How we would feel is utterly irrelevant, because the fact is that chickens cannot feel anything in the same capacity we can. They cannot feel oppressed, they cannot feel a lack of freedom. They cannot conceptualize respect, disrespect, slaughter or life. They don't understand death, and they can't miss dead relatives. They cannot form emotional bonds.
One of the things they can experience is pain. But the animals aren't tortured, and they aren't abused, by and large. Frankly, if you're going to bitch about slaughterhouses, get a @#%$ clue. There are places you'd prefer to ignore where human beings are treated with more cruelty and malice than you'd care to imagine. If you're going to bitch about something, bitch about that.
There are a great many injustices in this world. Slaughterhouses do not even make the list.
But it's not happening and it's his ingenuity, his intelligence and, essentially, his being a human being that prevents this from happening. If the chickens concocted these ideas in the same manner we did, they'd prolly rebel...but as Theren stated, they don't perceive this in the same manner we do.
Moral vegetarianism is stupid. There are far greater wrongs to right in the world. Not eating meat because you don't want the fuzzy bunnies to die just makes you an ignorant, self-gratifying putz.
Theren: The difference is between killing an animal for sport, and killing an animal for the benefit of the world (and, yes, society).
We already slaughter thousands of animals for meat, therefor the need for hunting (in the civilized world) is nonexistant - one can buy it from their local Walmart, for God's sake.
Thusly, hunting animals is (and always will be) a sport. It is not done solely for the ammusant of the hunter.
Whereas, labratory testing on animals is beneficial to our own society (and, in theor then, the world), hunting is not.
Therefor, while life is equal, there are neccessary evils done to mantain life. Hunting is not one of those neccessary evils. And our ability to think does not give us the right to chose who lives and who dies, regardless of what anyone may think. By that logic, we could kill Neanderthal if they were to exist again (since their abilities in relation to ours were, I believe, roughly around the level of a Chimp's).
Actually, on the note of killing animals, why are we legally to allowed to kill them only at certain times, which certain permits, etc.? It seems to me, either we can kill them or we can't...
Because unlike Kas, there are some people who do abuse this.
I've been reading many of your arguements Drayson and it appears to me that you assume to know the full intent, design, and every little flaw and purpose of every single law/regulation/activity ever written/done.
You presume to know what every single rule means and was intended by the designers at TRF, you presume to know why everyone hunts, and you presume that you can never be wrong.
But let me ask you this, what makes you so certain that when you live somewhere with an abundance of animals, and you are allowed to hunt them *for* food and to assist in keeping the population down, AND they taste better, why shouldn't you?
And what makes you believe you know Kas Katta's head inside and out that you know that he's only doing it for the joy of killing despite his claims to the opposite?
