| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
FLASH: Vulcans to boycott KFC !
effective immediately, Vulcans all over the universe will be supporting
the boycott of KFC over chicken cruelty ! Logically, they invite you to join in !! learn more at http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/ |
read that ; Never eating there again. Rev. Al & I now have something in common... |
read that ; Never eating there again. Rev. Al & I now have something in common... |
Yum Yum,Southern Fried Chicken!
cuhulin |
Wonder if Mr. Davies will dispatch a few million Daleks to put down the
boycott. Nahh .. down with KFC - Papa John's RULES ! ! ! |
|
Wherrr I come frommmm,,,, it's cornbread and chickennn,,,,,,,,, where I
come fromm,,,, it's a lotta front porch sittinnnn,,,,,,,,,, SCREW!!! al franken!!!!! that sumbitch isn't going to keep me from my Chicken! www,us963.com cuhulin |
Does Papa John's have chicken?
cuhulin |
The only reason I don't eat at the local KFC is because their restaurant
always seems to be dirty... poor cleanup practices. But I'll be damned if I let some weenie tell me not to eat an animal because "it's cruel." There's far more cruelty going on out there in the animal world. If a chicken could eat you, it would. -- Tom Sevart N2UHC Frontenac, KS http://www.geocities.com/n2uhc |
Yo bro, why are you so upset about those chickens. Have you ever
visited a feedlot or a slaughterhouse? Seen a commercial fishing boat or a fish processor? Ever watched sausage being made? I have and I do like beef, poultry and fish for dinner. BTW I would discount completely anything the "Rev" supports. He has shown over and over that the truth is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to getting himself in a headline. Remember that little incident in brooklyn? wrote: effective immediately, Vulcans all over the universe will be supporting the boycott of KFC over chicken cruelty ! Logically, they invite you to join in !! learn more at http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/ |
I haven't eaten at KFC for years for this very reason. Oddly, KFC and
those 17 herbs and spices is the only thing that I miss about eating meat. If there was Kentucky Fred Tofu, I'd have at it. Tom Sevart wrote: But I'll be damned if I let some weenie tell me not to eat an animal because "it's cruel." There's far more cruelty going on out there in the animal world. If a chicken could eat you, it would. First, just because cruelty exists in the animal world, doesn't mean that it's OK for people to maximize it for unnecessary reasons. If you want to eat meat, go ahead, but at least admit that it's because you like it (people clearly don't need it), and that you simply don't care about whether the animals are mistreated or not...because someone who cares is going to have a terrible time with his conscience. And oh, by the way, *Don't eat an animal, because it's cruel.* Now try and stop me from telling you! hah ha hah hah hah! Bruce "weenie" Jensen |
wrote in message oups.com... effective immediately, Vulcans all over the universe will be supporting the boycott of KFC over chicken cruelty ! Logically, they invite you to join in !! learn more at http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/ I'm against anything Al "The charlatan" Sharpton is for. Better pick up a bucket tonight in his honor. |
wrote in message ups.com... Wonder if Mr. Davies will dispatch a few million Daleks to put down the boycott. Papa John's RULES ! ! ! You eat that crap? :-) Papa Murphys rules ! ! ! |
Does Dolly eat KFC ?
|
Does Dolly eat KFC ?
|
A boycott of some of those places are also in order. for a civilization
that calls itself advanced.. there are many deplorable practices going on. a boycott of veal should be next. |
Dolly (Dollie) Parton? Hubba! Hubba! I will have the chicken on the side
:{) cuhulin |
I just now put it on my next food shopping list,,,,,, Veal.And Steak and
Pork Chops.None of that sissy veggie **** for me! cuhulin |
I disagree completely. We are omnivores and meat is and has been a
part of our diet for a very long time. We have evolved biologically so we can process meat as a source of nutrients. And many of us just plain enjoy a nice rare aged porterhouse with some steakhouse vegetables. Dripping with red juice ready to be sopped up with a piece of sourdough bread. I don't have much problem with the raising and slaughter of animals for human consumption...actually I enjoy consuming the end product with great relish. Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life of a carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is torn off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate fate is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty picture for carrots is it... wrote: A boycott of some of those places are also in order. for a civilization that calls itself advanced.. there are many deplorable practices going on. a boycott of veal should be next. |
|
you are very uninformed, the question is not to eat or not but to ABUSE
or not. the way we treat animals for food is disgusting, and it not healthy for us, full of chemicals and abuse makes the nutritional value go down. anyone who hears how veal is produced and doesn't get angry and throw up is pathetic. also it take 16 pounds of grain for one pounds of meat in a world full of starving people. WHAT A WASTE |
Awwwww hell,,,,,,, them critters get a Bullet between their eyes or
their necks Chopped off.They never feel a thing.It isn't abuse to them critters,it is abuse to us Humans not to eat them critters! cuhulin |
|
Agree with you about the antibiotocs and growth hormones...that's why I
try to use meat that isn't fed that stuff. Otherwise, I'm not too worried about the farm animals. Yeah, it may take 16 pounds of grain to create a pound of meat, but it is difficult to cook milo so it's rare and juicy red. And we do use it's waste as well as literally every part of the animal but the moo, so your figure is overstated. Hmm...For dinner I think I'm going to have a little goose liver pate for an appetizer followed by a veal picatta with pasta. And for breakfast tomorrow I will have a bagel with cream cheese and lox. And the lox came from a salmon that was caught with a hook or gill net, clubbed on the head, just thrown into an icer and gutted later. It may have been just thrown in the icer live too. Yummm!!!! wrote: you are very uninformed, the question is not to eat or not but to ABUSE or not. the way we treat animals for food is disgusting, and it not healthy for us, full of chemicals and abuse makes the nutritional value go down. anyone who hears how veal is produced and doesn't get angry and throw up is pathetic. also it take 16 pounds of grain for one pounds of meat in a world full of starving people. WHAT A WASTE |
wrote in message oups.com... A boycott of some of those places are also in order. for a civilization that calls itself advanced.. there are many deplorable practices going on. No kidding. They want Dean for head of the DNC. |
MnMikew wrote: wrote in message oups.com... A boycott of some of those places are also in order. for a civilization that calls itself advanced.. there are many deplorable practices going on. No kidding. They want Dean for head of the DNC. Heck, some of them even wanted Rev. Al for President. Around here we have a name for those folks... 'tards. dxAce Michigan USA |
Ummm Ummmm Good! I just now put a plate of Roast Beef in the oven to
heat up for supper. cuhulin |
|
wrote in message ups.com... you are very uninformed, the question is not to eat or not but to ABUSE or not. Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect. They are not a reputable organization because for every legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting fish for what they are. the way we treat animals for food is disgusting, and it not healthy for us, full of chemicals and abuse makes the nutritional value go down. anyone who hears how veal is produced and doesn't get angry and throw up is pathetic. Or a farmer. also it take 16 pounds of grain for one pounds of meat in a world full of starving people. WHAT A WASTE Please explain to me what you will do after you feed everyone, because there will be an incredible explosion of population and an incredible need for health care when that happens. I have no problem with the goal of feeding the world, but no one seems to be focusing on the problems that that will cause if that goal is achieved. --Mike L. |
birth control, free condoms for the planet
or sex every seven years |
Michael lawson wrote:
Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect. They are not a reputable organization because for every legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting fish for what they are. Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes to compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call them, that is the only factor that matters. If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there would be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did, we could not be hurt. You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but the concept of treating every other living thing with as much kindness and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to do, and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and for the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor ethical. Bruce Jensen |
And it's a well established fact that plants respond to light and
temperature. So they too appear have some sensory response akin to pain. Why should we be concerned about fish but not plants. Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life of a carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is torn off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate fate is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty picture for carrots is it... Pretty soon we won't be eating anything.... bpnjensen wrote: Michael lawson wrote: Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect. They are not a reputable organization because for every legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting fish for what they are. Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes to compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call them, that is the only factor that matters. If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there would be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did, we could not be hurt. You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but the concept of treating every other living thing with as much kindness and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to do, and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and for the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor ethical. Bruce Jensen |
, you've spent to much time out in California... you need to come
home! Ah, were it only the truth - once you've seen the light, the darkness no longer tastes as good. By the way, that Whopper I had yesterday sure was good. I may head to Mikky D's today for a tasty Big Mac (or two). Give your crackling arteries and 160/120 my best regards ;-) Bruce Jensen dxAce Michigan USA |
bpnjensen wrote: , you've spent to much time out in California... you need to come home! Ah, were it only the truth - once you've seen the light, the darkness no longer tastes as good. By the way, that Whopper I had yesterday sure was good. I may head to Mikky D's today for a tasty Big Mac (or two). Give your crackling arteries and 160/120 my best regards ;-) Just had it taken and it was nowhere near that high! dxAce Michigan USA |
And it's a well established fact that plants respond to light and
temperature. So they too appear have some sensory response akin to pain. Why should we be concerned about fish but not plants. We should be concerned about as much as we can. We still need to eat, so we simply do the best we can and eat to the highest level of compassion . Your comment on *akin to pain* is interesting, BUT.., evolutionarily, it would not be worthwhile or advantageous in any way for a plant to develop a "pain" sensor, since it cannot do anything to run or defend itself. My *guess* is that anything that gives discomfort akin to pain in plants is probably nonexistent. To say that response to light is like pain is a stretch - it is more like saying we humans prefer relative warmth to cold. Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life of a carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is torn off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate fate is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty picture for carrots is it... Very sweet and quaint, but see above. Pretty soon we won't be eating anything.... I will eat so that my life contributes the least to the pain and suffering of others. Simple as that. Bruce Jensen |
Actually many plants have evolved responses to dangerous situations.
Some close up or fold in response to cold and heat, some curl when cut, and many move in reaction to sunlight or darkness. Those are responses to stimuli that in some cases are akin to what we generalize as pain. So again, why are you concerned only about animals experiencing pain when it is clear that plant life responds to dangerous or painful situations too. I think you should exhibit the same level of compassion for the carrot that you have for the sheepshead. Don't you? bpnjensen wrote: And it's a well established fact that plants respond to light and temperature. So they too appear have some sensory response akin to pain. Why should we be concerned about fish but not plants. We should be concerned about as much as we can. We still need to eat, so we simply do the best we can and eat to the highest level of compassion . Your comment on *akin to pain* is interesting, BUT.., evolutionarily, it would not be worthwhile or advantageous in any way for a plant to develop a "pain" sensor, since it cannot do anything to run or defend itself. My *guess* is that anything that gives discomfort akin to pain in plants is probably nonexistent. To say that response to light is like pain is a stretch - it is more like saying we humans prefer relative warmth to cold. Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life of a carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is torn off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate fate is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty picture for carrots is it... Very sweet and quaint, but see above. Pretty soon we won't be eating anything.... I will eat so that my life contributes the least to the pain and suffering of others. Simple as that. Bruce Jensen |
"bpnjensen" wrote in message oups.com... Michael lawson wrote: Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect. They are not a reputable organization because for every legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting fish for what they are. Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes to compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call them, that is the only factor that matters. So do plants, but I don't see people advocating the stoppage of agriculture anytime soon. If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there would be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did, we could not be hurt. No, that would make the concept of rights more important, because we could not understand what we were doing. You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but the concept of treating every other living thing with as much kindness and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to do, and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and for the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor ethical. Ah, but PETA does not stop there, which is why I said what I said. Relying on PETA for data means that you are opening yourself up to criticism about the source, and allow your argument to be lumped in with the extreme, rather than the mean. I may not like sprawl very much myself, but I do not in any way, shape or form want to associate myself with the eco-terrorists (the Earth First! people, for instance) who will destroy property in the name of the environment. That only provides sympathy for the property owners, and in effect encourages the very thing that the eco-terrorists don't want. --Mike L. |
Actually many plants have evolved responses to dangerous situations.
Some close up or fold in response to cold and heat, some curl when cut, and many move in reaction to sunlight or darkness. Those are responses to stimuli that in some cases are akin to what we generalize as pain. An opinion. Maybe a good one, but an opinion nonetheless. Pain is not generalized - pain is pain. So again, why are you concerned only about animals experiencing pain when it is clear that plant life responds to dangerous or painful situations too. You misread me. I am concerned about all living things, down to microbes. I think you should exhibit the same level of compassion for the carrot that you have for the sheepshead. Don't you? As I said before, I will eat and live my life so as to avoid as much as possible causing grief to other living things. For now, and until I am shown something like proof (internet assertions do not fill this void), I am going to have to assume that animals have the most developed nervous systems and greatest potential for feeling pain...and that they will get first consideration. That represents the best information I have. All of life is a compromise...it is unavoidable. What we can avoid is doing any more damage than we must to survive. That is what I do when I choose not to harm animals. I also try to use products with minimal packaging, recycle as much as possible, work to preserve natural areas and give other living things the best shot I can. You can argue it any way you want - but when it comes down to it, I am acting on my conscience and the best information I have. As one who apparently requires not as much from yourself, you may wish to consider whether you have a leg to stand upon when lecturing someone else when he is trying to do what is morally right. Bruce Jensen |
Does that mean no more lawn mowing? I don't mind mowing my yard at all,I
like to mow my yard.No more Fishing? There are a lot of people on Earth whos very life depends on Fishing and eating Fish.I need to go to the Tobacco Town (I suppose in your mixed up opinion,No more Tobacco growing either?) discount tobacco store now for two six ounce cardboard cans of TOP cigarette Tobacco and then to the foodstore and decide on what kind of Animals I will have for supper tonight. cuhulin |
Barbecued Vulcans,,, I wonder how that would go over? I bought some
Trout and Chopped Steak at the foodstore this afternoon. cuhulin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com