Why Do You Eat Animals?

[miniboes]

I eat meat because it tastes good and if it tastes good that's all that matters. If I tried Human Meat and it tastes good I would eat human meat because hell why not? Meat is delicious so there!

Would breeding and killing humans for meat concern you at all?

[King of the Infidels]

Would breeding and killing humans for meat concern you at all?

Of course not! I would be honoured to offer myself up for this if I knew that I would taste good!

[Volenta]

Would breeding and killing humans for meat concern you at all?

Of course not! I would be honoured to offer myself up for this if I knew that I would taste good!

How ironic that you see people like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Anne Frank as heroes then. (source)

[King of the Infidels]

Would breeding and killing humans for meat concern you at all?

Of course not! I would be honoured to offer myself up for this if I knew that I would taste good!

How ironic that you see people like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Anne Frank as heroes then. (source)

I don't know what you're talking about

[brimstoneSalad]

Of course not! I would be honoured to offer myself up for this if I knew that I would taste good!

You're probably just a common liar and hypocrite. But if not, this can be arranged.

There are plenty of people who would be happy to eat you, and would enjoy it greatly.
Due to legal complications, you will have to end your own life in order for them to avoid charges of murder and/or manslaughter, but this can be done painlessly. The helium bag method is popular and cheap.

Legally, I can only give you information, I can't endorse any actions.

But in all likelihood you're just a common liar and hypocrite, as I said. You won't actually do anything, because you don't believe any of that.

[King of the Infidels]

Of course not! I would be honoured to offer myself up for this if I knew that I would taste good!

You're probably just a common liar and hypocrite. But if not, this can be arranged.

There are plenty of people who would be happy to eat you, and would enjoy it greatly.
Due to legal complications, you will have to end your own life in order for them to avoid charges of murder and/or manslaughter, but this can be done painlessly. The helium bag method is popular and cheap.

Legally, I can only give you information, I can't endorse any actions.

But in all likelihood you're just a common liar and hypocrite, as I said. You won't actually do anything, because you don't believe any of that.

Well, this would only happen if the being was of a higher intelligence. Say, Dolphins are much smarter than Humans so I would be sure to offer myself for them to eat!
(MOD EDIT: Another user already asked you not to overuse the emoticons. Posting a wall of them is excessive. Please limit your usage in the future.)

Sincerely,
A Liar and a Hypocrite!

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, this would only happen if the being was of a higher intelligence.

That would include most humans, for you. You would have no problem finding a human with a higher intelligence to eat you.

Say, Dolphins are much smarter than Humans so I would be sure to offer myself for them to eat!

Nothing's stopping you. A wild Orca would gladly eat you.

Do you need directions to the nearest Orca hunting ground?

[TheVeganAtheist]

Nothing's stopping you. A wild Orca would gladly eat you.

Do you need directions to the nearest Orca hunting ground?

LOL

[King of the Infidels]

Well, this would only happen if the being was of a higher intelligence.

That would include most humans, for you. You would have no problem finding a human with a higher intelligence to eat you.

Say, Dolphins are much smarter than Humans so I would be sure to offer myself for them to eat!

Nothing's stopping you. A wild Orca would gladly eat you.

Do you need directions to the nearest Orca hunting ground?

Yes AND I'LL USE HOWEVER MANY EMOTICONS I WANT B*TCH!

[Steve]

If your eggs cost less than around $2 each (NOT per dozen- they should be $24 a dozen at least), the hens are not treated well- it's economically impossible.

Respectfully, how did you make this determination? This seems like an arbitrary figure you came up with to support your views.

Most male chicks are killed (save a small number of breeding stock)
Cost x 2 (to support the cost of taking care of the males).

So now your immediately altering the standards to include the males? You specified hens originally. Hens are female, not male. And I'm the ignorant one... whatever. Anyways if your going to bring the lives of the males into the mix of your criteria of "hens" being treated well during egg production then I'll take your position even further and also point out something I feel is inconsistent regarding the male chickens lives.

First I did read that you listed to another poster "You could raise your own chickens." as an alternative to purchasing eggs from a store. When somebody goes to purchase hens for backyard egg production they are typically pre sexed to hens, females only. You don't think that their male counterparts get sent to a rooster sanctuary? Most of them are killed. Either after being sexed or some might end up living long enough to find their way onto a dinner plate but that's even unlikely. Like you said males are kept in very small numbers for breeding. So if your going to include the lives of male chickens into your standard of a humanely produced egg shouldn't you also be against raising chickens for eggs?

Now in regards to keeping the males alive to meet your criteria of a humane egg. This is highly impractical. In fact I would argue that it's so impractical that putting any sort of price on a humane egg (your criteria) would be arbitrary and that the position you should take is that it's not possible. That under your standards the only moral choice would be to not eat eggs. As somebody who had chickens for eggs in the past and more then a single rooster at one point I'll share some info. Roosters of typical egg laying breeds tend to be pretty aggressive. You can't have a bunch of male roosters housed together. It would just be a bunch of cock fights. And you can't house them 50/50 with hens either, that's just adding hen rape into the mix. There is a reason for the expression too many roosters in the hen house.

Chickens are killed far short of their natural life spans, which is 15 - 20 years, when egg production drops- which is usually around 2-3 years of age, but I'm being very generous and saying 5 years (which is for most unreasonably long).
Assuming a 15 year average (again, being conservative):
Cost x 3 (to support a natural lifespan instead of killing the chickens when they're young)
Now we have a x 6 cost.

Can live to be and natural life span is not the same thing in my opinion. What is required for chickens to live to those ages? I would say protection from predators and according to you medical care. So how do you protect a bunch of chickens from predators? A tight mesh fence? Which then comes into question if it's big enough and the chickens are being provided with what would be considered true free roam. And medical care, not exactly what I think of when speaking of a natural lifespan.

A $2 egg is about the cheapest you'll find for "free range", which is basically factory farming with loopholes, up to $5 is more typical for something more believable (for smaller farms, better feed, more grass area, etc.). You'd have to examine details of the conditions of these different farms to determine which ones were really decent; I'd be inclined to believe a $4 egg could have been from a farm with conditions half decent during the time the chicken was allowed to live.

This is reinforcing my initial suspicion that your numbers are arbitrary.
"A $2 egg is about the cheapest you'll find for "free range".
Is either an outright lie or because your vegan and don't buy eggs are just uninformed to what they cost.
My first search for free range eggs turned up an example of pastured eggs. I have not seen this specific operation but the way it is described it sounds similar to farms I have seen in person where I would consider the birds had true free roam.
http://www.thegreenhillsranch.com/ordering-info/
The eggs are $7 USD a dozen or about $0.58 an egg, not $2 an egg.
These are for eggs that are better then "free range" which I agree is kind of a BS term.
The first "free range" eggs I found online were $6.08 a dozen.
I've seen "free range" eggs on sale at my local market for about $4 a dozen.
I've purchased eggs from small "backyarders" where the birds had free roam from $4-6 a dozen.
If you could link me to some eggs that are being sold for $24 USD a dozen I would love to see one example.

That accounts for spillage and other factors in shipping, so if you multiply $4 x 6 = $24

Why are you multiplying $4 an egg x 6? Just trying to hit your original figure of $24 but forgot that a dozen is 12? Are you multiplying by 6 because of the x 2 for male life and x 3 for natural life span that you wen't though. In which case I'd ask then how on earth do you reach the cost of $4 an egg? None of that achieves a cost of $24 a dozen.

Veterinary costs also increase greatly after the first few years of life; $100 a year is pretty typical, for reasonable medical care. Not only are they living longer at normal cost, but costs increase with age (feed cost isn't very consequential).

The time we had chicken we spent exactly zero on their medical care. They didn't need it the time we had them. My guess this due in part because we did provide them with roaming free. They had more then enough space, they were not crammed in close quarters to other chickens living in a space filled with there own fecal matter. The area was clean, they got to forge for insects, dust, etc. And if one did get sick or hurt and die, they're chickens, that's life. I don't think the absence life extending medical care equates bad treatment. But that's just my opinion not yours. I will say that I'm not familiar with what kind of medical costs a larger operation would need or be stipulated to have. What's $100 a bird per year in medical spent on?

If you want to do it another way:
If you really push it, a chicken might lay 1,000 eggs in a lifetime; that's 83 and a third dozen.
Let's imagine this is a fantasy world where distribution and packaging are free, and there's no spillage at all (that's completely unreasonable, but I'm being very generous here).
At $24 a dozen, with a chicken living 15 years (completely ignoring the fact that half the chicks are killed, and imagining somebody came up with a way to do sex selective abortions - or just saying we don't even care about the male chicks that are ground up), that's only $133.33 a year, as a budget to take care of the average chicken.
That's a tight budget on its own (just basic care, feeding, and medical as mentioned); you'd be hard pressed to take care of a pet chicken on that (which was the standard mentioned). Assuming you have a bigger farm and you're getting bulk rates on things, it's conceivable.
But then, let's step back into the reality of distribution costs, spillage, etc. You're looking at a budget closer to half of that. Highly impractical, and unlikely, but on the outside marginally conceivable.
I said at least $24, because that was low-balling it.

Distribution, your assuming the eggs have to be purchased for a typical grocery store, they don't. Also it's a non factor here in that aspect has nothing to do with treatment and could be identical to factory farms.
So a hundred for medical a year and $33.33 for food, labor, water, etc. Why just sound good? An even third of a hundred? Sure why not.
You didn't even touch on some of the addition costs I thought would be needed like additional space/land and labor, dogs.

Respectfully, Steve, these are obvious factors that thirty seconds of research would have revealed, which is why I didn't bother to break them down. I'm a bit amazed at your skepticism, but it highlights your ignorance of the industry.
I don't pull numbers out of the air to support my views- quite the contrary, my views are based on the numbers. Unlike yours, I suspect, given your ignorance of said numbers.
If you're interested in this topic (or interested in being a morally decent human being), please do the research for yourself. You will come to the same conclusion.
I'm not inherently against using animals for any purpose (there are many purposes for which I support animal use), but some things are just inherently cruel and inefficient to the point that doing them is just wholly irrational.

Your just being condescending here. If your interested in being a decent human being you would of excluded this portion from your response.