Please attend public meeting on 29/02 at 17.00 at Havant Borough Council Chambers. This is the meeting to decide the fate of whether to build a McDoo-doos! In Havant.
Why do you assume they are not informed, because they have not reached the same conclusion that you have with the same facts ?
The reality is that McDonalds is CHOSEN by millions of people every day all over the world as a place to get food. Now I think they are nuts because the food is rubbish but I don't try to push my view onto them because I believe that individuals have the right to make a choice.
In 2008 McDonald’s spent a total of $782.6 million on direct marketing (TV, radio, and print advertising). However, they do not account for the marketing costs spent by the local francise themselves…”In addition, significant advertising costs are incurred by franchisees through advertising cooperatives in individual markets.” http://www1.mcdonalds.com/annualreport/pdfs/FinancialReport.pdf
Of course much of that advertising was aimed at kids.......
______________________________________________________________ Fast food is a capitalist economic take over of your basic life skill, that is cooking
1) Fast food is a capitalist economic take over of your basic life skill, that is cooking. If you are resorting to fast food it means you have been defeated.
2) Fast food is bad for your physical and mental health.
How Fast Food Destroys Your Health and Enriches Corporations
1. Fast Food companies abuse workers through hours scheduled. One can show up for a five hour shift and be sent home after three hours.
2. Eggs are cooked in a sea of an unnaturally vibrant yellow liquid.
3. The grease from fried foods cools and solidifies in the stomach when followed with a cold drink. This coats the stomach and prevents any nutrition from entering the body. (Just run cold water over grease and see what happens.)
What's the connection between McDonald's and starvation in the 'Third World'? THERE's no point in feeling guilty about eating while watching starving African children on TV. If you do send money to Band Aid, or shop at Oxfam, etc., that's morally good but politically useless. It shifts the blame from governments and doesnothing to challenge the power of multinational corporations.
HUNGRY FOR DOLLARS McDonald's is one of several giant corporations with investments in vast tracts of land in poor countries, sold to them by the dollar-hungry rulers (often military) and privileged elites, evicting the small farmers that live there growing food fortheir own people.
The power of the US dollar means that in order to buy technology and manufactured goods, poor countries are trapped into producing more and more food for export to the States. Out of 40 of the world's poorest countries, 36 export food to the USA - thewealthiest.
ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM Some 'Third World' countries, where most children are undernourished, are actually exporting their staple crops as animal feed - i.e. to fatten cattle for turning into burgers in the 'First World'. Millions of acres of the best farmland in poor contries are being used for our benefit - for tea, coffee, tobacco, etc. - while people there are starving. McDonald's is directly involved in this economic imperialism, which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat. http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html _________________________________________________________________
If you really don't give a fuck then go to the Daily Mail site and wallow in uncaring fuckwittedness.
"The reality is that McDonalds is CHOSEN by millions of people every day all over the world as a place to get food. Now I think they are nuts because the food is rubbish but I don't try to push my view onto them because I believe that individuals have the right to make a choice."
All individuals have a choice to eat this slop...until their brains go mouldy and they die of cow-shit poisoning. In which case the MacDonalds corporation will also have a choice.
The choice to not pay compensation or admit liability
If that were to happen a lot of other people would be making choices too. Journalists at the red-tops would be making a choice not to hold anyone to account instead choosing the far more important public service of 'informing' everybody in double quick time that Cheryl Cole just bought a new lipstick (with a photographer amazingly 'at the scene' to 'chose' the moment!), online commentators would be making the choice to say that MacDonalds hadn't actually poisoned anyone, those people actually poisoned themselves and anyway; they would have died in the future at some point anyway so who cares...its not as important as a meteor from outer space blasting the earth into a bazillion bits is it?
And the government would be making the choice to immediately hold an enquiry...in 2056...with lots of 'chosen' representatives from the fast food industry assembled together to say it'll never happen again because...well...it'll never happen again, promise!
And I...well I would have the choice to burn my local Maccy D's to the ground and then rush home to read about 'arson' being the new 'terrorism' from some pencil necked spook newspaper columnist with bad grammar who just got off the BBC banana boat!
Aint no such thing as choice missy...you get what you are given.
The difficult, inescapable fact that campaigns like yours have to face up to is that people DO know this stuff, they know that McDonalds, KFC and the other fast food chains are producing high fat, high sugar, low nutrition food. In the same way they know that smoking is bad for them and that a lack of exercise does not do them good HOWEVER it is their choice to eat there. A choice which the increased sales of McDonalds and the rest clearly indicate they are making more and more.
It is incredibly patronising to think that somehow 'we know better', 'we have the "secret" facts that the public doesn't'. The public knows, the public understands, the public makes a choice. It is not up to you to make it for them.
Yup - but then I've been an activist for over a decade. >> Why is that relevant, do you really think only 'activists' are aware of this issue ?
How many people in Havant have? >> No idea but it doesn't matter
Surely your computer also has a search engine, so any evidence of a debate in the area about the problems with fast food? >> None that I could find but in my experience people outside of the 'activist bubble' don't feel the same need as us to have meetings, web pages, blogs, discussions etc.
Which isn't all about cars and jobs..... >> Exactly - these are the points the community cares about.
Perhaps there are issues where the public should not have a choice ? We have laws that require people to wear seat belts and crash helmets for their own safety because the majority are too stupid to make this choice themselves .
The State has a responsibility to protect the population and the consumption of meat is certainly contributing to the fall in the health of the population. There is a case to make Britain a Vegan country by law as a protective measure.
A perfect example of why activists are sometimes viewed as acting patronising and superior. Information about the food and corporate practices of McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King and the rest is freely available, well known and yet here we have one individual who feels that only he knows it and he must 'educate' the population of this town.
The reality for us is that people do know what we know but their reaction to that information is not the same as ours. I once spent an evening talking to my sister about KFC's treatment of chicken and her reaction was,
Hi, I just wanted to cover some points that I disagree with, because I'm quite passionate about health.
Firstly, I would agree that the local residents are the ones who should really decide. Afterall, they are the ones who live there. It would be like us deciding what buildings they can build in South America - it frankly, is none of our business.
Secondly, there is more than enough information in the public domain on the bad points of 'junk' food such as McDonalds. You would have to be living under a rock not to be aware of this.
I also believe people should have free choice. If they want to smoke, drink and eat McDonalds then that is their choice. They are adults. We don't want a Nanny state telling us what we can and can't eat, and banning things like somekind of parent.
I'm 41, I don't smoke, I rarely drink. I exercise a lot - proper exercise that leaves you on the fly making a sweat angel, not just going through the motions and shoving energy drinks down your gob like some people do, taking in more calories than you are losing. My blood pressure is fantastic. My resting heart rate is around 42-45. I am fitter and stronger than most people in their 20s at the gym, let alone people who don't do exercise.
Yet,... i sometimes eat McDonalds. Its s*** but so what? I also sometimes eat a chocolate bar or cake (which is way worse than mcdonalds because it blows your insulin levels through the roof. Yet, i dont hear any of you wanting to ban: Smoking, Drinking, Cake, Chocolate, Chip Shops, Take Aways, Croissants, Bread, Pizza, or crisps. You would be better closing down all the corner shops from selling snacks due to the risk to diabetes.
I saw a policy-maker on the TV going on about taxing this stuff. She wasn't enormous but she certainly was unhealthily fat, yet she was basically saying that I would have to pay a "fat-tax" on a chocolate bar. I couldn't think of anything more insulting.
If you are insistent on banning McDonalds etc, then at least come up with a FAIR system. Fit, healthy people should be able to eat it if they want because it is obvious that they are going to eat it responsibly. Fat, unhealthy people are banned from eating them and need a big brother to prevent them from doing so.
Healthy people should not be penalised because of the mistakes of unhealthy people On the contrary, they should be rewarded. Healthy people who can be bothered going to the gym, pay for it with their own time and their own money. Yet, we seem to be rounded up in the same basket as the unhealthy people when it comes to fat-taxes.
Veganism......... ""Perhaps there are issues where the public should not have a choice ? We have laws that require people to wear seat belts and crash helmets for their own safety because the majority are too stupid to make this choice themselves . The State has a responsibility to protect the population and the consumption of meat is certainly contributing to the fall in the health of the population. There is a case to make Britain a Vegan country by law as a protective measure.""
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This makes me so angry!!!! The consumption of meat is NOT contributing to the fall in the health of the population. Do some research on the Paleo diet etc. You will find some of the healthist, fittest people in the world eat lots of meat and eggs. Veganism has lead to all sorts of issues such as 12 year olds getting rickets and bone deformities.
Eating fat does not actually make you fat. On the contracy it actually leads to weight loss. The No.1 issue for health in this country is sugar and high carbs in modern diets. Too much carbs turn into gloucose which turns into fat. Want to get thinner? Eat less carbs, more meat, green veg and do hard exercise.
Perhaps there are issues where the public should not have a choice ? We have laws that require people to wear seat belts and crash helmets for their own safety because the majority are too stupid to make this choice themselves .
The State has a responsibility to protect the population and the consumption of meat is certainly contributing to the fall in the health of the population. There is a case to make Britain a Vegan country by law as a protective measure.
The lies told about diet, food choices and the Nazi intimidation of some in the vegan movement have annoyed me for some time and having seen the damage to her health my sister did my adopting a vegan diet three years ago this is an issue I too am passionate about.
The evidence around the health benefits of those living in the Aveyron Department of France (the largest percentage in the world of people who live beyond 100 years old) are now being closely studied. Their diet has very little carbs, lots of red meat, fish and fowl and very high amount of green vegetables. About two years ago I moved to a low carb diet as part of a training regime for a sports event and the effect on my health has been nothing short of amazing. I recommend it to others for a feeling of health and well being.
Very funny, I remember being at the camp for climate change when my girlfriend was drinking some milk, a passing food Nazi stopped, looked, pointed and shouted "Cow Rapist !"
I later found it this was the same person calling for anybody who was not 100% vegan to be banned from Climate Camp.
No they are not 'raped', sorry but that's simply nuts. Rape is an attack of power, of dominance and sexual gratification. None of these factors apply with a farmer inseminating his cows for the production of milk.
In addition equating the keeping of cows to slavery is equally offensive to me as a black woman who is descended from slaves. The Animal Rights movement is increasingly barmy as far as I am concerned.
the World Health Organization defined it in 2002 as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object".
That sounds to me exactly what farmers do when using artificial insemination.
Also, have a search for the term "rape rack" - it is an industry term for a rack that restrains animals which they are inseminated by a male. Breeders of fighting pitbulls use them as well.
Should the animals abused by McDonald's not get a say in this decision? After all, they are the ones most affected by it - never mind the people being made unhealthy by it.
And re: Master chef - maybe your sister has a severe lack of empathy if her response to abuse of chickens was "Who cares, it's a chicken". I would be wary of leaving children in the care of someone with such an attitude.
"Master chef - maybe your sister has a severe lack of empathy if her response to abuse of chickens was "Who cares, it's a chicken". I would be wary of leaving children in the care of someone with such an attitude"
I think you will find that is an attitude held by the vast majority of the population which is the point I was making and the one which you missed. To suggest that somebody is unfit to look after children because they are not much bothered by how KFC treats chickens shows how out of touch you are.
"To suggest that somebody is unfit to look after children because they are not much bothered by how KFC treats chickens shows how out of touch you are."
In my experience most meat-eating people would care that animals are abused - they would just attempt to rationalise it by saying it was an isolated case, or that battery cages don't exist, or that "free-range" systems really are free range, or that chickens aren't pumped full of steroids so they grow 10 times as fast as they should, etc.
Saying "Who cares, it's a chicken!" when talking about animal abuse is different, it shows a psychopathic attitude and complete lack of empathy. Such a person is abnormal, and is likely to have a similar attitude to humans
and in reply to "Rape Survivor" (yeah, right):
"What the hell does that mean ????"
It means if something is going to inflict pain and suffering on thousands of animals (like building a McDonald's), their interests should be taken into account. Surely that isn't too much to ask?
"How is McDonalds 'abusing' animals ???"
I think we can agree being killed is pretty abusive.
"Is my cat 'abusing' a frog when she catches one ???"
Maybe, but cats don't have the capacity for rational thought that humans do. Animals also rape and clean their arses with their tongues - are you suggesting that makes it OK for us to do as well? Some animals kill humans, so does that make it OK for us to kill humans?
"Should I communicate with my dog before cutting his hair in case he prefers it long ???"
Well, yes. Obviously you can't use language, but you should consider their interests. It would be cruel to cut very short the hair of a long-haired dog in a cold climate, for example.
This isn't just some abstract parlour discussion - have you ever been to a factory farm? They are horrendous places and the suffering there is unimaginable. Sorry, but the people who commit these acts of abuse are absolute scum.
Comments
Hide the following 25 comments
Local residents to decide
28.02.2012 13:38
Not that bothered either way
And will these local people ...
28.02.2012 14:16
Why bother to fight the corporate take-over of our lives?
And why the fuck bother to read indymedia and splatter it with your dumb comments?
let their kids eat shit?
Informed ?
28.02.2012 14:51
The reality is that McDonalds is CHOSEN by millions of people every day all over the world as a place to get food. Now I think they are nuts because the food is rubbish but I don't try to push my view onto them because I believe that individuals have the right to make a choice.
Not that bothered either way
McDonald's profit rises 9%, sales up across globe
28.02.2012 16:30
Ronald McDonald
Homepage:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-10-21/news/30960911_1_global-same-store-sales-profit-share
"Free choice in a corporate world" kerching
28.02.2012 17:19
Of course much of that advertising was aimed at kids.......
______________________________________________________________
Fast food is a capitalist economic take over of your basic life skill, that is cooking
1) Fast food is a capitalist economic take over of your basic life skill, that is cooking. If you are resorting to fast food it means you have been defeated.
2) Fast food is bad for your physical and mental health.
3) Fast food is commercialization of your private and personal life.
__________________________________________________________________
How Fast Food Destroys Your Health and Enriches Corporations
1. Fast Food companies abuse workers through hours scheduled. One can show up for a five hour shift and be sent home after three hours.
2. Eggs are cooked in a sea of an unnaturally vibrant yellow liquid.
3. The grease from fried foods cools and solidifies in the stomach when followed with a cold drink. This coats the stomach and prevents any nutrition from entering the body. (Just run cold water over grease and see what happens.)
___________________________________________________________________
Why You Should Avoid Fast Food
1) Human slaves making it
2) The laboratory (not farm!) that creates it
3) The capitalists getting rich off it
____________________________________________________________________
What's the connection between McDonald's and starvation in the 'Third World'?
THERE's no point in feeling guilty about eating while watching starving African children on TV. If you do send money to Band Aid, or shop at Oxfam, etc., that's morally good but politically useless. It shifts the blame from governments and doesnothing to challenge the power of multinational corporations.
HUNGRY FOR DOLLARS
McDonald's is one of several giant corporations with investments in vast tracts of land in poor countries, sold to them by the dollar-hungry rulers (often military) and privileged elites, evicting the small farmers that live there growing food fortheir own people.
The power of the US dollar means that in order to buy technology and manufactured goods, poor countries are trapped into producing more and more food for export to the States. Out of 40 of the world's poorest countries, 36 export food to the USA - thewealthiest.
ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM
Some 'Third World' countries, where most children are undernourished, are actually exporting their staple crops as animal feed - i.e. to fatten cattle for turning into burgers in the 'First World'. Millions of acres of the best farmland in poor contries are being used for our benefit - for tea, coffee, tobacco, etc. - while people there are starving. McDonald's is directly involved in this economic imperialism, which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat.
_________________________________________________________________
If you really don't give a fuck then go to the Daily Mail site and wallow in uncaring fuckwittedness.
let their kids eat shit?
"so I don't have to get my fat behind out of my car! lol"
28.02.2012 18:35
Because I'd say the information, quite simply, isn't available.
Or perhaps you can describe the process where by a resident of Havant might make an informed choice.
Like perhaps the local media showed both sides of the story in the run-up to the meeting?
All I can see is a discussion about traffic implications.
Your search - havant mcdonalds meeting - did not match any news results.
So, what it is that local people are making an informed choice about?
let their children eat shit?
Yo wawn't frars wid dat?
28.02.2012 23:02
All individuals have a choice to eat this slop...until their brains go mouldy and they die of cow-shit poisoning. In which case the MacDonalds corporation will also have a choice.
The choice to not pay compensation or admit liability
If that were to happen a lot of other people would be making choices too. Journalists at the red-tops would be making a choice not to hold anyone to account instead choosing the far more important public service of 'informing' everybody in double quick time that Cheryl Cole just bought a new lipstick (with a photographer amazingly 'at the scene' to 'chose' the moment!), online commentators would be making the choice to say that MacDonalds hadn't actually poisoned anyone, those people actually poisoned themselves and anyway; they would have died in the future at some point anyway so who cares...its not as important as a meteor from outer space blasting the earth into a bazillion bits is it?
And the government would be making the choice to immediately hold an enquiry...in 2056...with lots of 'chosen' representatives from the fast food industry assembled together to say it'll never happen again because...well...it'll never happen again, promise!
And I...well I would have the choice to burn my local Maccy D's to the ground and then rush home to read about 'arson' being the new 'terrorism' from some pencil necked spook newspaper columnist with bad grammar who just got off the BBC banana boat!
Aint no such thing as choice missy...you get what you are given.
Reality for baps.
The facts are there
29.02.2012 08:11
It is incredibly patronising to think that somehow 'we know better', 'we have the "secret" facts that the public doesn't'. The public knows, the public understands, the public makes a choice. It is not up to you to make it for them.
Not that bothered either way
@ "Let the children eat shit"
29.02.2012 08:22
........and yet you found it.
Master chef
@Master Chef
29.02.2012 08:40
How many people in Havant have?
Surely your computer also has a search engine, so any evidence of a debate in the area about the problems with fast food?
Which isn't all about cars and jobs.....
Let their children eat shit?
Proving my point, thank you.
29.02.2012 08:59
>> Why is that relevant, do you really think only 'activists' are aware of this issue ?
How many people in Havant have?
>> No idea but it doesn't matter
Surely your computer also has a search engine, so any evidence of a debate in the area about the problems with fast food?
>> None that I could find but in my experience people outside of the 'activist bubble' don't feel the same need as us to have meetings, web pages, blogs, discussions etc.
Which isn't all about cars and jobs.....
>> Exactly - these are the points the community cares about.
Not that bothered either way
"....but then I've been an activist for over a decade."
29.02.2012 09:05
Queen mother
Did you get a special badge ?
29.02.2012 09:14
BUT WE WANT OUR KIDS TO BE FUCKED OVER FOR PROFIT>>>>>WAA WAA WAA
Let the readers read shit.
Choice
29.02.2012 09:22
The State has a responsibility to protect the population and the consumption of meat is certainly contributing to the fall in the health of the population. There is a case to make Britain a Vegan country by law as a protective measure.
Vegan
"Do you get one for trolling this site"
29.02.2012 09:36
Stop taking yourself so seriously.
Queen mother
Info is there
29.02.2012 10:42
The reality for us is that people do know what we know but their reaction to that information is not the same as ours. I once spent an evening talking to my sister about KFC's treatment of chicken and her reaction was,
"Who cares, it's a chicken !"
Master chef
Why penalise healthy people just because unhealthy misuse food?
29.02.2012 19:10
Firstly, I would agree that the local residents are the ones who should really decide. Afterall, they are the ones who live there. It would be like us deciding what buildings they can build in South America - it frankly, is none of our business.
Secondly, there is more than enough information in the public domain on the bad points of 'junk' food such as McDonalds. You would have to be living under a rock not to be aware of this.
I also believe people should have free choice. If they want to smoke, drink and eat McDonalds then that is their choice. They are adults. We don't want a Nanny state telling us what we can and can't eat, and banning things like somekind of parent.
I'm 41, I don't smoke, I rarely drink. I exercise a lot - proper exercise that leaves you on the fly making a sweat angel, not just going through the motions and shoving energy drinks down your gob like some people do, taking in more calories than you are losing. My blood pressure is fantastic. My resting heart rate is around 42-45. I am fitter and stronger than most people in their 20s at the gym, let alone people who don't do exercise.
Yet,... i sometimes eat McDonalds. Its s*** but so what? I also sometimes eat a chocolate bar or cake (which is way worse than mcdonalds because it blows your insulin levels through the roof. Yet, i dont hear any of you wanting to ban: Smoking, Drinking, Cake, Chocolate, Chip Shops, Take Aways, Croissants, Bread, Pizza, or crisps. You would be better closing down all the corner shops from selling snacks due to the risk to diabetes.
I saw a policy-maker on the TV going on about taxing this stuff. She wasn't enormous but she certainly was unhealthily fat, yet she was basically saying that I would have to pay a "fat-tax" on a chocolate bar. I couldn't think of anything more insulting.
If you are insistent on banning McDonalds etc, then at least come up with a FAIR system.
Fit, healthy people should be able to eat it if they want because it is obvious that they are going to eat it responsibly. Fat, unhealthy people are banned from eating them and need a big brother to prevent them from doing so.
Healthy people should not be penalised because of the mistakes of unhealthy people
On the contrary, they should be rewarded. Healthy people who can be bothered going to the gym, pay for it with their own time and their own money. Yet, we seem to be rounded up in the same basket as the unhealthy people when it comes to fat-taxes.
Veganism.........
""Perhaps there are issues where the public should not have a choice ? We have laws that require people to wear seat belts and crash helmets for their own safety because the majority are too stupid to make this choice themselves .
The State has a responsibility to protect the population and the consumption of meat is certainly contributing to the fall in the health of the population. There is a case to make Britain a Vegan country by law as a protective measure.""
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This makes me so angry!!!!
The consumption of meat is NOT contributing to the fall in the health of the population.
Do some research on the Paleo diet etc. You will find some of the healthist, fittest people in the world eat lots of meat and eggs. Veganism has lead to all sorts of issues such as 12 year olds getting rickets and bone deformities.
Eating fat does not actually make you fat. On the contracy it actually leads to weight loss.
The No.1 issue for health in this country is sugar and high carbs in modern diets.
Too much carbs turn into gloucose which turns into fat. Want to get thinner? Eat less carbs, more meat, green veg and do hard exercise.
Perhaps there are issues where the public should not have a choice ? We have laws that require people to wear seat belts and crash helmets for their own safety because the majority are too stupid to make this choice themselves .
The State has a responsibility to protect the population and the consumption of meat is certainly contributing to the fall in the health of the population. There is a case to make Britain a Vegan country by law as a protective measure.
Steve
@ Steve
01.03.2012 08:50
The lies told about diet, food choices and the Nazi intimidation of some in the vegan movement have annoyed me for some time and having seen the damage to her health my sister did my adopting a vegan diet three years ago this is an issue I too am passionate about.
The evidence around the health benefits of those living in the Aveyron Department of France (the largest percentage in the world of people who live beyond 100 years old) are now being closely studied. Their diet has very little carbs, lots of red meat, fish and fowl and very high amount of green vegetables. About two years ago I moved to a low carb diet as part of a training regime for a sports event and the effect on my health has been nothing short of amazing. I recommend it to others for a feeling of health and well being.
Enjoyed that
"Nazi intimidation of some in the vegan movement "
01.03.2012 09:05
I later found it this was the same person calling for anybody who was not 100% vegan to be banned from Climate Camp.
Occasional meat eater
Cow Rapist
01.03.2012 09:25
It really it as simple as that. It years to come dairy farmers will be viewed in the way we think of slave traders now.
Lynn Sawyer
Wrong and offensive
01.03.2012 10:27
No they are not 'raped', sorry but that's simply nuts. Rape is an attack of power, of dominance and sexual gratification. None of these factors apply with a farmer inseminating his cows for the production of milk.
In addition equating the keeping of cows to slavery is equally offensive to me as a black woman who is descended from slaves. The Animal Rights movement is increasingly barmy as far as I am concerned.
Rape survivor
re: Wrong and offensive
01.03.2012 10:48
the World Health Organization defined it in 2002 as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object".
That sounds to me exactly what farmers do when using artificial insemination.
Also, have a search for the term "rape rack" - it is an industry term for a rack that restrains animals which they are inseminated by a male. Breeders of fighting pitbulls use them as well.
Should the animals abused by McDonald's not get a say in this decision? After all, they are the ones most affected by it - never mind the people being made unhealthy by it.
And re: Master chef - maybe your sister has a severe lack of empathy if her response to abuse of chickens was
"Who cares, it's a chicken". I would be wary of leaving children in the care of someone with such an attitude.
anon
Sorry but you are as nuts as the other person here.
01.03.2012 11:58
What the hell does that mean ????
How is McDonalds 'abusing' animals ???
Is my cat 'abusing' a frog when she catches one ???
Should I communicate with my dog before cutting his hair in case he prefers it long ???
Rape survivor
Sisters
01.03.2012 12:32
"Who cares, it's a chicken". I would be wary of leaving children in the care of someone with such an attitude"
I think you will find that is an attitude held by the vast majority of the population which is the point I was making and the one which you missed. To suggest that somebody is unfit to look after children because they are not much bothered by how KFC treats chickens shows how out of touch you are.
Master chef
re: Sisters
02.03.2012 07:43
In my experience most meat-eating people would care that animals are abused - they would just attempt to rationalise it by saying it was an isolated case, or that battery cages don't exist, or that "free-range" systems really are free range, or that chickens aren't pumped full of steroids so they grow 10 times as fast as they should, etc.
Saying "Who cares, it's a chicken!" when talking about animal abuse is different, it shows a psychopathic attitude and complete lack of empathy. Such a person is abnormal, and is likely to have a similar attitude to humans
and in reply to "Rape Survivor" (yeah, right):
"What the hell does that mean ????"
It means if something is going to inflict pain and suffering on thousands of animals (like building a McDonald's), their interests should be taken into account. Surely that isn't too much to ask?
"How is McDonalds 'abusing' animals ???"
I think we can agree being killed is pretty abusive.
"Is my cat 'abusing' a frog when she catches one ???"
Maybe, but cats don't have the capacity for rational thought that humans do. Animals also rape and clean their arses with their tongues - are you suggesting that makes it OK for us to do as well? Some animals kill humans, so does that make it OK for us to kill humans?
"Should I communicate with my dog before cutting his hair in case he prefers it long ???"
Well, yes. Obviously you can't use language, but you should consider their interests. It would be cruel to cut very short the hair of a long-haired dog in a cold climate, for example.
This isn't just some abstract parlour discussion - have you ever been to a factory farm? They are horrendous places and the suffering there is unimaginable. Sorry, but the people who commit these acts of abuse are absolute scum.
anon