Chk Fil A

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neal

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
4,918
Location (City and/or State)
Arizona
futureleopardtortoise said:
I've never tried dog, probably never will, since I see them as pets. But I respect other peoples' opinions to view them differently.
I have eaten dog (among other things that might get me booted off the tortoise forum). Not the best meat in the world, and I hope I am never offered it again.[hr]
LadyKarli said:
Dear Chick-Fil-A, I was behind you with your right to believe what you want About marriage. I personally believe LOVE should be the only factor. You had my support in the fact it is your right to believe what you do. now I hear this (The problem is in how the company profits are used to fight equal protections under the law for tax paying citizens based only the fact they are gay.) Now you are trying to take away from others. Because of who & how they love. YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT NO MORE. & that sucks cause I really loved your restaurant. I shall eat no more Chick-Fil-A forever till things are made right & a PUBLIC apology is made to the Gay community. Good day Chick-Fil_A. Good day!
I respect that you are not going to patronize them because you disagree with what they are doing, but I don't think you are going to see any type of an apology over this. And they really shouldn't apologize either...they have the right to support a cause they believe in.
 

lisa127

Well-Known Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
4,323
Location (City and/or State)
NE Ohio
Tom said:
lisa127 said:
And in some parts of the world humans eat each other as well. Dogs were never meant as food sources.....
Hmmm... We must be misunderstanding each other. Dogs absolutely were, and are "meant" for food sources. They were/are specifically bred, raised and butchered for human consumption. I don't care to do it. I see dogs as wonderful helpful companions too, but that doesn't change the fact that they are meant for food in some parts of the world. And yes, people do eat people sometimes. No disagreement here.
[hr]
lisa127 said:
Our canine teeth are called canine teeth simply to label them so to speak. They are hardly real canine teeth in the sense of tearing meat. Our digestive systems also are not that of carnivores.
Agreed. We do not have the digestive system of a carnivore. We have the digestive system of an omnivore, just like chimps and baboons which also include meat as part of their diet. And in my anatomy and physiology classes, I was taught that tearing meat is exactly what our canine teeth and the canine teeth of other animals are for.
Sure, they are bred for consumption now. I know that. That's not why they were originally domesticated though.

Technically you can call chimps (and gorillas) omnivores, but their diet is still 95% vegetarian. The other 5% is made up of mostly insects. In the case of the chimp, some very occassional small animals. But mostly insects. Either way, 95% vegetarian is a far cry from the diet we consume. I don't know much about baboons though. And yes, canine teeth are for tearing meat....on those animals who have real canine teeth. Our canine teeth are really not any longer than the rest of our teeth. And they are barely pointed. Hardly useful for ripping and tearing flesh.

Anyway, I guess we should put down our burgers and trade the cows, pigs, and chickens for crickets and mealworms.
 

Edna

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,536
Location (City and/or State)
Rawlins, Wyoming
lisa127 said:
Sure, they are bred for consumption now. I know that. That's not why they were originally domesticated though.

What is your source for the above statement? As far as I understand, dogs were domesticated in pre-history.
 

LadyKarli

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
4
Neal said:
futureleopardtortoise said:
I've never tried dog, probably never will, since I see them as pets. But I respect other peoples' opinions to view them differently.
I have eaten dog (among other things that might get me booted off the tortoise forum). Not the best meat in the world, and I hope I am never offered it again.[hr]
LadyKarli said:
Dear Chick-Fil-A, I was behind you with your right to believe what you want About marriage. I personally believe LOVE should be the only factor. You had my support in the fact it is your right to believe what you do. now I hear this (The problem is in how the company profits are used to fight equal protections under the law for tax paying citizens based only the fact they are gay.) Now you are trying to take away from others. Because of who & how they love. YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT NO MORE. & that sucks cause I really loved your restaurant. I shall eat no more Chick-Fil-A forever till things are made right & a PUBLIC apology is made to the Gay community. Good day Chick-Fil_A. Good day!
I respect that you are not going to patronize them because you disagree with what they are doing, but I don't think you are going to see any type of an apology over this. And they really shouldn't apologize either...they have the right to support a cause they believe in.
I really don't expect an apology...As long as they don't expect me to eat their chicken. I can go to Zaxby's if I really need some chicken I don't make myself.
 

CLMoss

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,052
Location (City and/or State)
Brooklyn, New York
TylerStewart said:
jaizei said:
Just because the majority currently shares that point of view doesn't make it right. Chick-fil-a donates millions of dollars to anti-gay marriage groups. So by boycotting, people are refusing to support a business that supports something they don't agree with.

And besides within a few years opinion will have shifted even more in favor of equality. Compare the numbers from the early '90s to today. You can not stop progress.
it's that the democratic party wants it legal because it secures votes.

Read more: http://www.tortoiseforum.org/Thread-Chk-Fil-A?page=5#ixzz22g2S31iB

I never said it was right. It's an opinion, and everyone that opposes gay marriage has their own reasons for doing so. I do think it's still a majority that believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, just that the gay population is able to build enthusiasm to fight for what they want better than their opponents do. It also has become a very political thing. Democrats court the gay issue because they have a few enthusiastic gay people there wanting to get married. It's not that 50% of the population wants it legal, it's that the democratic party wants it legal because it secures votes. When it's voted on by a population, it doesn't happen. Even California didn't get it passed, and it's easily one of the most accepting states in the country. My point was that when gay rights groups put together boycotts to punish a company that donates money to protect traditional marriage, they're fools if they don't think there's going to be a backlash (like there was yesterday). When a few mayors publicly say that Chick Fil A isn't welcome in their cities because of Christian values (not sure that Chick Fil A even wanted to be in their cities, but that's a different debate), you're going to get a massive Christian turnout supporting Chick Fil A that didn't just end yesterday. I feel like I've explained this 3 times now. If they keep doing silly kissing competitions or whatever they're trying to do now, it's just going to keep the opponents to their ideas buying Chick Fil A.

Pssst.... There's a huge fleet of companies that donate millions of dollars per year to organizations protecting traditional marriage. But you didn't hear that from me :)

So by boycotting, people are refusing to support a business that supports something they don't agree with.
I understand the logic in a boycott..... They work with countries like Cuba. They don't work in cases like this.
it's that the democratic party wants it legal because it secures votes.
_______________________________________________________
That is not true Tyler. How many votes could that secure? If it were up to the republicans, we would still have slaves.

And what does chicken have to do with marriage? Why would he get up on his soap box to speak of his homophobic stance on gay marriage? Republicans love to feel that they are superior to those who don't have the same belief system. But, progress will go on with or without the Republicans.

I would like to add, that those of you Republicans with young children, that may turn out to be "gay," can eat your words. You never know what the future may hold for your gay children...



[hr]
Edna said:
lisa127 said:
Sure, they are bred for consumption now. I know that. That's not why they were originally domesticated though.

What is your source for the above statement? As far as I understand, dogs were domesticated in pre-history.
Edna, please tell me what is "pre-history?" ~C
 

Edna

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,536
Location (City and/or State)
Rawlins, Wyoming
CLMoss said:
If it were up to the republicans, we would still have slaves.
LOL Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and the Democrats wanted to let the South secede, which would have perpetuated slavery. [hr]
Pre-history is pretty much everything that happened before people started making a written record of events.
 

CLMoss

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,052
Location (City and/or State)
Brooklyn, New York
Edna said:
CLMoss said:
If it were up to the republicans, we would still have slaves.
LOL Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and the Democrats wanted to let the South secede, which would have perpetuated slavery.
I understand that Lincoln was a Republican; however, republicans were a different type of animal at the time... But again, what is pre-history???

[hr]
CLMoss said:
Edna said:
CLMoss said:
If it were up to the republicans, we would still have slaves.
LOL Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and the Democrats wanted to let the South secede, which would have perpetuated slavery.
I understand that Lincoln was a Republican; however, republicans were a different type of animal at the time... But again, what is pre-history???
What year was that?
 

Edna

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,536
Location (City and/or State)
Rawlins, Wyoming
What year was what???
Prehistory is everything that happened before humans started making a written record of events.
 

CLMoss

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,052
Location (City and/or State)
Brooklyn, New York
I guess what I am asking is did we find dog bones in Neanderthals caves? Is that pre-history?
 

Tom

The Dog Trainer
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
49,046
Location (City and/or State)
Southern California
Kerryann said:
I don't care if you want to eat something, I just think its immoral and inhumane to have it suffer during it's life and suffer during it's death. I was raised to believe that by a man who raised animals for slaughter and hunted. My grandpa was an uneducated southern man who ate whatever kind of critter he killed, but he never tortured a damn thing his whole life.
In fact when I was a 4 and learning bow and arrow I shot a squirrel. He cleaned it and made me eat it. I learned my strong beliefs about animals from a non-vegetarian so it's not like I expect everyone to become vegetarian like myself. He always said to kill things clean so they don't suffer more than necessary.
If you haven't seen a young dog slowly strangled to death while you can't be upset in front of your customer.. trying to keep it together.. you haven't walked a mile in my shoes and seen the horror the human race can inflict on innocent creatures. I didn't start this thread to say meat eaters are evil, but to say just because you eat something doesn't mean you should torture and abuse it.

Kerryann, Your grandpa sounds like an excellent man. Somebody I would probably have liked and respected had I met him. I share his beliefs about animals and I'm teaching those same values to my child.

This post helped me to better understand your point of view and to understand why we are in disagreement about this subject. You see the chickens as being being tortured and suffering unnecessarily. I have not seen that to be the case in most large scale chicken farming operations, and that is why we see this thing so differently. If I agreed that the chickens were being horribly mistreated, I would side more with you on this issue. So our difference of opinion seems to be on how the chickens are being handled and cared for, and what is acceptable. I have read the animal rightest groups info on how these chickens are raised and cared for, and found it to be full of errors and mis-representations. "Spin", if you will. Of course, the chicken farmers and big industry spin it in their direction too, but from what I have personally seen and experienced, I don't have a problem with the industry guidelines and feel the care for these animals is adequate. My wife took a "Meat Utilization" class as part of her masters program, and spent an entire year learning about the chicken, beef and pork industries. A lot of my opinion comes from her direct hands on experience with this subject, as well as what I have personally seen myself. And believe me, she is the total animal lover, softy... She can't even stand it when I kill pests like rats and things...
 

GeoTerraTestudo

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
3,311
Location (City and/or State)
Broomfield, Colorado
CLMoss said:
Who unearthed "dog" in Neanderthal caves? Or was it wolves???
Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) are not thought to have domesticated animals. Rather, it is our species (H. sapiens) that has domesticated animals, starting with the wolf/dog.

The first fossils of wolf bones in human settlements come from southern Asia about 15,000 years ago ... this would be over 10,000 years before the first written records in Sumeria, making the domestication of wolves a prehistoric event (i.e. before documentation began). These fossils are considered proto-dog, because morphologically they are intermediate between wild wolves and domestic dogs, in terms of the length of the snout and teeth.

Genetic comparisons between dogs and wolves broadly agree with the fossil record, although some studies suggest that wolves were domesticated tens of thousands of years earlier.

Some scientists think wolves first started hanging around human camps to scavenge food. Over time they became selected for docility. People would have then used them as sentinels and hunting partners. Today, hunter-gatherers greatly value their dogs for their tracking ability, and do not eat them. Consumption of dogs probably only began in some places after civilization (literally "city-dwelling") began.
 

Edna

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,536
Location (City and/or State)
Rawlins, Wyoming
CLMoss said:
Who unearthed "dog" in Neanderthal caves? Or was it wolves???
I'm trying to understand where you are going with your line of inquiry, but it escapes me.

Canis familiaris remains were found at the Bonn-Oberkassel site, understood to be from 14,000 years ago. Remains of domesticated canines were found in Siberia in sites from 33,000 years ago.

I don't know if either of those sites were Neanderthal, but that seems irrelevant because they were not the only pre-historic human group.
 

GeoTerraTestudo

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
3,311
Location (City and/or State)
Broomfield, Colorado
Edna said:
CLMoss said:
Who unearthed "dog" in Neanderthal caves? Or was it wolves???
I'm trying to understand where you are going with your line of inquiry, but it escapes me.

Canis familiaris remains were found at the Bonn-Oberkassel site, understood to be from 14,000 years ago. Remains of domesticated canines were found in Siberia in sites from 33,000 years ago.

I don't know if either of those sites were Neanderthal, but that seems irrelevant because they were not the only pre-historic human group.
Canis lupus familiaris now. ;)
 

CLMoss

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,052
Location (City and/or State)
Brooklyn, New York
lisa127 Wrote: Sure, they are bred for consumption now. I know that. That's not why they were originally domesticated though.
________________________________________________________Edna wrote:_

What is your source for the above statement? As far as I understand, dogs were domesticated in pre-history.

_______________________________________________________

Like Lisa said, "now domestic dogs are bred for consumption." You asked her about her source, stating that they were bred and domesticated for human consumption in "pre-history." I don't believe that to be the case. They Homo-sapiens & Neanderthals may have killed and ate wolfs, being hunters & gatherers, but I don't believe that they bred and ate domestic dogs. They were not farmers. Farming came after pre-history. Domestic dogs were very important and valued as helpers and companions.

I have see loyle, domestic, companion dogs being clubbed to death by its owner, while wagging his/her tail...for a tasty meal.

Now if it is a question of a human starving to death in this country, which I don't believe is the case, than it is acceptable. Countries that experienced famine, that ate their babies, and if they developed a taste for them, would that be an acceptable cultural practice? Where does one draw the line? Dogs were domasticated to be companion animals, not meat. Even in cultures where it is acceptable to eat "dog" the younger generations are starting to rebel against this practice.

I am a born and raised in the city. We don't slaughter animals here. We go to the store.
 

Edna

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,536
Location (City and/or State)
Rawlins, Wyoming
CLMoss said:
Dogs were domasticated to be companion animals, not meat.
Is this an intended play on words??[hr]
CLMoss said:
You asked her about her source, stating that they were bred and domesticated for human consumption in "pre-history."
I asked about a source for her statement that dogs were not originally domesticated for consumption. The folks who domesticated dogs did not leave us with a written statement of their intentions. Statements made about what those intentions might have been are conjecture.
 

Yvonne G

Old Timer
TFO Admin
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
85,221
Location (City and/or State)
Clovis, CA
Moderator note: While all this back-and-forth about eating other animals besides chicken...or even chicken for that matter, is interesting, and you all have been very polite, the topic is the inhumane treatment of chickens bred and raised for food. "Chic Fill A" is in the subject title, but the original post really doesn't talk about that company except to say they are receiving free advertising. So...back to the topic of humane/inhumane treatment of chickens grown and raised for food.
 

ChiKat

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,598
Location (City and/or State)
Orange County, CA
I am actually surprised at the people saying factory farmed chickens are treated humanely. I have only ever heard the opposite. Factory farming is for mass production, and I find it hard to believe that the chickens can possibly be treated humanely.
I googled "humane factory farming" and I am only finding animal rights websites stating the cruelty of factory farming.
Such as this: http://www.care2.com/causes/horrific-conditions-for-factory-farmed-chickens-exposed.html

Can someone point me in a different direction?
 

Tom

The Dog Trainer
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
49,046
Location (City and/or State)
Southern California
ChiKat said:
I am actually surprised at the people saying factory farmed chickens are treated humanely. I have only ever heard the opposite. Factory farming is for mass production, and I find it hard to believe that the chickens can possibly be treated humanely.
I googled "humane factory farming" and I am only finding animal rights websites stating the cruelty of factory farming.
Such as this: http://www.care2.com/causes/horrific-conditions-for-factory-farmed-chickens-exposed.html

Can someone point me in a different direction?
It is just a matter of opinion. Really no matter what any website says, either pro or con, is just going to be biased info. We can each look at the same set of cages in a warehouse, and one of might think its fine, while the other thinks its deplorable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Top