Killing animals "humanely" for meat makes no sense

[monkeydelmagico]

Do you not acknowledge that an animal getting to do what it would naturally do, in this instance moving around and even getting to run a bit, is nothing bet beneficial and likely important to optimal health? .

Nope. Ruins the Foie gras.

 

[dank69]

For some reason, every time I think about Vegetarians, I think of this. LOL 😀

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own mid-west.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possessed me then.
And I begged,
"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me,
"These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
"Hear me now, I have seen the light!
They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!
Damn you!
Let the rabbits wear glasses!
Save our brothers!"
Can I get an amen?
Can I get a hallelujah?
Thank you Jesus.

Life feeds on life :thumbsup:

 

[slag]

Neither of those things are true, and they both comment on the same thing. An animal's body produces thousands of different chemicals that affect the taste and quality of the meat and what they eat affects the proportions.

And the average person eats at McDonald's, so they aren't the best metric for a taste test.

Both are true. I grew up in the country and we raised hogs, sheep, and chickens. Our chickens ate grasshoppers, bugs, egg shells, scraps (along with the pigs), and grain in the winter. They tasted good. Sure, there will be subtle differences in flavors based on what animals eat, but its very minute and I doubt the average person could discern the difference between grain fed beef and beef that grazed on grass.

 

[eits]

1. It doesn't work like that. See, the animal's bodies are designed so that if they eat grass, you don't directly eat the grass. The grass is turned into energy, muscle, and fat that we call meat and we eat as a steak or chicken breast or whatever.

2. Doubt it. Taste tests have proven that people can't tell the difference between "organically grown" vegetables and those created for sale at the grocery store. I think the same is true for meat.

1, it actually does work like that. that's why fish that live in crappy rivers and lakes taste crappy and the same breed of fish can live in a much cleaner river or lake and taste amazing. the extra minerals and nutrients and whatnot that are in the food sources of the animal you ate are still in the bloodstream and meat of the animal at the time it's slaughtered. that's what makes them taste different.

2, doubt it all you want. try it for yourself. you'll either be surprised... or maybe not. you might be the kind of person who can't tell the difference between teal and turquoise.

 

[eits]

Because if an animal had poison in its blood it would die?()🙂

lol

 

[eits]

Both are true. I grew up in the country and we raised hogs, sheep, and chickens. Our chickens ate grasshoppers, bugs, egg shells, scraps (along with the pigs), and grain in the winter. They tasted good. Sure, there will be subtle differences in flavors based on what animals eat, but its very minute and I doubt the average person could discern the difference between grain fed beef and beef that grazed on grass.

average americans... i doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between shit and apple butter.

 

[Rakehellion]

Sure, there will be subtle differences in flavors based on what animals eat

This just contradicts everything else you said.