Forgive the fact that the article I am responding to is old. However, I was looking into the legitimacy of there being a “Chicken Macerator,” a factory-purposed creation with the sole intent of instantly killing baby chickens, and found this article supporting its existence.
Before I unleash my wrath, and hopefully lower my raging blood pressure, the disclaimers:
1. My “Raw” articles contain a profuse amount of profanity, vulgarity, and often anger. They are not threats of any bodily harm if and when they seem overly aggressive, they are expressions of anger and knee-jerk reactions and nothing more. You are warned. Enjoy.
2. Despite what it may seem, I do not argue with people for Veganism or Vegetareanism, although I myself refrain from meat. I am NOT an Activist for it, nor, at this time, do I have plans to be one. If you want my opinion, or if you want to argue with me over the validity of my stances on it that is yours to do and I welcome it. But please know that as an individual and a blogger, I will never attack anyone as a meat eater. I attack what I see as poor arguments, nothing more.
Let it begin:
“”When you watch the video critically, and listen to the commentary, there’s a point that may be missed. The chicks do not suffer pain at all … If people want mass produced, cheap food, it’s never going to look pretty, but that doesn’t mean that the animals are suffering”
Was he fucking kidding? He had to be, right? I mean, this fucking asshole just wanted hits on his fucking piece of shit article, right? Write something that hits people’s heart strings: fluffy chicks being slaughtered in a modified fucking wood chipper cause I’m a fucking piece of shit that wants hits.
Fuck you. And no I’m not doing the fucking same thing, fuck you too.
Really, Mr. Pete Wedderburn of The Telegraph, you wanna make the argument that ” Oh, but the fluffy baby chickens don’t feel any pain. So, it’s worth it if we can can our fried KFC for cheap.” Really? Fuck you. Fuck your face.
“There is no big problem with this system from an animal welfare perspective.”
Fuck you. Baby chickens. Wood chipper. Fuck you.
” The methods used have been okayed by animal welfare groups such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the RSPCA.”
Oh. Okay. Point granted. Two well-respected organizations that no one gives two shits about says it’s “okay.” That means it’s okay cause I have no brain, no heart, and I just follow what big-money councils and organizations say. I also really love fried chicken and can’t give it up cause it’s so fucking tasty as fuck and I simply can’t live without having KFC in my life.
“If people want mass produced, cheap food, it’s never going to look pretty”
Ok, deep breath. In all honesty: granted.
I won’t be a stupid thoughtless bitch here, seriously, you are right. No sarcasm this time.
The sheer reality is that there are starving children and families on our planet. The reality is that mass produced meat will not look pretty, in all likelihood. You raise a good argument, and ultimately a good philosophical proposition:
Which is the greater evil: baby chicks instantly killed to reduce loss and thus increase production of chicken products, or starvation whilst understanding the slow, excruciating, painful process of malnutrition and hunger. Millions of people around the world suffer from hunger, and too many to think of die. What states do they die in? What filth and pain? Can I really, logically and reasonably, argue against ass-producing meat products IF it could lead to these people fed?
Of course, you are not making that argument (or perhaps you were?) but I am extrapolating from what I read. There is truth in your statement in its literal words. People will want cheap food, and it will not look pretty.
However, me, being the dreamer that I am, hopes for a world where people will realize that wants are sometimes not possible. Wants, are sometimes selfish. Wants and wishes are sometimes only fulfilled by great evils.
I am reminded of the story of the Monkey’s Paw…. but. I digress.
“, but that doesn’t mean that the animals are suffering.”
Jesus fucking Christ. So your argument is “It didn’t feel pain, therefore it is not wrong.” Surely, you see the fallacy of your argument. Surely, you are not that idiotic.
“I had a long discussion in the comments with Catrina, a committed vegan … Catrina’s attitude … it’s wrong to do anything to an animal that cannot legally or morally be done to a human. I ended up having to agree to disagree with Catrina.”
I… what? Let’s play this one out with some variables and hypotheticals.
Argument (A): It is wrong to do anything to an animal that cannot legally or morally be done to a human.
Argument (B): Who am I kidding, I don’t care what his argument is. I’m going to sum it up with it’s conclusion, “(A) is incorrect”.
1.) (a) It is wrong (legally or morally) to burn alive, torture, or otherwise methodically and intentionally cause pain to a human, (b) therefore it is wrong to do an animal.
Fact: (a) is true of our societal norms, and (b) current laws enforce this, and I know of few people who will argue otherwise.
2.) (a) It is wrong (legally or morally) to lie under oath to a human, (b) therefore it is wrong to do to an animal
Hm, let’s examine: (a) is true, (b) however… is half and half. As far as I know, society does not currently enforce by means of the legal system any oaths or promises made to an animal. So I will grant that one a false.
I’m in a pickle now. p is T, that has been established. However, inside both p and q is a V statement: legally (A) or morally (B). A has been granted F. If you have taken Logic 101 and aren’t totally and completely lost in this paragraph, then you can now see how my p –> q is hanging on (B) being T.
Does my philosophy reader’s brain hurt right now? Or is it just me because it’s 2am and I’m blogging after having a blood pressure spike from sheer rage?
I’ll summarize: basically, my second experiment ( 2.) ) being true is hanging on the statement “it is morally wrong to lie to an animal.”
This blog writing has accomplished the task of lowering my blood pressure, and bringing me back to a profanity-less ability to produce coherent and logical sentence by giving me the ability to, in the raw, vent my anger. Therefore, I shall bid adieu with an open topic of discussion:
Is it morally wrong to lie to an animal? If I say to my cat “I’ll get you food tomorrow” and I do not, is my lie (not the fact that I’m not feeding my cat) morally wrong? Why? Is it wrong because it is objectively wrong to utter non-truths? The creature, surely, does not understand so why would it be wrong? But… perhaps, surely it is wrong to lie in all instances?
A Penny for your thoughts?