A man should be killed if he murdered someone. But again you are changing the subject. People make a big deal about saving animals or the rain forest when they should be thinking about how babies die at the hands of there mother.
Don't you think Human life is better to be saved then an animal?You eat Meat to live so animals die because of that. There is no excuse why Babies have to be killed just because there mother is selfish and a murder.
\ Anyway got to go.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I watched my Mom accidentally run over a 6 month old golden retriever puppy a couple weeks ago; she was an emotional wreck for days, but I didn't even care. Your Youtube vids mean have no affect on me bro. uhuh
hitler ^
You put on a tough act, but you're crying for those pigs. Inside.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
A man should be killed if he murdered someone. But again you are changing the subject. People make a big deal about saving animals or the rain forest when they should be thinking about how babies die at the hands of there mother.
Don't you think Human life is better to be saved then an animal?You eat Meat to live so animals die because of that. There is no excuse why Babies have to be killed just because there mother is selfish and a murder.
\ Anyway got to go.
It was a simple A) or B) question and you decided to go with D) dodge.
Again, making this thread about 'abortion is bad.'
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanIf I may... and I say this from an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality...
Obviously there's a difference; shooting/mass firebombing/gassing the pigs would be much more humane than burying them all alive.But at the end of the day; they're just pigs. I'd care if it was 3 million human babies, or even 3 million elephants or tigers or whales since they're endangered. But mass produced, dirty ass pigs? Not gonna shed a tear, honestly.
I love you, man.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
A man should be killed if he murdered someone. But again you are changing the subject. People make a big deal about saving animals or the rain forest when they should be thinking about how babies die at the hands of there mother.
Don't you think Human life is better to be saved then an animal?You eat Meat to live so animals die because of that. There is no excuse why Babies have to be killed just because there mother is selfish and a murder.
\ Anyway got to go.
Originally posted by Robtard
Who would you rather have put to death?A) 3 million innocent pigs
B) A man who is a rapist and murderer
False dilema.
There are many other choices besides those two. Additionally, you strawmanned her point. She never talked about or mentioned the person being saved to be a rapist murderer: that's something you injected to prove a point about extreme exceptions to her point. That's not how you have an honest or proper dialogue when trying to convince someone. Here's a better and objective way to approach it:
You're saying that you would rather kill 3 million pigs; some of which are infected with a disease that could potentially kill many millions more of the livestock in gruesome and agonizing deaths, and jump to other species doing the same to them; is better than killing just one human?
The answer is obviously yes. It saves more livestock and human lives at the same time.
However, the HOW they were killed is the problem, not that they were killed.
How many humans would be negatively impacted by a sharp increase in food prices because we failed to exterminate an infestation of FMD and it destroys a crap ton of livestock (it would spread to other countries the worse the infestation got)? Just because Korea decided to kill 10-20% of their livestock, doesn't mean it is automatically horrendous. I think they should have ponied up the cash to buy the euthanasia drugs, myself.
This site says it would have cost $1,000,000 to do so.
http://vegan.com/blog/2011/01/12/millions-of-animals-buried-alive-in-south-korea/
It is obviously a biased site and that number may be low, but even if we triple the amount to $3,000,000 (just to be generous), that is still better than just dumping them into a WWII-esque jew-killing trench (seriously, this is how some Jews were killed: buried alive in mass trench graves). That $3,000,000 cost could be easily spread-out and not affect the overall costs of food in the market by very much.
Yes, by killing the livestock, you are saving even more. Why the hell would they want to destroy tens of millions of dollars in livestock UNLESS it saved them money in the long run by saving more of their investment? It makes no sense. It is in their best interest to NOT kill them. Does anyone think that they livestock industry enjoys killing large investments by the millions of dollars? NO! Of course not. 馃槧 They had no choice but to do that because it was government mandated: they were worried it would become an epidemic and not only destroy too much livestock, but spread to other countries.
But, again, they could have spent a load of cash to make things more humane. But was it really saving them money? Surely the euthanasia route would have saved them more money.
Think about the costs of what they are doing: the tarps for the mass graves, the machinery rental and/or upkeep costs. The costs to pay the personnel to corral the livestock to the mass graves. The electrical costs with lighting. Fuel costs for the machinery. Fuel costs and maintenance costs for transporting the livestock. Injury costs from the personnel for handling "alive" livestock.
All of those costs are quite a bit. Are they more than if they euthanized them while still at the "factory barn" while still in their cages? Maybe not. You still have to transport them to mass graves and you have to dig them. But there are several areas where money is saved.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I've seen the numbers claimed to be "almost a million", to 3 million.Apparently it's to curb "hoof & mouth" disease, I have no idea why they're burying them alive unless it's because they think that's the cheapest way to do it.
Pretty fricken horrible though.
The thing is, animals with "hoof & mouth" NEED to be incinerated to make sure the disease is totally eliminated, reducing the risk of spreading.
I know that pit is lined with plastic but I would also imagine the lining would be damaged & torn apart in areas with all those pigs hooves scratching & digging in....once their corpses start to decay, the bodily fluids & hoof & mouth disease will leach into the ground contaminating not only the soil but only source of water in the area.
It is just such a backward idea to bury all those animals in one pit.
Mass livestock slaughters to curb diseases are nasty but sometimes necessary. Though I imagine some of the people actually on site when they were buried lost their lunch from that screaming.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
"Oh man the Americans are crying because of the potential hamburgers, bacons, etc. that couldve came from these pigs!!!!"crylaugh