gambling.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I'm not buying a violent death sans suffering. However, I am just jumping in at the tail end of the thread here and was only commenting on that single post. Hunting seems much more ethical to me than eating animals raised in a factory farm, but I don't do either.

 

You may be right, there may be a few seconds or so of suffering, but theres no way to know that unless it happens to you. The suffering experienced is still miniscule compared to having your head held under water, being hooked up to a car battery, etc....

[Milkman delivers]

Your saying that there is no way to compare a murderer who is a torture murderer versus some one who is just a murderer. You can justify murder however you want, I killed that person/animal for food, I killed that person/animal economic gain. Murder in the most simple sense is the killing intentionally with premeditation (I am taking out legal definition of murder because laws are defined by humans and therefore should be irrelevant when discussing animal rights as animals have no representation or say in the laws that are being created.).

 

So its completely comparable, it just is a different way of doing the same action. Furthermore, the actual act of hunting an animal, if done to a human, would be considered the equivalent of mental torture (depending on if you could prove the animal/human knew that it was being hunted).

 

The end result is an animal is killed. I cant speak with dead animals, I cant speak with dead humans, how do I know whether instant death is painless? What if instant death is the most painful experience in the world? What if some how by being tortured endorphins are released to make the moment of death much less painful?

 

We can pretend that there is such thing as a less painful death, but there is no person or animal alive who can tell us what death feels like. We as humans like to believe that we are some how humane if we kill something quickly, but that just may not be true.

 

There are people out there who believe that I as some one who just consumes meat products can be compared to Vick and I dont even actively kill animals. So if you cant see the connection, its just because innocence is bliss.

 

Um, people have died and been brought back.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Um, people have died and been brought back.

 

I guess thats how we can end this entire debate. Call up Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue and ask him if dieing hurts, and then we'll know.

[zenryan]

What does an illegal gambling ring have to do with anything here?

 

Did Mark say that he wanted Vick hurt because he illegally gambled?

 

I mean if Mark hates gamblers, that wouldnt be hypocritical at all. Ive never heard of him illegally gambling.

 

 

 

Youre the one who wants to try to simplify Vick's actions so it goes along with your point on hunters.

 

Youre the one trying to compare the mentality of a hunter killing an animal to the mentality of Vick who killed dogs for not just entertainment value but also monetary value too.

 

 

You cant just cherry pick the actions of what Vick did and compare that to anyone who has decided to hunt.

[sircaffey]

Your saying that there is no way to compare a murderer who is a torture murderer versus some one who is just a murderer.

There's an emotion distinction here. Vick's and all dog fighters' pleasure comes from the emotional and physical torture that is inflicted on the animals as well as the violent imagery of the fight. They need to see the dog suffer to receive any pleasure from the situation. To me, there's a clear difference.

[hogan873]

Your saying that there is no way to compare a murderer who is a torture murderer versus some one who is just a murderer. You can justify murder however you want, I killed that person/animal for food, I killed that person/animal economic gain. Murder in the most simple sense is the killing intentionally with premeditation (I am taking out legal definition of murder because laws are defined by humans and therefore should be irrelevant when discussing animal rights as animals have no representation or say in the laws that are being created.).

 

So its completely comparable, it just is a different way of doing the same action. Furthermore, the actual act of hunting an animal, if done to a human, would be considered the equivalent of mental torture (depending on if you could prove the animal/human knew that it was being hunted).

 

The end result is an animal is killed. I cant speak with dead animals, I cant speak with dead humans, how do I know whether instant death is painless? What if instant death is the most painful experience in the world? What if some how by being tortured endorphins are released to make the moment of death much less painful?

 

We can pretend that there is such thing as a less painful death, but there is no person or animal alive who can tell us what death feels like. We as humans like to believe that we are some how humane if we kill something quickly, but that just may not be true.

 

There are people out there who believe that I as some one who just consumes meat products can be compared to Vick and I dont even actively kill animals. So if you cant see the connection, its just because innocence is bliss.

I can't even respond to this. Well, obviously I can since I am. But you're saying an animal is the same as a human. No way.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

The first paragraph is mostly irrelevant, I dont care how great animals are at defending themselves in the wild against other animals, they were never built to defend themselves against 20th century technology. If you want to prove that you can kill an animal with your bare hands, knife or non-compound bow I can see that it is a challenge, But if you are going out there with a high powered rifle or a compound bow, its the proverbial fish in a barrel.

 

And I can tell right now that you have zero experience actually hunting or tracking anything. You assume it is easy, call it fish in a barrel. You have no idea whatsoever how wrong you are.

 

Furthermore, men have developed tools for hunting as they have evolved and there's no reason to omit a gun that can kill instantly in favor of, say, an arrow with a poison tip, where the hunter must then follow the prey for as long as necessary until it finally dies. You are missing the entire point here because you do not know what hunting actually is. Guns do not make animals appear at the snap of a finger, nor do animals put themselves within proper shooting range just because you're sitting there with a gun. Hunting trips last for days sometimes in pristine wilderness and hunters will come home with nothing. Those who still live with nature and subsist on hunting still also have a tremendous amount of respect for the game they hunt and often deify those animals, and while in the 21st century some of that may be gone, there is still a good level of respect shown by the hunter in most all cases. If you ever want to see an angry hunter, take a shot at an animal without killing it on site. That hunter will talk to whoever he needs to talk to to make sure you don't hunt there again, and then he'll pick up the animal and take it himself, and give up on his own hunting experience just to put the animal out of its misery.

 

And BTW, people hunt pig with knives. Hunters can't sneak up on most animals like that because their senses are far too keen to allow it - they are just as "meant" to evade gunfire as any other form of projectile killing, and the accuracy of modern weaponry is there to make the experience more humane. Taking and landing several poor shots on an animal and watching it suffer the last moments of its life, while simultaenously ruining more meat on the animal, is bad practice. And hunting/killing with your bare hands? Do you get your hunting information from Man vs. Hotel or something? You can only kill small game that way, and you don't go running after it, you trap it first. Mankind is meant to use his intellect to PROPERLY hunt so long as it's natural and as painless as possible. He's not meant to ignore his intellect and instead burn up 50X the caloric value of the food he's hunting by running around like an idiot. We're talking survival here - that's the whole point of killing for life. This system still exists and it always will even if you'll prefer to mute it around you.

 

Moving on to the dog breeding comment, then I assume you are against eating pigs, cows, etc as they were all domesticated thousands of years ago. So using your logic it should not be okay to put pigs or cows in pens to be killed, because they naturally trust their human oppressor. Here is a link that shows all of the animals that have been domesticated like dogs http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/a/domestication.htm, you will notice that cow and chicken are domesticated animals, yet are given no special treatment.

 

Domesticated for what purposes though? Dogs in this part of the world are meant as companions, pigs are meant as meat animals. Species are raised and bred differently because of that, and through their lives their mental and physical activities differ and are accentuated through their breeding, so that a dog on a farm is meant to lead other animals and bark for intruders, or a dog in a junk yard is meant to defend property, or a dog in the police department meant to find particular scents, etc. Dogs at home are meant to be simply companions.

 

Tell me why a large pig should make a better pet than a dog, and a dog a better meat animal than a pig? If in other areas of the world dogs are meat animals then I don't like that, but it's still easily justifiable if it's part of the whole life process and it's done the right way. It's also perfectly acceptable for other animals to use humans as meat animals. I'm not arguring against domestication necessarily. It's impossible to raise livestock without providing food and protection, and those will lead to domesticated animals, but not nearly in the same way as the dog that sits on your lap or sticks his head out the window when you're driving. And it would be pointless to raise meat animals without bothering to select the best ones to breed for greater health, strength, nutritional value, and yield.

 

But I'm not going to in any way attempt to argue in favor of factory farming if that's where you're going. I think animals deserve adequate space and deserve to be in conditions that are clean and as low-stress as possible. Stressed animals are far more prone to develop sicknesses and are not going to have the same nutritional value as a healthy, happy animal. So when you say "pens" and s*** I don't know what you mean because the size and conditions of those pens, along with the number and male:female ratio of the animals therein would dictate whether a practice is correct or not.

 

And what humans do every day is wrong then. They take trusting, intelligent lifeform that was bred to serve man and used his higher intelligence to deceive the animal into stuffing itself until it became fat and then killed it for profit.

 

LOL are you serious? You just took the word "maiming" and replaced it with "stuffing itself?" Eating is a natural behavior. Animals eat, and especially in nature, eat as much as they can as often as they can. The reason farm-raised animals are fat are because they're bred that way, they don't eat a diverse diet, and most importantly, they usually don't get the exercise they'd get in the wild. But feeding them is natural, and you don't have to trick them into feeding themselves. Maiming themselves is different.

 

Is dog fighting arguably less humane? Of course it is, but now we are just talking about degrees.

 

Dog fighting is as low as it gets. Death with the body giving nothing towards life. It's exploiting life through death for monetary gain where no one benefits except the gambler, and there are a zillion other ways for people to gamble without involving the needless taking of a life. You don't have a choice as to whether or not you want to eat. Even when you consider the mistreatment of animals on factory farms and the actions of governments economically, although you could rightly make some connections to inhumane gambling and waste of life, the majority is becoming food, so the end principle is right, but the process of getting there is wrong.

 

As for the entire last paragraph, each person is entitled to their own opinion. I dont care about morality in terms of arguing the law, because morals are dependent on what side of the fence you sit. Many people from india would think that its far more wrong to kill a cow than a dog, people in the US think its worse to kill a dog than a cow. I am not going to be so bold as to say that my moral compass is better than theirs. I instead will admit to the hypocritical nature of humans, and try not to think to hard about the issue because I know that I am as hypocritical as anyone when it comes to this.

 

My statements here were because I've seen people try to say that Vick did his time and therefore it's wrong to still hate him for his actions. That's absurd.

 

Hypocritical nature of humans? Humans ate what they could when they had to. Humans are hypocrites now because at least in the first world not many of them are truly starving - and the ones who are hungry need only to hit up the nearby dumpster to find perfectly good second-hand food that others in the third world might literally kill for. But this hypocrisy doesn't apply to all people, not even all people in the first world who do not go hungry. There is nothing wrong with taking life to extend life. Dogs are not meat animals, because they over time have proven themselves worthy of other uses - it's f***ing hilarious to think that other animals may be better or equally suited for the roles of dogs when our ancestors actually relied upon them much of the time to feed themselves and each other, and if dogs weren't as valuable as they are then humans never would have kept another mouth to feed. Cows are meat animals. Cows are slow, big, taste great, give great milk - and to get milk a female has to be calving, so you need to keep them producing animals for milk and dairy. You don't just buy a cow and start milking it, unless you're into those kinds of websites. But cows don't really help humans in any other way. If people in India want to consider them unpalatable for religious reasons that's fine. I'm not sure I could imagine at starving Indian child though, away from any who'd criticize, turning down a steak. Besides, religious peoples still raise animals they can't eat for religious reasons and sell them to other nations who do, getting back food they can eat in return.

 

[BigSqwert]

I can't even respond to this. Well, obviously I can since I am. But you're saying an animal is the same as a human. No way.

Humans are animals.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

 

But that is the exact reason why I dont go around making a big deal about it. Because I know that its a weak argument. I may love dogs and cats, but until Im willing to treat all animals (and even if you want to change that to all intelligent animals) the same way, Im a hypocrite.

 

YOU have been bred and conditioned by your own culture to love cats and dogs just as much as THEY have been bred and conditioned by your ancestory to love YOU. Not wanting to kill them or see them endure pain is perfectly understandable. And no, you're not willing to love all animals the same way. Maybe you think you are, but you're not, because you haven't grown up in a society that would put all animals on the same plane as far as their worthiness of human love and respect. If you want to consider yourself something, maybe you should consider yourself a witness or a victim, because I don't think it's fair to consider yourself a hypocrite. You've been raised in a particular environment to adopt particular sets of belifes, and other ideas that you may now consider more morally pure, were withheld from you by that environment such that you would not develop them. How can one who is out of touch with all these other animals but told to love and respect dogs and cats as inherently more deserving of that love be expected to reject those ideas?

 

To understand other animals and why you should care about them you need to experience them. And going back to the genesis of this argument, MB's hunting, he is the type of person who experiences the animals he hunts. You cannot effectively hunt without understanding and experiencing the animal you are pursuing. The notion that animals are just out there in the wild standing around aimlessly like it's a f***ing bus stop is an absurd product of modern civilization, and anyone who'd go out into the wild with all the guns and ammo he could carry would inevitably starve to death for lack of proper skills and experience, and would probably just end himself with the weapon.

 

Furthermore the entire US law is hypocritical. Im sure that you are aware but under the law, dogs are property. If you kill my dog, your only civil liability to me is the value of the dog. There is no special exception for a dog being mans best friend or like a human, they are property. Yet the difference in how a dog as property is treated and a cow as property is treated, are completely divergent. No one disputes that I can kill my cow for food, its just whether I did it humanely. Im sure that many people would be up in arms if I had a dog farm where I killed dogs for food, regardless of how humanely.

 

People would be up in arms if you raised dogs for food, yes. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or against nature. Just like morality vs. law. You wouldn't open a dog harvesting farm because you'd get picketed daily and you'd be forced out of business. In another country, that may be different. But in terms of practicality dogs probably aren't going to be the best meat animals anyway, and if you want a lean animal that's cute and has litters, you'd farm rabbits, which is done all over the world including here. And there's nothing wrong with that either. But mostly you'd want an animal that maximizes return of your labor, that provides high and fatty yield along with other parts (bone, leather) that can be used elsewhere or sold for extra income. So you probably wouldn't raise dogs even somewhere where you could conceivably raise dogs because it wouldn't be the most practical thing to do anyway.

 

This is where the law clearly goes from being objective to subjective, and why I dont really care to argue about the legality of what Vick did. I dont like what he did, I dont agree with the practices, but Im not 100% sure that there is a good reason why we have created rules that govern how people can treat property, except for the fact that we are trying to pretend we are "humane." Because at the end of the day, how we treat most animals is anything but humane.

 

I agree with this 100%

 

Hunting, whether something you can stomach when considering the methods undertaken by human predators or not, is part of the natural order of things. Predators target prey for sustenance, and if that is the reason for Mark's hunting, than I find that difficult to be critical of. Hunting for pure sport, whether it is explained away in some attempt to justify it by achieving some ecological or modern logistical objective, is another debate altogether.

 

And if hunters were only hunting for food and not for sport, I would agree with this standpoint. The problem is that I do not believe Mark is hunting to feed his family because he cant afford to buy food. He is hunting because he enjoys hunting.

 

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2007/09/24/mark-bu...ear-with-a-bow/

 

Here is a story about Mark bear hunting. Im sure that he hunted that Bear because the bear had a considerable amount of flesh to feed his starving family.

 

So you are only supposed to eat because you're starving? Or you're not supposed to kill and eat a healthy wild animal when you can go to the grocery store and buy a probably innoculated formerly sick animal that was raised in brutal conditions and slaughtered so that you youldn't have to do the job yourself?

 

Hunting isn't "sport" even though it may be classified as such. You're killing an animal and afterwards you're going to eat it. This is life. The "sport" comes in the chase, the thrill, etc. but these are just natural instincts that are being followed, not actually sports. If by sport you mean "fun," then yes, following natural instincts can be fun. People enjoy having sex, too. That doesn't make it a sport.

 

Starvation BTW has been and still is a part of daily life for most people on this earth. It's not gone or anything, humanity hasn't exactly conquered it in the first world. This abundance of food you probably think exists now actually does not exist at all. It's an illusion. Fossil fuel energies and their products along with long man hours have produced huge numbers of plant and animal crop that cannot occur in nature, and these crops have been produced on sick land in sick conditions that are basically barren, and if left alone these lands and farms would produce a whole bunch of nothing. Starvation is going to come back to us, but the trick here is that when it does people who don't want to kill will have to change thier ideas about the whole thing, but they'll inevitably head out into barren conditions to try to hunt game that simply is not there anymore without any appropriate skill even if having obtained the appropriate weaponry.

 

So we can assume that Mark only hunts for food, or we can actually look at the facts and realize that Mark hunts for fun. While I personally feel what Vick did is worse than what Mark does, I actually think that Vick has stopped doing it. Conversely, Mark will continue to hunt and kill animals for the rest of his life.

 

Right. Mark Buehrle only eats because eating is fun. WTF??? If you're saying he doesn't eat what he kills then I'm sure you'd be lying.

 

I get that we are White Sox fans so we are going to defend Mark, but he really is being a hypocrite here.

 

No, I'd defend Mark Buehrle even if his name were Jimmy Buttschlong and he happened to live in North Dakota and worked the fryer in McDonalds.

[RockRaines]

He not only fought dogs, he tortured them for fun. He hooked up dogs to car batteries just to watch them squirm. Thats f***ing sick, and its alot more sick than Mark Buehrle taking out his bow and killing a boar regardless of where you stand on killing animals. They captured dogs, tortured the s*** out of them, and sometimes even made them kill each other for a crowd. How many hunters do anything like that at all.

[BigSqwert]

Eating is a natural behavior. Animals eat, and especially in nature, eat as much as they can as often as they can. The reason farm-raised animals are fat are because they're bred that way, they don't eat a diverse diet, and most importantly, they usually don't get the exercise they'd get in the wild. But feeding them is natural, and you don't have to trick them into feeding themselves.

 

You really thinking that factory farm animals are extremely large because they don't get enough exercise? You have to be kidding. They are engorged with food and steroids their entire short-lived, tortured lives.

 

There is nothing wrong with taking life to extend life.

 

In your personal opinion.

 

 

Dogs are not meat animals

 

In Western civilizations

 

Mark Buehrle only eats because eating is fun. WTF??? If you're saying he doesn't eat what he kills then I'm sure you'd be lying.

 

No. He was saying that MB hunts for sport because he enjoys it. It is not necessary for him to hunt animals to stay alive.

 

Edited February 10, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

You really thinking that factory farm animals are extremely large because they don't get enough exercise? You have to be kidding. They are engorged with food and steroids their entire short-lived, tortured lives.

 

When an animal is a month or two away from harvesting it will be penned up so that it basically can't move and fattened up. This is very profitable.

 

But the other things you say are true. They are given unnatural substances and unnatural lives. Again, I'm not defending factory farming.

 

In your personal opinion.

 

LOL! My opinion?! Nature is a process of life growing on death! It's not a f***ing matter of opinion. Tell me, what is humus composed of? What do plants and fungi feed on? What does microbial life feed on? Large and small animals, people? It's no f***ing opinion. Life doesn't exist without death, therefore the taking of life is the necessary "evil (it's not even evil)" of life, and if done properly and humanely is supposed to be a sign of respect for nature. There's a reason every tribe reveres the animals it hunts and FIGHTS for conservation of lands from non-hunting, PC westerners who try to exploit it.

 

In Western civilizations

 

No, they're not good meat animals period. They require too much input for too little yield. Anyone who could make a living selling dog meat could make a much better living selling other meats with less input required and over smaller area.

 

No. He was saying that MB hunts for sport because he enjoys it. It is not necessary for him to hunt animals to stay alive.

 

Yes, he surely enjoys following hunting instincts, but notice how he doesn't run around gleefully stomping lady bugs or shooting people? He's not going to kill what he's not going to eat, and when he hunts, he will obey regulations and take only what he feels is necessary or allowed.

 

[Milkman delivers]

I love you, KHP.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

 

This is why I don't post in slam. Ugh. Back to baseball...

 

Anyone want to respond to my Leslie Anderson thread? It's pretty cool...

[BigSqwert]

No, they're not good meat animals period. They require too much input for too little yield.

 

Sort of like chicken before factory farming started.

 

[Milkman delivers]

 

This is why I don't post in slam. Ugh. Back to baseball...

 

Anyone want to respond to my Leslie Anderson thread? It's pretty cool...

 

I've read it. I think most agree that they would take a flyer on him for a minor league contract. If he earned his way after that, good. Otherwise, I don't want him.

[chetkincaid]

Jaime Buerhle speaks......on facebook....

 

"When asked to do an interview on our passion for helping homeless and abused animals I was excited to do so. When the question of our thoughts on Michael Vick was asked we answered. While Mark and I am are both VERY aware it is not right to have a small hope deep down in your gut that someone gets hurt, I can't explain how much it angers me to the core everytime I read story after story and the Lost dogs book how much these poor animals were tortured and killed. While so many great people in the world stepped up to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild these innocent animals lives, I also read article after article and listen to interview after interview how Vick is sorry he got caught but never expresses any remorse for the poor dogs. When face to face with a reporter that adopted one of his victims, he looked at the dogs pictures and simply walked away. Right or wrong this is not ok with me. While I love my husband so much for standing by me and helping me on all my animal loving ventures, the last thing I wanted was for the all the negativity to deflate this article and bring his career and character in to it. I think anyone that truly knows mark and I knows we are genuine people that have a big heart and know right from wrong."

 

 

Yeah Jaime you and your husband are genuine hypocrites. Vick SHOULD HAVE walked away after being ambushed by that "reporter" with the pics. What is he supposed to do, stand there and argue with him?

 

Okay I understand that he and his wife has a problem with what Vick did. But to wish that Vick gets hurt on the field? Buehrle and his wife should know better. They are very fortunate that Mark has never suffered a severe injury.

 

Damn I really hate that this came out. I like Mark Buehrle a LOT less after today. I'm almost at the point where I wish he would f*** off and take the next thing smoking to St. Louis and the Cardinals. Hopefully this will die down, but as of right now - f*** Mark Buehrle.

[Milkman delivers]

Yeah Jaime you and your husband are genuine hypocrites. Vick SHOULD HAVE walked away after being ambushed by that "reporter" with the pics. What is he supposed to do, stand there and argue with him?

 

Okay I understand that he and his wife has a problem with what Vick did. But to wish that Vick gets hurt on the field? Buehrle and his wife should know better. They are very fortunate that Mark has never suffered a severe injury.

 

Damn I really hate that this came out. I like Mark Buehrle a LOT less after today. I'm almost at the point where I wish he would f*** off and take the next thing smoking to St. Louis and the Cardinals. Hopefully this will die down, but as of right now - f*** Mark Buehrle.

 

I don't get what you are saying. Is it that you think he should have just not said anything? Or do you think he honestly shouldn't harbor any negative feelings towards Vick?

 

I honestly hope it's the former, because it is entirely his choice on how he feels about Vick.

[sircaffey]

Sort of like chicken before factory farming started.

Oh please. Chickens also produce eggs which humans eat millions of each and every day.

[BigSqwert]

Oh please. Chickens also produce eggs which humans eat millions of each and every day.

 

I was referring to chicken meat which wasn't always as thick as the bible. That started happening after the factory farm system, with it's accelerated chicken growing practices, became entrenched in our society. Prior to that you wouldn't get much meat out of a chicken.

 

I'm sure a factory farm could be set up to pump up dogs with steroids in order to produce plump meat.

 

Instead of a pig in this pen, just make it a bulldog:

 

Edited February 10, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Milkman delivers]

I was referring to chicken meat which wasn't always as thick as the bible. That started happening after the factory farm system, with it's accelerated chicken growing practices, became entrenched in our society. Prior to that you wouldn't get much meat out of a chicken.

 

I'm sure a factory farm could be set up to pump up dogs with steroids in order to produce plump meat.

 

Instead of a pig in this pen, just make it a bulldog:

 

But that still doesn't account for the eggs being a main aspect of the chicken as a food source.

 

Make no mistake. Those pigs, given the change, would eat you and your family in a second.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Milkman delivers