91–100 of 131 posts
How do 10% not know boys don't lay eggs and the plurality not realize we don't eat roosters
To those arguing that this is irrelevant, I urge you to search for a video of this "culling" yourself. All the logic in the world can't ease my stomach after watching a conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. It's simply not right. And while there are still many issues remaining in the meat industry (arguably its existence at all), this is one less.
> conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. I haven't seen it, and correct me if this is not the case, but it doesn't strike me as a bad way to go. Getting macerated beats most of the ways humans and wild animals die. Do these chicks have any idea "what hit them"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. Try to argue in good faith through understanding the other party's viewpoint before responding. I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place. The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations. If my values are that each deserves a chance at a life--whatever life it may be, I can advo…
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. They are reacting directly to the absolutely bonkers statements you are making that there is ethically no difference between killing 350 million live, healthy male chicks every year and preventing those chicks from being born in the first place.
Does anyone know _how_ the detection process works? And is there anything done to the hen or the egg during that process that could make the egg less healthy or nutritious?
Egg should be absolutely fine, but there will be a chick in there, so if you wanted to eat it like an egg, you might end up closer to balut than you want / expect.
Is there really a big difference if the chick is destroyed shortly before or shortly after hatching? Why is hatched-or-not the ethical standard?
If destroyed early enough one imagines it doesn't have a sufficient brain to have a conscious awareness of its existence and therefore would not suffer fear not pain
I don't see how you can support this in-ovo thing, and also eat meat. They seem to be in opposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. I haven't seen it, and correct me if this is not the case, but it doesn't strike me as a bad way to go. Getting macerated beats most of the ways humans and wild animals die. Do these chicks have any idea "what hit them"?
There's an effect where the visceral emotional response to an execution method overrides the actual cruelty of the act. Lethal injection, for example, is probably horribly painful for at least some of those that experience it[1] but it looks humane to observers. Meanwhile, the trusty guillotine would be my chosen way to go since it's nearly instant. [1] https://eji.org/news/lethal-injections-cause-suffocation-and...
People have been killing male chicks, and keeping just a single rooster since the beginning of chickens Also is the quality of the life of these non-culled female chickens good somehow?
The point is to not have to wait for the male chicks to be born.
How do 10% not know boys don't lay eggs and the plurality not realize we don't eat roosters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place." I do. One of those involves a (presumably painful) death of a conscious animal. The other does not.
The other option - a living female chick - also ends in the premature death of a conscious animal, additionally after a (presumably painful) life. Does it not?