This is the most popular news channel in the US?! It’s no wonder you're in decline. Quit eating your food from a bucket and read a fucking book!
You should prepare the way for your new overlords - the Chinese. While you’re on your knees grovelling to your imaginary friend Jebus or stuffing your fat face with deep dried butter or some other such shit, they are teaching their kids math and science.
And by the way, that "Red Eye" idiot is so obviously gay.
Is this serious? Do we actually live in a country that allows a group of repugnantly ignorant children to report their immature OPINIONS under the guise of intellectual discourse? For God's sake these fuckheads are sitting their munching on chicken! This is a fucking joke and I ashamed that I am the same species as these things. God save these fucking deluded children. And fuck Faux News.
Last I checked, Pamela Anderson is still rather attractive... The people that actually listen & take Fox "News" seriously just amazes me. They are just plain cold and callous..
Those "reporters" eating KFC are embarrassing, they are supposed to be professional..i mean they probably got the idea from assholes on youtube that do the same thing (but at least, they were original)
I seriously hope every single one of those dufuses is a chicken in their next life. Every single one of those unfunny, unoriginal dirtbags with the same recycled lame "LOOOK AT me im eating chicken during this PETA conversation meahahahahahhaha" omg you're such a loser.
I'm a vegetarian, go Fox. I agree animals should be treated ethically, but PETA protest in the worst possible ways. PETA is desperate to be heard and turn themselves into a big joke with their attempt. I could care less what people eat. I'll stick to my veggies, but that's just a preference. If people want to eat chicken, go for it, from what I remember it is delicious.
don't generalize like that. You know for a fact that that statement is true. You can't say who'se uglier or who'se more beautiful by who eats meat or doesn't. Also, skinny does not always equal healthy. Depends on the person's body. You can be bigger and still be healthier. Don't act as if everybody has the exact same body as yours.
should rename this video, because vs means two sides fighting, its just a group of douchebags ranting, its the truth, fuck these idiots. and BTW a conservative fights for ethical treatment of animals, because in the bible it says that everyone and everything have a reason and purpose, and it says to respect animals in the bible, thumb down me, because you are thumbing down god
Wow, you animal lovers are so sensitive. Greg Gutfeld is a political satirist, he just makes jokes. I think it is really funny when he offends overly sensitive and politically correct idiots like you.
Well I am not a vegan, I am a levitican, which is I live by what it says in the bible that I am allowed to eat. God also talks about peta in the bible and warns all who treat animals unethically, I dont eat any red meat or pork I only eat bird and fish, and there is nothing wrong with a person being gay either, the bible talks about gay sex being bad. and how can you mix loving animals with being gay BTW?
How can anyone mix the bible with peta is beyond me. Peta kills its share of animals, and they want full animal liberation, the banning of all animal products, and all medical research that needs animals to be halted which would terminate more then 90% of medical progress. I only hope that stupid people like yourself that try to mix modern day politics with the bible cease to exist, youre a burden to mankind.
Its interesting that you have such a preference for you own, as you seem to condemn ignoring the poor (which statistical speaking, you do except when bashing PETA). The reason Americans ignore the poor in other nations, is because we have a preference for people in our own country. So how can you argue for impartiality in one area (nationalism) and want partiality in other areas (like species). Either you think morality should be objective, or you don't, make up you mind.
I'm surprised FOX allows this classless bunch on the air. Sitting there laughing at the fact that billions of chickens are tortured is unconscionable. They earned more money teasing suffering animals than most families make in a month. Unproffessional is too good a word. They conducted themselves like cruel bullies. The situation with animals is actually not funny at all. They need to be fired immediately.
So you'd rather have billions of chickens eaten while they were alive? Not to remind you, but their grown for the sole purpose of human consumption. I don't want you eating Tofu.. and you don't want me eating Chicken.. the good thing is people aren't forced to do what other people want.
sounds like you are on the track to becoming a valuable member of society with your possible future degree in philosophy....
And hogs free in the wild?....they'll just revert to aggressive behavior and have to be killed anyway...
Also, what can you accomplish breaking into a "factory" farm? Besides being shot by the owner (fingers crossed) , your vandalism won't put a dent in the invincible industry of meat.
One more thing, learn to spell, oh mighty college student.
What did I miss spell? And not possible - I have one. Not a very high one but I still have a degree. And yes they will be aggressive and shot like all the other hogs that are alive, oh wait....
And are you saying philosophy isn't valuable? Is my work as a biophysicist (which is what my doctorate is in) also not valuable. And I accomplish freeing animals, each one of which is an individual. And the owner wouldn't shoot me, a security guard would you obviously have no idea what a factory farm is
I don't call myself an animal lover. I loved one animal, but its absurd to say I love all of them. Love is connection that grows over time, the brain system that controls love develops fully at about 4 years after knowing an individual, whether sexual or nonsexual love. And actually, if you can find the right environment, releasing in the wild would be better. As their population would decrease rapidly. We have 3X as many farm animals as humans, which is devastating to the environment.
ROFL awesome!!! If you truly don't accept that people are the superior beings and that the needs of humans outweigh the needs of animals then there is no possibility for logical discussion.
"The weird thing about making fried chicken, chickens die in the process."
Thank God for some sane media to call out nonsense for what it is.
Is this satire? I have never herd Fox be called sane. Their level of argument is type I got in high school and undergrad. In other words, they made jokes not arguments. How about this, since you are the one drawing a moral dividing line between humans and the insanely broad category of nonhumans, then why don't you defend why this is a logical place to draw the line.
Birds care for birds, it's natural for animals to care for like animals. Why shouldn't people care for their fellow people. And, no, it's not arbitrary. If animals were smart enough to develop weapons and establish governments... we'd perhaps consider their deaths on the order of the deaths of humans. Until then, why should we? Animals kill and eat other animals. Why should humans not do the same. And if u say we should be held to higher standard, u just admitted animals are lower beings!
Well, lower in problem solving ability of course. But this doesn't mean they should suffer by our hands. Sure its 'natural,' but this assumes that natural is always good. And we should care for our own - but I have always found the logic of utilitarianism most convincing (over, say, Kantian deontology or a general since of decency) so I consider all similar suffering significant, regardless of other factors: race, species, whether they 'deserve it'
And you ask why should we until they can develop governments and weapons. But I don't see why ability to build weapons or establish governments is important to considerations of suffering. But you say death - and I haven't said their deaths are as important. Right to life would entail considerations of hopes and self reflections - so it depends on the animal (and notice not the characteristic of species). But what I say is their pain matters just as much as similar pain in a human.
What I am against is arbitrary discrimination. So species membership is irrelevant to morality in my eyes. Other characteristics, I admit are important, but not species itself. Intelligence is a separate characteristic, not something that always follows species lines. Extreme example: humans can be born essential w/o a brain. Thus less intelligent than almost any animal.
You are arbitrarily discriminating against nonhumans based on species membership. Species is no more morally relavent then nose size or skin color. What morally relevant characteristic do animals not have that we do. Why should our moral sphere not continue to include other species. It has already expanded (thanks to liberals) to include blacks, women, gays, etc. And by morally relevant I mean relevant to considerations of pain, not life. Big difference between torturing and killing.
What species is relevant. Skin color,nose,hair, etc are all cosmetic ,but a different species is more than just the outside appearance. Out of laziness it should be reciprocation. If we aren't included in another species "moral sphere" then they shouldn't be included in ours.
Species is 'cosmetic' also. Its not a characteristic that can be defended as morally relevant. Intelligence - maybe to right to life. To pain? Definitely not. By the way plants don't make choices or have instincts. You are making the claim that our moral choices should be made based on laziness - I prefer reason/evidence to dictate my moral choices. Because I value truth, and if my beliefs are to be accurate representations of reality then they must be based in reason and evidence.
Plants do and there is proof of it. If you valued truth like you say you do then you would know this. Carnivore type plants are the best example of this, like I've said before. They have instincts, they also eat other species. Species is cosmetic? To a new age lunatic maybe. Is it pain if you don't remember? Or if you can't tell the difference between pleasure and pain? Your beliefs are based on theory mixed with a few nut jobs in the field. Yup, that's "reality".
Are you saying animals don't remember. I would like you to show me one ad hominem attack I made throughout this entire debate - I could show plenty of ones you made, which I have ignored to instead examine your arguments. To then say that I am rather the one resorting to ad hominem attacks is frankly quite absurd.
Of course its pain if you don't remember it. But I hope you are not implying animals don't remember. And don't be fooled by carnivore plants - they may look like they are acting on intelligence but they are not. It is just unconscious chemical reactions. No nervous system, no instincts or consciousness. If they don't have a nervous system, where exactly do you think their instincts are formed. It is not the center of the brain, as they don't have one.
Chemical reactions and electrical impulses are all we are as well. I would have guess you of all people would know this. But again, it isn't up for debate, you are wrong. And it's generally accepted that the instincts are completely genetic, similar to flat worm learning ,but much further on the scale. Your discriminating because plants are different.
the best way to convince people that dont have a heart for livestock animals is to show them what they are really eating. thats not a chicken thats a science experiment, thats pesticides, thats toxins in your body, that whats going to kill you if you dont make wise decisions on your diet.
instead of telling people not to eat meat. tell people to demand meat that has no junk in it, meat that was produced how nature intended it to be.
If the kids who joined PETA actually knew their whole agenda, I bet PETA would have a LOT less members...bet the majority of their members doesn't understand what "total animal liberation" means and how it would affect their ability to own pets...
You think peta doesn't want people to have pets? Yes peta says free all the pets! Let them run loose! ....and then die of fear or starvation.. Right. You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
Apparently you don't...the only "companion animals" PETA supports are domesticated animals such as cats and dogs. I own many reptiles, parrots, and have owned various other "exotic" pets in the past...go ask PETA how they feel about that. I have posted on their forums (PETA2) multiple times and most of them called me cruel and told me I should set them free where they belong and then they banned me for not sharing their ridiculous beliefs. Not once was I ever rude to any of the members either.
Well 'pet' implies domesticated animals that have to be taken care of. What you have a prisoners. They are 'interesting' to look at so you deny them their freedom. You don't need a parot or reptile, and they certainly don't need you. They are right to call you cruel. I am sure its not malicious cruelty - rather it is based in ignorance and prejudice.
You sir (or madam), are just another mindless, misinformed idiot. Does PETA feed this garbage to all their members? Captive breeding of reptiles has been shown to HELP the populations of various species...for instance, I keep crested geckos which were believed to be extinct around 10 years ago until they were recently re-discovered. Crested geckos are now more abundant than ever due to captive breeding and are now one of the most abundant and popular pet lizards currently on the market.
So its ok the make animals miserable if their population increases? You are confusing a species with sentient individuals. Why is higher population necessarily good? Increased population is only a good think if increasing net happiness - and well if the animals are not happy...
Right cuz three times the population of humans isn't a high enough population for animals. Sorry, can't kill myself - have factory farms to break into.
OOOOOH real tough, make sure it's at night, bring a weapon, wear dark clothes, shoes with common sole, carry false/no id, make no cell calls, don't brag later........
YOU ARE A F**KING TERRORIST !!
and a coward.
When you get busted maybe you'll get to bl*w Coronado!?!
I have a little private sanctuary, In addition there is Farm Sanctuary. If need be the pigs can survive in h the wild - if you can find a wild area...
And I am not a PETA member, I am a scientist with a background in philosophy (philosophy in undergrad) that realizes the arguments for not granting nonhumans equal and full moral status are fallacious.
Right, Mr. Know-it-all super-educated scientist. Your credentials mean nothing. You can still be stupid. Why does PETA care so much about animals when thousands of people die in other countries because they lack the most basic amenities? Answer that. Is a chicken's life more valuable than a child's?
Yea thousands.... actually there is roughly 1 billion people below the international poverty line and about half the worlds population is living on less then $2 a day. Obviously you are incredibly ignorant about the state global poverty by saying "thousands."
I give 20 percent of my income to causes to help these people, what have you done? Eat meat? I fail to see how that helps. In fact, if you knew anything at all about modern farming, you would know that factory farming is about 1/6th (this number varies depending on the animal) as efficient as growing food directly.
Thus, if we didn't use factory farming and ate the food we fed to cows and other animals directly (please don't tell me they eat different food then humans, its annoying how many stupid people say this, so just look up their diets) we have a much greater surplus of food, you know, to help these children you are so concerned about. So concerned that you apparently thought there were "thousands" in poverty.
This means if we got rid of farming and ate the food directly (and don't tell me they eat different food, its annoying how many people think this, so just look up the diet) we have a much greater surplus of food to help the poor children. You know, the "thousands" of children without basic necessities.
In addition, global warming (to which factory farming is the greatest contributor) is going to billions of people. Like people in Bangladesh, where millions will surely die of flooding. I guess you watch foxnews, so you probably think global warming is a myth. Right? Because you and Foxnews knows more then the IPCC, the work of 122 authors and 515 contributing authors, and which was reviewed by 337 experts.
Ok in Morlock27 we have a perfect example of a guy lieing to make his point ... he says farming was the greatest contributor to global warming ... wrong , go read the studies again ( If you had really read a study on global warming before ... i dont think so ) the first contributor is the burning of fossil fuel followed by land-use change , your ''farming'' point isnt even on the top 5 of global warming contributors haha ... HYPOCRITE ( just like PETA) !!!
Lol, ill assume you don't know what the word hypocrite means, and ill let that one go Besides it amused me too much for me to take offense to it. Anyways, your wrong, sry, I would like to know what studies your reading- were they done by fox? lol Read the United Nations 2006 report Livestocks Long Shadow. Or just google it, either way, several universities confirmed it. You should learn to google, it will help cure ignorance emanating from the redneck states, which i assume your from.
OooooH! You calling me a hypocrite is still completely unrelated to your "argument," but I think I understand why your calling Peta a hypocritical organization. Its about them euthanizing animals right? I see, well I guess you are most likely a bible thumping redneck, and believe in the "sanctity of life." Again google can help you, just type in the word "utilitarian." Typing in "logic 101" might help you with the redneck thing, or the religion thing.
haha look how hypocrite you are ... first I dont believe in God, Allah, Budha or anything haha ... Im not a redneck, I study biology ... but about religion what you have to say haha ? PETA is your god ... In Iraq when a guy is naive and dumb enough they told him to make a suicidal bomb attack for Allah... here in America when someone is dumb enough PETA tell him to go and protest for this or that and without asking question you go haha ... hypocrite ?
You study biology? You don't even know how to use proper grammar, and I am supposed to believe you are not a redneck? Well, in any case, I still think you might not know what the word hypocrite means, or maybe your just failing miserably at arguing your point. I shall give you the most generous assumption, and saying you just don't know how to argue or what an unsubstantiated claim is.
There is no parallel between PETA and religion. Religion promotes faith, which is belief without evidence. Peta promotes nothing of the sort, in fact they spend much of their efforts spreading info (even if perhaps its not always the most accurate info). They are utilitarians, which is in quite opposition of the idea of commandments. Peta is just an organization for people with common goals to organize. It is not worshiped, even if you can claim some members are not highly reflective people.
In any case, I am not a member. Unfortunately when there is any group like peta which challenges current ethics people respond by hating it, and form groups devoted to simply hatred of peta (hate of course being an emotion, and thus betrays reason). This is the preferred response over reflecting on ones own behavior. Its an evolved defense mechanism, human brains prefer to maintain a consistent self representation.
Thus, when someone (or a group) accuses someone of being unethical, hatred is the natural response, for surely if they are immoral or stupid, then they are wrong and you are in the right. Self-image is maintained. Many studies have been done on this emotion (ironically-and sadly-originally on animals) that confirms this. Just notice next time someone insults you. You don't think about whether it is a valid accusation. You feel hatred of them.
So I prefer to be part of an organization that doesnt exclude so many people, like Farm Sanctuary. Which, according to polls, the majority approve of (including meat eaters), and no one (except some lobbyists) is "anti- Farm Sanctuary," in contrast to the polls that show that the great number of people who are "anti-peta." Perhaps you should actually point to the morally relavent difference between humans and animals. All philosophers in history have failed this task. I would to see you try it.
humm ... im no philosopehr but why do you put human and animal on a separate basis? we human are as animal as a weasel. Did you forget where we came from? we are from the same cell that ended in what are all the animals on the planet today. Go watch Animal planet , you will see lion killing zebras, wolves killing elks,etc a human killing a moose for food is the same thing haha ? cause you have a car makes you too intelligent to hunt your food ? answer : no you are still an animal, just smarter !
I am a biophysicist (with a bs in philosophy, didn't continue with it after undergrad, idk if tht makes me a philosopher or not....), I am well aware of our evolutionary origins. I do prefer the term "nonhuman animal" rather than "animal". A natural consequence of evolution is that we shouldn't separate us morally from animals, we are not partially divine beings as Christianity suggests, just primates. You are exactly right.
Once this is admitted, we should treat nonhumans the same as we treat humans (not specifically, but in accordance with their interests, which is in fact the only real basis for "equality" for humans in our social conventions). It is strange tht you recognize our relationship with nonhumans, yet think some how that this means we can remove them from our moral community. Most arbitrary discrimination is rooted in some morally irrelevant characteristic (like race, nose size, species).
Thus I am confused with how you can defend eating and torturing nonhumans, when you admit that there is no relevant difference between us. I hardly see how the fact that some animals eat other animals (ironically for your argument, usually not the ones we eat: cows, sheep, etc.) means that we should also. Humans ability to use reason makes us able to see suffering and recognize it as such, thus giving us a reason (given our evolved altruistic intuitions) to try to stop suffering.
If your point is the ol' "its natural" argument for eating meat, then you should realize some fallacies in the argument and unfounded assumptions. 1. you assume that modern factory farming is natural. 2. you assume that because something is natural it is right. 3. Normative claims can't directly come from facts. (although certain facts can influence how you behave to reach certain ends, like if your end is related to ethics).
what are you talking about ? I'm not for fur farm im for wild fur trapping haha. just tell me : if you had fleas will you let them bite you and lay eggs on/in you ? or you will buy that shampoo to kill them ? I hope you like fleas cause if you admit you would kill them you are a murderer as bloody as me the bad evil hunter ! I kill a moose for food and you tell me its bad, what about you killing fleas for your comfort ? will you kill thousand of them for YOUR comfort ?
Idk for sure what it means that "your not for fur farm." I never mentioned fur, just meat, so I am not sure how you can say "what are you talking about," as I didn't talk about fur. In any case you entirely ignored everything I said. But I will still address you question/point I guess. You make several mistakes. One is that you seem to equate the minor interest of food preference (oh no vegans say you should eat a vegie burger instead of a hamburger, how horrible!) with ..(continued next post)
a major interest in not having a disease, like fleas. (not that im sure how i would get fleas, im not living in a third world country...). Your other mistake is assuming that fleas have a nervous system anything like a cow or other mammal. If you talk to any professor of comparative neuroscience (which I have, as my specialization within biophysics is neuroscience) the brain system for perceiving pain is virtually identical between higher animals (humans, cows, sheep etc).
In fact, the brain system that processes pain was found in animals (ironically, and unfortunately, by animal testing) as was many other primitive brain systems (anything part of the limbic system, which is evolutionarily primitive) like emotions, such as love (the brain system for love was discovered in a rodent, which is identical in humans). This makes sense as pain serves a very basic evolutionary purpose, and would be expected to be in even primitive animals.
Fleas on the other hand, don't have a nervous system anything like mammals or even reptiles, so the general reason (whether its a good reason or not, not to get into epistemology) for thinking other beings (human or nonhuman) feel pain (behavior, similar brain systems) is nonexistent in insects. They don't even have a limbic brain (also called "reptilian brain"). So to say killing them, and killing is not my main concern anyway, its suffering, is absurd.
first you dont need to live in a poor country or to be dirty to have fleas ... Ok so if killing an insect that dont feel pain is all right, killing an animal in a fast and with minimal or no pain at all is also right ? Im not for animal abuse, but trapping with certified humane trap that breaks the back bone and suffocate or shooting a moose in the vital organs with an instant death is ok if we refer to what you just said ... try to resume your point cause youre writtin too much unecessary shit
Well no, its necessary, I guess you just don't see why, I try to cover all obvious philosophical objections to what I say, I guess you dont notice them tho and think its irrelevant. Anyways, yes in a sense, killing instantly without pain or terror (not tht any of the methods you mention fit this criteria) then i would have much less problem with it. But insects prolly aren't conscious, animals with a cerebral cortex are, so killing is more serious when it comes to animals then it is with insects
I can't explain to you why the cerebral cortex and why consciousness is a morally relevant property, and why levels of consciousness (beyond the self-recognizing level) are relevant to life/death and not suffering, if you want. But you said you don't want anything unnecessary, so I will refrain from explaining if you want.
Furthermore, global warming is likely to kill billions; like in Bangladesh, where millions will surely die of flooding. And in case you don't know, factory farming creates as much or greater pollution then all transportation combined.
But you, who by your "Mr. Know-it-all super-educated scientist" statement I can infer that you have no credential, watch fox, and probably think that global warming is a myth. I mean you obviously know more than the IPCC, which as you don't know, is an overwhelming consensus by the scientific community that global warming is fact. It had 122 authors, 515 contributing authors, and was reviewed by 337 experts. But who are scientists to report on scientific data, right?
Sorry about the repeated post, it gave me an error and didn't post, so a wrote a new one, then the old post appeared after a few. Anyway, by saying this about animals, you are not taking the interests of animals seriously. You are also failing to recognize a difference btwn suffering and death, the former of which i am more concerned with.
This video gave me a much-needed laugh after a stressful day. There are so many more pressing needs in this world besides that of poultry. PETA can rot, for all I care.
This is the dumbest thing to protest i have ever seen. With all the crazy shit in the world today, PETA protests a chicken restaurant for, of all things, killing chickens in a way the chicken might not like.
You can kill a chicken right in front of other chickens and they dont run away. Thats because chickens dont think with rational thought. The chicken dosent care how its going to die bc it dosnt know its going to die until its dead.
Chickens do have an interest in not suffering, as the ability to suffer in non related to intelligence (rationality stems from the cerebral cortex - pain isn't related to this center of the brain in a relevant manner). In fact, they obviously care how they are raised - they have done studies on chickens to show they would rather starve to death in an open field then enter a battery cage where there is food. They are terrified of battery cages.
I don't how you know its the same phenomenon - chickens know there is always a threat of a predator - and yet they continue to eat in open fields. They would rather starve to death than go in a battery cage - this is obviously an egregious form of emotional trauma from experiences in battery cages. In any case, if you are saying they consider a cage as dangerous as a predator, than they are still amazingly afraid of a cage.
My friend had a chicken farm and he would keep one chicken on each side of his arm tied to a rope with food by the edge of the ropes reach, if the chicken didn't try to go eat then he knew a coyote was close by. Worked like a charm.
I don't really get the point about the ropes - but anyway this would still mean that a cage is as threatening to a chicken as a predator. This means that the chicken was traumatized from its experience in a battery cage.
He didn't want to let his chickens get away and wanted to know an estimate on how close the predators had gotten, his brother did the same with his lambs. He had cages and even his newborn chics didn't like the cages.
I would be surprised if they did - animals don't like cages. Perhaps we should respect their interests and stop caging them for food. If the cages are smaller - like battery cages - the worse it is for them. And because of the inherent inefficiency of factory farming in terms of food production, it is unethical to be factory farming when there is one billion humans in absolute poverty. The food we feed the animals could be fed directly to humans. Not to mention the environmental impact.
......No, people cannot eat what is fed to the animals mass produced, unless you wanted to kill those in poverty. The impact on nature means nothing if the next ice age kills us all and the land gets to start over fresh. Respect the interests on an animal with no greater understanding of his own interests than an infant. Sure, that makes sense.
Yes they can. Soybeans - one major food fed to animals can be eaten by humans. So can most of the other grains fed to animals. Are you saying you should only respect the interests of something if they are able to reflect on their own interests. So by your logic if a baby can't reflect on its interest in not being burned alive, it would be ok to burn it alive.
A baby has the possibility to reflect on its own interests in time. If you could teach a chicken to do so, then it would fight for its rights. No, most of the grain used to feed animals can't be digested. The percentage of farms that use soybeans could feed people, yes, but it isn't a lot at all. I knew one farmer who used soybeans and that was just because he was paid a lot more to do so.
A chicken would fight against a threat, but it obviously doesn't stand a chance against a human. Thats why we have to fight for it instead. I don't understand why it is necessary to be able to reflect on ones interests for someone else to respect those interests.
Chickens don't stand a chance against a coyote either. It's interest is not to be food. It sucks for them that are our food and the long long list of animals that eat them. You can respect the interests all you want ,but it won't change that it is lower on the food chain and will be eaten
The fact that other animals will eat the chickens does not justify us eating them - but the killing isn't the main problem anyway, its the torturous lives. In addition, we don't need to eat meat, other animals do.
Other animals don't need to eat meat if we interfere. We as people are designed to eat meat and plants. We can use our superior intelligence to get around eating meat and if we can do it for ourselves then we can make the other animals do it too.
No not really, on all accounts. Humans can eat meat - but its very hard on our digestive system, we never fully evolved to eat meat as well as other omnivores. And how do u plan on getting other animals to not eat meat? Humans can naturally make all amino acids, other animals can't. So we would have to synthesize all the necessary amino acids - we would have to supplement the food of all animals. The only other possibility would be to genetically engineer all the other animals.
Humans were designed to eat meat, so you are wrong. The variety of vegetables that people would have to eat on a daily basis to make up for meat, first of all is a lot and secondly they all don't grow in the same area requiring intervention. People aren't designed to eat mostly meat ,but it is part of the basic diet designed to be eaten by people.
No, sorry, you need to do some more research. Humans are barely able to eat meat - we get away with as well as we do by manipulating it with technology (ie cooking it). It very hard to digest cooked eat - and even harder to digest uncooked. Why do u think it stays in your system 84 hours and causes colon cancer. Cuz we didn't evolve to eat it as well as animals have.
Right - ever read something like runners world - the best diet is vegetables and fruits and whole grains. Heavy on the vegies. Im not a pro - but im a competitive runner. So meet me on the race track and well see who wins. And by the way before believing the food pyramid, look up who sponsors it. Its the USDA - and guess who supports the USDA - meat industry. Most doctors think meat should be in the 'use sparingly' section. Do some research on it - cuz obviously you wouldn't take it from me.
Your ignorant of sports. A vegan diet is good for RUNNERS. Your stupid claims about Danzig prove your ignorance on the matter. During my training camps I have my meals tailored to my workouts for the max benefit. A vegan diet is good for building stamina and endurance, it fails everywhere else. Danzigs losses are all to guys who were less technical and without power. He gets beat down otherwise.
I never claimed to be knowledgeable about sports - im runner. Thats what I know. I couldn't tell one thing about boxing or football or anything else. But being heavy on muscle isn't necessarily healthy (admittedly running ultramarathons probably aren't either.) But health isn't really my concern - because you can be plenty healthy on a vegan diet and so eating meat isn't a necessity.
You listed athletes that have vegan diets opening you up to your ignorance of sports. Shouldn't have used the example. You can be healthy on a meat heavy diet or a vegan diet sure, about the same actually ,but a vegan diet is something no athlete that needs more than one ability to win will do. You can't be successful on a vegan diet in combat sports. Eating meat IS a needed to peform better and no trainer I know, except danzig, would endorse it. Meat enhances your performance over vegan diets.
But you have failed to address my argument, perhaps we both have been caught up in minutia instead of each others main argument. I think it should be intuitively clear that intelligence is not required to feel pain, and this is actually fact. Thus intelligence is quite a silly moral dividing line, when considering pain. Just pain, right to life is a different story. Hopes and family would then be considerations.
Pain can't be a factor is pain isn't universally understood as the same feeling by all. Certain animals can't distinguish between pain,pleasure,fear etc so it can't apply to them. Also there is the case of sepia, which does occur in humans ,but more commonly in animals. This also makes pain not a universally acceptable.
They're wack as heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell
halifaxx55 2 months ago
"liberal causes" WTF are you talking about???!?! there are many vegan republicans!
halifaxx55 2 months ago
what a bunch of idiots trying to look smart lol
KymcoScooters 3 months ago
This is the most popular news channel in the US?! It’s no wonder you're in decline. Quit eating your food from a bucket and read a fucking book!
You should prepare the way for your new overlords - the Chinese. While you’re on your knees grovelling to your imaginary friend Jebus or stuffing your fat face with deep dried butter or some other such shit, they are teaching their kids math and science.
And by the way, that "Red Eye" idiot is so obviously gay.
acamchh 5 months ago
do you know whats amusing about the PETA people are ugly?
cholestorol blocks all blood flow points
that includes to the penis
on average Vegans have larger genitalia than their counter parts :P
1Grinspoon 7 months ago
@1Grinspoon haha wow that's fucking stupid and wrong i don't even know what to say.
thecico12345 1 month ago
....did he just say that preventing rapid population growth is backward thinking?
2boss5 8 months ago
When did the radical exception become the norm?
MistrusEvi 1 year ago
Is this serious? Do we actually live in a country that allows a group of repugnantly ignorant children to report their immature OPINIONS under the guise of intellectual discourse? For God's sake these fuckheads are sitting their munching on chicken! This is a fucking joke and I ashamed that I am the same species as these things. God save these fucking deluded children. And fuck Faux News.
zooland12 1 year ago
Comment removed
zooland12 1 year ago
Love it. At least they have the balls to say it how it is and not be afraid to be hunted down by PETA and killed.
KatyClaret 1 year ago
Last I checked, Pamela Anderson is still rather attractive... The people that actually listen & take Fox "News" seriously just amazes me. They are just plain cold and callous..
RockYourHealth 1 year ago
What's wrong with them? PeTA people are ugly?? Uhmm wtf?! Grow the fuck up!!
LiveLaughLoveLife386 1 year ago
fox are the embodiment of american ignorance
BuddhaStarr 1 year ago 4
Fox is just as bad and idiotic as PETA.
127gggwtf 1 year ago
Those chicks really need to try a good piece of meat. And I have a juicy plumped one for them.
1xk1 1 year ago
i hate fox news. Couple of jerks. sayin peta people are ugly. Grow up.
mundkinder1 1 year ago
Did anyone notice that the Peta chicks were wearing fur boots.
HessenDragoon 1 year ago
I love how FOX makes liberals seem like garbage which they are.
wildcatsrock333 1 year ago
I have never liked fox news, but wow... this definitely made me laugh :) then again, I'm biased and hate Peta.
ensetsu 1 year ago
Group of morons. I don't side with Peta either but these people are also really lame.
cutesmile8611 1 year ago 2
hahaha i hate fox news but i gotta go with them on this one, eating kfc, hahahaha
mana2432 1 year ago
What does anyone expect from fox, perhaps news? Nope, not from fox.
truth2748 1 year ago 2
peta is embarrassing
VeganJessica 1 year ago
Those "reporters" eating KFC are embarrassing, they are supposed to be professional..i mean they probably got the idea from assholes on youtube that do the same thing (but at least, they were original)
paulcwy 1 year ago
This is a morning show that is meant to be opinionated. Everything in your info is completely ridiculous...
Would never take anything over FOX. The only news station that sticks to the facts these days. ;)
Also I agreed with everything these commentators said, even if it isn't news (which it is not meant to be).
TrojanManUSC 1 year ago
I seriously hope every single one of those dufuses is a chicken in their next life. Every single one of those unfunny, unoriginal dirtbags with the same recycled lame "LOOOK AT me im eating chicken during this PETA conversation meahahahahahhaha" omg you're such a loser.
melissagalianos 2 years ago 3
next life lol did you know peta killed 80 some percent of the animals they took in
evanwilson100 2 years ago
Greg Gutfeld is gay ...
clickswitchh 2 years ago
I'm a vegetarian, go Fox. I agree animals should be treated ethically, but PETA protest in the worst possible ways. PETA is desperate to be heard and turn themselves into a big joke with their attempt. I could care less what people eat. I'll stick to my veggies, but that's just a preference. If people want to eat chicken, go for it, from what I remember it is delicious.
reignofrock 2 years ago
I guarantee if you went to a meeting of average meat-eaters, they'd be uglier because vegetarians are skinnier and healthier
elizawyo 2 years ago
don't generalize like that. You know for a fact that that statement is true. You can't say who'se uglier or who'se more beautiful by who eats meat or doesn't. Also, skinny does not always equal healthy. Depends on the person's body. You can be bigger and still be healthier. Don't act as if everybody has the exact same body as yours.
uirukun 2 years ago 2
should rename this video, because vs means two sides fighting, its just a group of douchebags ranting, its the truth, fuck these idiots. and BTW a conservative fights for ethical treatment of animals, because in the bible it says that everyone and everything have a reason and purpose, and it says to respect animals in the bible, thumb down me, because you are thumbing down god
Tomthestarhartnell 2 years ago
this video is disgusting!
they are just hating on others!
ZosimusDomoKitty 2 years ago
nice job fox
Tyha2 2 years ago
douchebag
Tomthestarhartnell 2 years ago
This is such bull they are just hating on PETA peoriod. And by the way some of the best women are in peta
wareagl22 2 years ago
wtf!?!?!? they had a guy just waiting there to come out and play that ridiculous song?
andrewl781 2 years ago
Wow, you animal lovers are so sensitive. Greg Gutfeld is a political satirist, he just makes jokes. I think it is really funny when he offends overly sensitive and politically correct idiots like you.
BAFAphenom 2 years ago
These fox people couldn't produce a proper argument if their life depended on it.
frufrodig 2 years ago 2
They don't need an argument to attack peta, peta makes themselves look bad.
zetsway5000 2 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
just like you? of cource dumbass
Tomthestarhartnell 2 years ago
Lol peta supporter. Whats the worst part about being a vegan? Telling your parents you're gay!
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Well I am not a vegan, I am a levitican, which is I live by what it says in the bible that I am allowed to eat. God also talks about peta in the bible and warns all who treat animals unethically, I dont eat any red meat or pork I only eat bird and fish, and there is nothing wrong with a person being gay either, the bible talks about gay sex being bad. and how can you mix loving animals with being gay BTW?
Tomthestarhartnell 2 years ago
How can anyone mix the bible with peta is beyond me. Peta kills its share of animals, and they want full animal liberation, the banning of all animal products, and all medical research that needs animals to be halted which would terminate more then 90% of medical progress. I only hope that stupid people like yourself that try to mix modern day politics with the bible cease to exist, youre a burden to mankind.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
LOL. Fox news is nothing but christian straight boy bullshit.
FUCKYOUFOX.
ieatbrainss 2 years ago
ugh these fox guys are a buncha biased douches and turds.
softshock9 2 years ago
At least they admit their bias.
HerrSchenkel 2 years ago
The guy on the left is a cock.
michaelcranwellDI 2 years ago
You are a bunch of twats!
79luke 2 years ago
Don't you guys hate those people who boast about their education and credentials whenever they can, as if they were better than everybody else?
343spork 2 years ago 2
Its interesting that you have such a preference for you own, as you seem to condemn ignoring the poor (which statistical speaking, you do except when bashing PETA). The reason Americans ignore the poor in other nations, is because we have a preference for people in our own country. So how can you argue for impartiality in one area (nationalism) and want partiality in other areas (like species). Either you think morality should be objective, or you don't, make up you mind.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Haha, this is great. If you're pissed about it go burn down Fox for using an animal's name to title their network.
xwhereswalleyx 2 years ago 2
Right-winged scum bags!
studywar 2 years ago
I'm surprised FOX allows this classless bunch on the air. Sitting there laughing at the fact that billions of chickens are tortured is unconscionable. They earned more money teasing suffering animals than most families make in a month. Unproffessional is too good a word. They conducted themselves like cruel bullies. The situation with animals is actually not funny at all. They need to be fired immediately.
melissagalianos 2 years ago
So you'd rather have billions of chickens eaten while they were alive? Not to remind you, but their grown for the sole purpose of human consumption. I don't want you eating Tofu.. and you don't want me eating Chicken.. the good thing is people aren't forced to do what other people want.
Vynjira 2 years ago
Comment removed
melissagalianos 2 years ago
Comment removed
melissagalianos 2 years ago
Comment removed
melissagalianos 2 years ago
go fox news right on
dra0gon1 2 years ago
Incredibly bias indeed, but PETA does suck.
MetalGearFool 2 years ago 7
Wow, morlock,
sounds like you are on the track to becoming a valuable member of society with your possible future degree in philosophy....
And hogs free in the wild?....they'll just revert to aggressive behavior and have to be killed anyway...
Also, what can you accomplish breaking into a "factory" farm? Besides being shot by the owner (fingers crossed) , your vandalism won't put a dent in the invincible industry of meat.
One more thing, learn to spell, oh mighty college student.
bighoops57 2 years ago
What did I miss spell? And not possible - I have one. Not a very high one but I still have a degree. And yes they will be aggressive and shot like all the other hogs that are alive, oh wait....
And are you saying philosophy isn't valuable? Is my work as a biophysicist (which is what my doctorate is in) also not valuable. And I accomplish freeing animals, each one of which is an individual. And the owner wouldn't shoot me, a security guard would you obviously have no idea what a factory farm is
Morlock27 2 years ago
u cant say ur an animal lover if u release hogs into the wild because they devestate the environment jackass
blackeye240 2 years ago
I don't call myself an animal lover. I loved one animal, but its absurd to say I love all of them. Love is connection that grows over time, the brain system that controls love develops fully at about 4 years after knowing an individual, whether sexual or nonsexual love. And actually, if you can find the right environment, releasing in the wild would be better. As their population would decrease rapidly. We have 3X as many farm animals as humans, which is devastating to the environment.
Morlock27 2 years ago
releasing domestic animals in the wild is never better thats why theres only been two or three successful introductions of species
the animals either die or devastate the environment period so saying otherwise is moronic
blackeye240 2 years ago
Sorry, but that reintroduction. There are already wild hogs.
Morlock27 2 years ago
i know and theyre like a cancer for the environment so why would u even think about releasing more?
blackeye240 2 years ago
FOX Wins!!!!
UndercoverBr0tha 2 years ago
The TRUTH hurts!!!!
Suck it up PETArds !!!
StopLiesSeeTruth 2 years ago
go fox and friends good job
Casey2345678 2 years ago
peta supporters are IDIOTS we have the right to keep what we want!!!!!!!! get a life ASSHOLES!!!!!! peta SUCKS & ARE CRAZY NUTS!!!!!!!!
GREGORYJHALL 2 years ago
Good argument.....
Morlock27 2 years ago
KFC ROCKS!!!
screech519 2 years ago
ROFL awesome!!! If you truly don't accept that people are the superior beings and that the needs of humans outweigh the needs of animals then there is no possibility for logical discussion.
"The weird thing about making fried chicken, chickens die in the process."
Thank God for some sane media to call out nonsense for what it is.
netster007z 2 years ago
Is this satire? I have never herd Fox be called sane. Their level of argument is type I got in high school and undergrad. In other words, they made jokes not arguments. How about this, since you are the one drawing a moral dividing line between humans and the insanely broad category of nonhumans, then why don't you defend why this is a logical place to draw the line.
Morlock27 2 years ago
I would consider it a logical place to draw the line since humans would be on one side and everything else on the other. Hmmm, yup that's why.
Fuunken 2 years ago
That is convenience, not logic.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Birds care for birds, it's natural for animals to care for like animals. Why shouldn't people care for their fellow people. And, no, it's not arbitrary. If animals were smart enough to develop weapons and establish governments... we'd perhaps consider their deaths on the order of the deaths of humans. Until then, why should we? Animals kill and eat other animals. Why should humans not do the same. And if u say we should be held to higher standard, u just admitted animals are lower beings!
netster007z 2 years ago
Well, lower in problem solving ability of course. But this doesn't mean they should suffer by our hands. Sure its 'natural,' but this assumes that natural is always good. And we should care for our own - but I have always found the logic of utilitarianism most convincing (over, say, Kantian deontology or a general since of decency) so I consider all similar suffering significant, regardless of other factors: race, species, whether they 'deserve it'
Morlock27 2 years ago
And you ask why should we until they can develop governments and weapons. But I don't see why ability to build weapons or establish governments is important to considerations of suffering. But you say death - and I haven't said their deaths are as important. Right to life would entail considerations of hopes and self reflections - so it depends on the animal (and notice not the characteristic of species). But what I say is their pain matters just as much as similar pain in a human.
Morlock27 2 years ago
What I am against is arbitrary discrimination. So species membership is irrelevant to morality in my eyes. Other characteristics, I admit are important, but not species itself. Intelligence is a separate characteristic, not something that always follows species lines. Extreme example: humans can be born essential w/o a brain. Thus less intelligent than almost any animal.
Morlock27 2 years ago
You are arbitrarily discriminating against nonhumans based on species membership. Species is no more morally relavent then nose size or skin color. What morally relevant characteristic do animals not have that we do. Why should our moral sphere not continue to include other species. It has already expanded (thanks to liberals) to include blacks, women, gays, etc. And by morally relevant I mean relevant to considerations of pain, not life. Big difference between torturing and killing.
Morlock27 2 years ago
What species is relevant. Skin color,nose,hair, etc are all cosmetic ,but a different species is more than just the outside appearance. Out of laziness it should be reciprocation. If we aren't included in another species "moral sphere" then they shouldn't be included in ours.
Fuunken 2 years ago
Species is 'cosmetic' also. Its not a characteristic that can be defended as morally relevant. Intelligence - maybe to right to life. To pain? Definitely not. By the way plants don't make choices or have instincts. You are making the claim that our moral choices should be made based on laziness - I prefer reason/evidence to dictate my moral choices. Because I value truth, and if my beliefs are to be accurate representations of reality then they must be based in reason and evidence.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Plants do and there is proof of it. If you valued truth like you say you do then you would know this. Carnivore type plants are the best example of this, like I've said before. They have instincts, they also eat other species. Species is cosmetic? To a new age lunatic maybe. Is it pain if you don't remember? Or if you can't tell the difference between pleasure and pain? Your beliefs are based on theory mixed with a few nut jobs in the field. Yup, that's "reality".
Fuunken 2 years ago
Are you saying animals don't remember. I would like you to show me one ad hominem attack I made throughout this entire debate - I could show plenty of ones you made, which I have ignored to instead examine your arguments. To then say that I am rather the one resorting to ad hominem attacks is frankly quite absurd.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Of course its pain if you don't remember it. But I hope you are not implying animals don't remember. And don't be fooled by carnivore plants - they may look like they are acting on intelligence but they are not. It is just unconscious chemical reactions. No nervous system, no instincts or consciousness. If they don't have a nervous system, where exactly do you think their instincts are formed. It is not the center of the brain, as they don't have one.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Chemical reactions and electrical impulses are all we are as well. I would have guess you of all people would know this. But again, it isn't up for debate, you are wrong. And it's generally accepted that the instincts are completely genetic, similar to flat worm learning ,but much further on the scale. Your discriminating because plants are different.
Fuunken 2 years ago
right about now seems like a great time to slit my wrists with a toenail clipper..
gingergenocide77 2 years ago
fox news is the best news channel
PLASMAVITY 2 years ago
peta going the green approach is a great idea.
the best way to convince people that dont have a heart for livestock animals is to show them what they are really eating. thats not a chicken thats a science experiment, thats pesticides, thats toxins in your body, that whats going to kill you if you dont make wise decisions on your diet.
instead of telling people not to eat meat. tell people to demand meat that has no junk in it, meat that was produced how nature intended it to be.
colorsthemind 2 years ago
Wow these guys are quite ugly. and for the record PETA members and vegetarians are a lot better looking than you meat eating pigs
erinfinn 2 years ago
ur stupid
bughaters 2 years ago
wow what a brilliant come back. Try laying the meat and you might come up with something a bit smarter....
erinfinn 2 years ago
i laid the meat in your mom
bughaters 2 years ago
even more brillaint and mature. honestly i don't understand how they kill pigs who are so smart and people like you are alive.
erinfinn 2 years ago
she said it was the biggest piece of meat she's ever had! she almost couldn't take it
bughaters 2 years ago
lol ur moms a vegan whore
BigSlimJimmy 2 years ago
eat meat and and mabye you could get in a fight in real life with a "meathead" in real life
BigSlimJimmy 2 years ago
If the kids who joined PETA actually knew their whole agenda, I bet PETA would have a LOT less members...bet the majority of their members doesn't understand what "total animal liberation" means and how it would affect their ability to own pets...
blackshirej 2 years ago
*don't
blackshirej 2 years ago
You think peta doesn't want people to have pets? Yes peta says free all the pets! Let them run loose! ....and then die of fear or starvation.. Right. You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
Morlock27 2 years ago
Apparently you don't...the only "companion animals" PETA supports are domesticated animals such as cats and dogs. I own many reptiles, parrots, and have owned various other "exotic" pets in the past...go ask PETA how they feel about that. I have posted on their forums (PETA2) multiple times and most of them called me cruel and told me I should set them free where they belong and then they banned me for not sharing their ridiculous beliefs. Not once was I ever rude to any of the members either.
blackshirej 2 years ago
Well 'pet' implies domesticated animals that have to be taken care of. What you have a prisoners. They are 'interesting' to look at so you deny them their freedom. You don't need a parot or reptile, and they certainly don't need you. They are right to call you cruel. I am sure its not malicious cruelty - rather it is based in ignorance and prejudice.
Morlock27 2 years ago
You sir (or madam), are just another mindless, misinformed idiot. Does PETA feed this garbage to all their members? Captive breeding of reptiles has been shown to HELP the populations of various species...for instance, I keep crested geckos which were believed to be extinct around 10 years ago until they were recently re-discovered. Crested geckos are now more abundant than ever due to captive breeding and are now one of the most abundant and popular pet lizards currently on the market.
blackshirej 2 years ago
So its ok the make animals miserable if their population increases? You are confusing a species with sentient individuals. Why is higher population necessarily good? Increased population is only a good think if increasing net happiness - and well if the animals are not happy...
Morlock27 2 years ago
Why don't you jump off the nearest high stucture, make sure it's more than 4 stories tall.
Then there will be more room for the animals
StopLiesSeeTruth 2 years ago
Right cuz three times the population of humans isn't a high enough population for animals. Sorry, can't kill myself - have factory farms to break into.
Morlock27 2 years ago
OOOOOH real tough, make sure it's at night, bring a weapon, wear dark clothes, shoes with common sole, carry false/no id, make no cell calls, don't brag later........
YOU ARE A F**KING TERRORIST !!
and a coward.
When you get busted maybe you'll get to bl*w Coronado!?!
Ha ha
Keep it up, your toooo stupid NOT to get caught
StopLiesSeeTruth 2 years ago
I am a terrorist that doesn't cause any terror and rescues animals....
Morlock27 2 years ago
Then what do you do with them!?
Where do you find homes for farm animals?
StopLiesSeeTruth 2 years ago
I have a little private sanctuary, In addition there is Farm Sanctuary. If need be the pigs can survive in h the wild - if you can find a wild area...
Morlock27 2 years ago
And I am not a PETA member, I am a scientist with a background in philosophy (philosophy in undergrad) that realizes the arguments for not granting nonhumans equal and full moral status are fallacious.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Right, Mr. Know-it-all super-educated scientist. Your credentials mean nothing. You can still be stupid. Why does PETA care so much about animals when thousands of people die in other countries because they lack the most basic amenities? Answer that. Is a chicken's life more valuable than a child's?
343spork 2 years ago 2
Yea thousands.... actually there is roughly 1 billion people below the international poverty line and about half the worlds population is living on less then $2 a day. Obviously you are incredibly ignorant about the state global poverty by saying "thousands."
Morlock27 2 years ago
I give 20 percent of my income to causes to help these people, what have you done? Eat meat? I fail to see how that helps. In fact, if you knew anything at all about modern farming, you would know that factory farming is about 1/6th (this number varies depending on the animal) as efficient as growing food directly.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Thus, if we didn't use factory farming and ate the food we fed to cows and other animals directly (please don't tell me they eat different food then humans, its annoying how many stupid people say this, so just look up their diets) we have a much greater surplus of food, you know, to help these children you are so concerned about. So concerned that you apparently thought there were "thousands" in poverty.
Morlock27 2 years ago
This means if we got rid of farming and ate the food directly (and don't tell me they eat different food, its annoying how many people think this, so just look up the diet) we have a much greater surplus of food to help the poor children. You know, the "thousands" of children without basic necessities.
Morlock27 2 years ago
In addition, global warming (to which factory farming is the greatest contributor) is going to billions of people. Like people in Bangladesh, where millions will surely die of flooding. I guess you watch foxnews, so you probably think global warming is a myth. Right? Because you and Foxnews knows more then the IPCC, the work of 122 authors and 515 contributing authors, and which was reviewed by 337 experts.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Ok in Morlock27 we have a perfect example of a guy lieing to make his point ... he says farming was the greatest contributor to global warming ... wrong , go read the studies again ( If you had really read a study on global warming before ... i dont think so ) the first contributor is the burning of fossil fuel followed by land-use change , your ''farming'' point isnt even on the top 5 of global warming contributors haha ... HYPOCRITE ( just like PETA) !!!
stefihuntalova 2 years ago
Lol, ill assume you don't know what the word hypocrite means, and ill let that one go Besides it amused me too much for me to take offense to it. Anyways, your wrong, sry, I would like to know what studies your reading- were they done by fox? lol Read the United Nations 2006 report Livestocks Long Shadow. Or just google it, either way, several universities confirmed it. You should learn to google, it will help cure ignorance emanating from the redneck states, which i assume your from.
Morlock27 2 years ago
and no I dont watch fox too, sorry. Watching fox as nothing to do with the Fact that PETA is a bunch of crazy hypocrite people
stefihuntalova 2 years ago 2
OooooH! You calling me a hypocrite is still completely unrelated to your "argument," but I think I understand why your calling Peta a hypocritical organization. Its about them euthanizing animals right? I see, well I guess you are most likely a bible thumping redneck, and believe in the "sanctity of life." Again google can help you, just type in the word "utilitarian." Typing in "logic 101" might help you with the redneck thing, or the religion thing.
Morlock27 2 years ago
haha look how hypocrite you are ... first I dont believe in God, Allah, Budha or anything haha ... Im not a redneck, I study biology ... but about religion what you have to say haha ? PETA is your god ... In Iraq when a guy is naive and dumb enough they told him to make a suicidal bomb attack for Allah... here in America when someone is dumb enough PETA tell him to go and protest for this or that and without asking question you go haha ... hypocrite ?
stefihuntalova 2 years ago
You study biology? You don't even know how to use proper grammar, and I am supposed to believe you are not a redneck? Well, in any case, I still think you might not know what the word hypocrite means, or maybe your just failing miserably at arguing your point. I shall give you the most generous assumption, and saying you just don't know how to argue or what an unsubstantiated claim is.
Morlock27 2 years ago
There is no parallel between PETA and religion. Religion promotes faith, which is belief without evidence. Peta promotes nothing of the sort, in fact they spend much of their efforts spreading info (even if perhaps its not always the most accurate info). They are utilitarians, which is in quite opposition of the idea of commandments. Peta is just an organization for people with common goals to organize. It is not worshiped, even if you can claim some members are not highly reflective people.
Morlock27 2 years ago
In any case, I am not a member. Unfortunately when there is any group like peta which challenges current ethics people respond by hating it, and form groups devoted to simply hatred of peta (hate of course being an emotion, and thus betrays reason). This is the preferred response over reflecting on ones own behavior. Its an evolved defense mechanism, human brains prefer to maintain a consistent self representation.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Thus, when someone (or a group) accuses someone of being unethical, hatred is the natural response, for surely if they are immoral or stupid, then they are wrong and you are in the right. Self-image is maintained. Many studies have been done on this emotion (ironically-and sadly-originally on animals) that confirms this. Just notice next time someone insults you. You don't think about whether it is a valid accusation. You feel hatred of them.
Morlock27 2 years ago
So I prefer to be part of an organization that doesnt exclude so many people, like Farm Sanctuary. Which, according to polls, the majority approve of (including meat eaters), and no one (except some lobbyists) is "anti- Farm Sanctuary," in contrast to the polls that show that the great number of people who are "anti-peta." Perhaps you should actually point to the morally relavent difference between humans and animals. All philosophers in history have failed this task. I would to see you try it.
Morlock27 2 years ago
humm ... im no philosopehr but why do you put human and animal on a separate basis? we human are as animal as a weasel. Did you forget where we came from? we are from the same cell that ended in what are all the animals on the planet today. Go watch Animal planet , you will see lion killing zebras, wolves killing elks,etc a human killing a moose for food is the same thing haha ? cause you have a car makes you too intelligent to hunt your food ? answer : no you are still an animal, just smarter !
stefihuntalova 2 years ago
I am a biophysicist (with a bs in philosophy, didn't continue with it after undergrad, idk if tht makes me a philosopher or not....), I am well aware of our evolutionary origins. I do prefer the term "nonhuman animal" rather than "animal". A natural consequence of evolution is that we shouldn't separate us morally from animals, we are not partially divine beings as Christianity suggests, just primates. You are exactly right.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Once this is admitted, we should treat nonhumans the same as we treat humans (not specifically, but in accordance with their interests, which is in fact the only real basis for "equality" for humans in our social conventions). It is strange tht you recognize our relationship with nonhumans, yet think some how that this means we can remove them from our moral community. Most arbitrary discrimination is rooted in some morally irrelevant characteristic (like race, nose size, species).
Morlock27 2 years ago
Thus I am confused with how you can defend eating and torturing nonhumans, when you admit that there is no relevant difference between us. I hardly see how the fact that some animals eat other animals (ironically for your argument, usually not the ones we eat: cows, sheep, etc.) means that we should also. Humans ability to use reason makes us able to see suffering and recognize it as such, thus giving us a reason (given our evolved altruistic intuitions) to try to stop suffering.
Morlock27 2 years ago
If your point is the ol' "its natural" argument for eating meat, then you should realize some fallacies in the argument and unfounded assumptions. 1. you assume that modern factory farming is natural. 2. you assume that because something is natural it is right. 3. Normative claims can't directly come from facts. (although certain facts can influence how you behave to reach certain ends, like if your end is related to ethics).
Morlock27 2 years ago
what are you talking about ? I'm not for fur farm im for wild fur trapping haha. just tell me : if you had fleas will you let them bite you and lay eggs on/in you ? or you will buy that shampoo to kill them ? I hope you like fleas cause if you admit you would kill them you are a murderer as bloody as me the bad evil hunter ! I kill a moose for food and you tell me its bad, what about you killing fleas for your comfort ? will you kill thousand of them for YOUR comfort ?
stefihuntalova 2 years ago
Idk for sure what it means that "your not for fur farm." I never mentioned fur, just meat, so I am not sure how you can say "what are you talking about," as I didn't talk about fur. In any case you entirely ignored everything I said. But I will still address you question/point I guess. You make several mistakes. One is that you seem to equate the minor interest of food preference (oh no vegans say you should eat a vegie burger instead of a hamburger, how horrible!) with ..(continued next post)
Morlock27 2 years ago
a major interest in not having a disease, like fleas. (not that im sure how i would get fleas, im not living in a third world country...). Your other mistake is assuming that fleas have a nervous system anything like a cow or other mammal. If you talk to any professor of comparative neuroscience (which I have, as my specialization within biophysics is neuroscience) the brain system for perceiving pain is virtually identical between higher animals (humans, cows, sheep etc).
Morlock27 2 years ago
In fact, the brain system that processes pain was found in animals (ironically, and unfortunately, by animal testing) as was many other primitive brain systems (anything part of the limbic system, which is evolutionarily primitive) like emotions, such as love (the brain system for love was discovered in a rodent, which is identical in humans). This makes sense as pain serves a very basic evolutionary purpose, and would be expected to be in even primitive animals.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Fleas on the other hand, don't have a nervous system anything like mammals or even reptiles, so the general reason (whether its a good reason or not, not to get into epistemology) for thinking other beings (human or nonhuman) feel pain (behavior, similar brain systems) is nonexistent in insects. They don't even have a limbic brain (also called "reptilian brain"). So to say killing them, and killing is not my main concern anyway, its suffering, is absurd.
Morlock27 2 years ago
first you dont need to live in a poor country or to be dirty to have fleas ... Ok so if killing an insect that dont feel pain is all right, killing an animal in a fast and with minimal or no pain at all is also right ? Im not for animal abuse, but trapping with certified humane trap that breaks the back bone and suffocate or shooting a moose in the vital organs with an instant death is ok if we refer to what you just said ... try to resume your point cause youre writtin too much unecessary shit
stefihuntalova 2 years ago
Well no, its necessary, I guess you just don't see why, I try to cover all obvious philosophical objections to what I say, I guess you dont notice them tho and think its irrelevant. Anyways, yes in a sense, killing instantly without pain or terror (not tht any of the methods you mention fit this criteria) then i would have much less problem with it. But insects prolly aren't conscious, animals with a cerebral cortex are, so killing is more serious when it comes to animals then it is with insects
Morlock27 2 years ago
I can't explain to you why the cerebral cortex and why consciousness is a morally relevant property, and why levels of consciousness (beyond the self-recognizing level) are relevant to life/death and not suffering, if you want. But you said you don't want anything unnecessary, so I will refrain from explaining if you want.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Furthermore, global warming is likely to kill billions; like in Bangladesh, where millions will surely die of flooding. And in case you don't know, factory farming creates as much or greater pollution then all transportation combined.
Morlock27 2 years ago
But you, who by your "Mr. Know-it-all super-educated scientist" statement I can infer that you have no credential, watch fox, and probably think that global warming is a myth. I mean you obviously know more than the IPCC, which as you don't know, is an overwhelming consensus by the scientific community that global warming is fact. It had 122 authors, 515 contributing authors, and was reviewed by 337 experts. But who are scientists to report on scientific data, right?
Morlock27 2 years ago
Sorry about the repeated post, it gave me an error and didn't post, so a wrote a new one, then the old post appeared after a few. Anyway, by saying this about animals, you are not taking the interests of animals seriously. You are also failing to recognize a difference btwn suffering and death, the former of which i am more concerned with.
Morlock27 2 years ago
@343spork What makes you think people in PETA don't care about a child, or think that a non-human animal is more valuable than a human one?
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
This video gave me a much-needed laugh after a stressful day. There are so many more pressing needs in this world besides that of poultry. PETA can rot, for all I care.
therealOphiuchus 2 years ago
This is the dumbest thing to protest i have ever seen. With all the crazy shit in the world today, PETA protests a chicken restaurant for, of all things, killing chickens in a way the chicken might not like.
You can kill a chicken right in front of other chickens and they dont run away. Thats because chickens dont think with rational thought. The chicken dosent care how its going to die bc it dosnt know its going to die until its dead.
POINTLESS PROTEST!!!!
axb975 2 years ago
hell yea man!
bughaters 2 years ago
Chickens do have an interest in not suffering, as the ability to suffer in non related to intelligence (rationality stems from the cerebral cortex - pain isn't related to this center of the brain in a relevant manner). In fact, they obviously care how they are raised - they have done studies on chickens to show they would rather starve to death in an open field then enter a battery cage where there is food. They are terrified of battery cages.
Morlock27 2 years ago
A chicken also won't walk into an open field with a coyote or wolves because it understands it's a predator and out to eat it. No difference.
Fuunken 2 years ago
I don't how you know its the same phenomenon - chickens know there is always a threat of a predator - and yet they continue to eat in open fields. They would rather starve to death than go in a battery cage - this is obviously an egregious form of emotional trauma from experiences in battery cages. In any case, if you are saying they consider a cage as dangerous as a predator, than they are still amazingly afraid of a cage.
Morlock27 2 years ago
My friend had a chicken farm and he would keep one chicken on each side of his arm tied to a rope with food by the edge of the ropes reach, if the chicken didn't try to go eat then he knew a coyote was close by. Worked like a charm.
Fuunken 2 years ago
I don't really get the point about the ropes - but anyway this would still mean that a cage is as threatening to a chicken as a predator. This means that the chicken was traumatized from its experience in a battery cage.
Morlock27 2 years ago
He didn't want to let his chickens get away and wanted to know an estimate on how close the predators had gotten, his brother did the same with his lambs. He had cages and even his newborn chics didn't like the cages.
Fuunken 2 years ago
I would be surprised if they did - animals don't like cages. Perhaps we should respect their interests and stop caging them for food. If the cages are smaller - like battery cages - the worse it is for them. And because of the inherent inefficiency of factory farming in terms of food production, it is unethical to be factory farming when there is one billion humans in absolute poverty. The food we feed the animals could be fed directly to humans. Not to mention the environmental impact.
Morlock27 2 years ago
......No, people cannot eat what is fed to the animals mass produced, unless you wanted to kill those in poverty. The impact on nature means nothing if the next ice age kills us all and the land gets to start over fresh. Respect the interests on an animal with no greater understanding of his own interests than an infant. Sure, that makes sense.
Fuunken 2 years ago
Yes they can. Soybeans - one major food fed to animals can be eaten by humans. So can most of the other grains fed to animals. Are you saying you should only respect the interests of something if they are able to reflect on their own interests. So by your logic if a baby can't reflect on its interest in not being burned alive, it would be ok to burn it alive.
Morlock27 2 years ago
A baby has the possibility to reflect on its own interests in time. If you could teach a chicken to do so, then it would fight for its rights. No, most of the grain used to feed animals can't be digested. The percentage of farms that use soybeans could feed people, yes, but it isn't a lot at all. I knew one farmer who used soybeans and that was just because he was paid a lot more to do so.
Fuunken 2 years ago
A chicken would fight against a threat, but it obviously doesn't stand a chance against a human. Thats why we have to fight for it instead. I don't understand why it is necessary to be able to reflect on ones interests for someone else to respect those interests.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Chickens don't stand a chance against a coyote either. It's interest is not to be food. It sucks for them that are our food and the long long list of animals that eat them. You can respect the interests all you want ,but it won't change that it is lower on the food chain and will be eaten
Fuunken 2 years ago
The fact that other animals will eat the chickens does not justify us eating them - but the killing isn't the main problem anyway, its the torturous lives. In addition, we don't need to eat meat, other animals do.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Other animals don't need to eat meat if we interfere. We as people are designed to eat meat and plants. We can use our superior intelligence to get around eating meat and if we can do it for ourselves then we can make the other animals do it too.
Fuunken 2 years ago
No not really, on all accounts. Humans can eat meat - but its very hard on our digestive system, we never fully evolved to eat meat as well as other omnivores. And how do u plan on getting other animals to not eat meat? Humans can naturally make all amino acids, other animals can't. So we would have to synthesize all the necessary amino acids - we would have to supplement the food of all animals. The only other possibility would be to genetically engineer all the other animals.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Humans were designed to eat meat, so you are wrong. The variety of vegetables that people would have to eat on a daily basis to make up for meat, first of all is a lot and secondly they all don't grow in the same area requiring intervention. People aren't designed to eat mostly meat ,but it is part of the basic diet designed to be eaten by people.
Fuunken 2 years ago
No, sorry, you need to do some more research. Humans are barely able to eat meat - we get away with as well as we do by manipulating it with technology (ie cooking it). It very hard to digest cooked eat - and even harder to digest uncooked. Why do u think it stays in your system 84 hours and causes colon cancer. Cuz we didn't evolve to eat it as well as animals have.
Morlock27 2 years ago
That's ridiculous, meat in moderation is perfectly healthy for people.
Name me one pro athlete who's solely a plant eater. They don't exist.
Meat is the life blood that fuels champions!
netster007z 2 years ago
Right - ever read something like runners world - the best diet is vegetables and fruits and whole grains. Heavy on the vegies. Im not a pro - but im a competitive runner. So meet me on the race track and well see who wins. And by the way before believing the food pyramid, look up who sponsors it. Its the USDA - and guess who supports the USDA - meat industry. Most doctors think meat should be in the 'use sparingly' section. Do some research on it - cuz obviously you wouldn't take it from me.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Your ignorant of sports. A vegan diet is good for RUNNERS. Your stupid claims about Danzig prove your ignorance on the matter. During my training camps I have my meals tailored to my workouts for the max benefit. A vegan diet is good for building stamina and endurance, it fails everywhere else. Danzigs losses are all to guys who were less technical and without power. He gets beat down otherwise.
Fuunken 2 years ago
I never claimed to be knowledgeable about sports - im runner. Thats what I know. I couldn't tell one thing about boxing or football or anything else. But being heavy on muscle isn't necessarily healthy (admittedly running ultramarathons probably aren't either.) But health isn't really my concern - because you can be plenty healthy on a vegan diet and so eating meat isn't a necessity.
Morlock27 2 years ago
You listed athletes that have vegan diets opening you up to your ignorance of sports. Shouldn't have used the example. You can be healthy on a meat heavy diet or a vegan diet sure, about the same actually ,but a vegan diet is something no athlete that needs more than one ability to win will do. You can't be successful on a vegan diet in combat sports. Eating meat IS a needed to peform better and no trainer I know, except danzig, would endorse it. Meat enhances your performance over vegan diets.
Fuunken 2 years ago
But you have failed to address my argument, perhaps we both have been caught up in minutia instead of each others main argument. I think it should be intuitively clear that intelligence is not required to feel pain, and this is actually fact. Thus intelligence is quite a silly moral dividing line, when considering pain. Just pain, right to life is a different story. Hopes and family would then be considerations.
Morlock27 2 years ago
Pain can't be a factor is pain isn't universally understood as the same feeling by all. Certain animals can't distinguish between pain,pleasure,fear etc so it can't apply to them. Also there is the case of sepia, which does occur in humans ,but more commonly in animals. This also makes pain not a universally acceptable.
Fuunken 2 years ago