Do not mess with members of HATS

[Jimbo]

While returning from lunch today I experienced a traffic jam at a normally calm intersection. As my car crawled slowly towards said intersection I noticed a melee erupting involving a police officer and a 6 foot turkey! This was not your ordinary 6 foot turkey, if there is such a thing. The turkey was a paid protestor for the aforementioned organization dubbed HATS (Humans Against Turkey Slaughter). While the oversized turkey was distracting the police his minions were passing out flyers outlining the cruel punishment befalling millions of turkeys this month.

Did you know over 290 million turkeys are slaughtered every year in the US alone? This is close to 1 turkey for every man, woman and child! It boggles the mind to consider how crowded Las Vegas would be without all the turkeys being slaughtered daily! Just how many more turkeys might be slaughterd without the help of this august organization spreading the word is difficult to comprehend. I for one am pleased to have this called to my attention since before now I had assumed all these turkeys were barnyard volunteers not conscripts with no say in their own future. I call upon my fellow posters, conservatives and liberals alike, to unit in this cause and spread the word. A motto suggested by this organization is "Save a Turkey, Eat a Cranberry for Thanksgiving". Kinda catchy huh?

[andyfox]

Anything that ugly deserves to die.

No bleeding heart here.

[HDPM]

Who was getting the best of the fight? I'd hate to be a cop who got injured in the line of duty fighting an animal rights whacko dressed (no pun intended) as a turkey. Think of those police reports: "The subject turkey then advanced towards this officer with his beak cocked back and while making a furtive movement with his left wing. This officer attempted to deploy his 10% oleoresincapsacin spray, but could not adequately deploy said spray due to the beak angle. This officer then tried to employ his ASP on the peroneal nerve of the turkey, but was struck by the left wing and beak-butted in the head. Backup then arrived...."

[MMMMMM]

It sounds pretty funny, but...actually, humans exert a tyranny of sorts over animals, and animals have feelings too (plus the growing of animals to be eaten for food is a great waste of energy and resources: growing vegetables is far more efficient, and cleaner too).

While I am not currently of sufficient moral fiber to go completely vegetarian, there is little doubt that a properly balanced vegetarian diet is both healthier and kinder. So maybe these demonstrators have a point...but why just turkeys? Why on earth are they demonstrating just for turkeys?

[Jimbo]

MMMMMM,

I can only assume it is for one of two reasons. Since it is near Thanksgiving they might expect to get more publicity than normal. Or they may be stuck with HATS and could not figure out any other reasonable words to go with their current anacronym.

[Jimbo]

HDPM,

Actually it appeared to be a standoff during the period of time I was able to observe the shirmish. In reality it looked more like a costume ball square dance with a turkey dancing around a bewildered policeman.

I liked your police report description it is priceless. I'll attempt to get a copy of the official report form one of the cops who pulls security duty for me on weekends. It may prove to be most amusing!

[Ray Zee]

because turkeys are bred for having all breasts. they can no longer breed. they are a symbol to those people. actually it takes about eight times more land to grow meat than does for vegetables and grain. most corn and grain is grown to feed animals for slaughter. sad.

Jimbo, I'm posting as "anonymous" because I can feel you breaking into a cold sweat knowing my posting total is rising rapidly, and I no longer wished to be accused of having "posting envy."

Doesn't the official White House turkey receive a pardon every year?

John

[Jimbo]

LMAO!! Good one John, yes I believe I watched last years pardon on TV. It was the highlight of my holiday season!

You are very liberal compared to the dictator that currently rules the USA.

[Mark Heide]

Ray,

Animals eat animals and it's part of nature. What makes humans any different? If there was an animal smart enough it would be eating us too, and sometimes they do eat stupid humans. I think we have plenty of land to farm meat, but it is interesting that you mention the amount of land it takes to grow meat, but they must be making a profit. When I make your pizza I'll skip the sausage.

Good Luck

Mark

[IrishHand]

What Ray is arguing is 100% correct. It's been proven that it's horrendously wasteful to use land to both breed animals and grow the food needed to feed them. If you used the same land and resources to produce food for human consumption, you'd end up with about three times as much food. (I believe that's the number I read, but I could be mistaken - it may be even higher as Ray cited.)

[HDPM]

So what. Maybe I want a steak. Too many people around anyway, who wants the efficiency to have more. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[IrishHand]

Actually, if the world's resources were used even remotely efficiently, we'd be able to feed every person currently living on earth. Of course, the US (and Americans within) are more interested in their steak than the right of foreigners to not starve /forums/images/icons/blush.gif

[Glenn]

"Of course, the US (and Americans within) are more interested in their steak than the right of foreigners to not starve "

Shouldn't they be the ones concerned about them starving? I mean, we live in this country, and the reason the country was formed we continue to live in is so we can work together to have better lives. People is other places should do the same with their own countries. While Americans agree to take some responsibility for other Americans, we certainly never agreed to be responsible for everyone. They should be responsible for themselves.

[HDPM]

There is no right not to starve first of all. Then there is no right to force others to feed you through bogus philosophies with "altruistic" beliefs. As to the practicalities, it is not like my having a steak causes all the problems that lead to famine in various places. All that bullshit like "Live simply that others may simply live" is just that. It's a big lie. It stems from irrational philosophies and inaccurate perceptions of the world. Yeah, if we set off a bunch of nukes to poison the planet sure. But it is nuts to think that a collectivist agricultural system feeding people soybeans and rice will work. The pinnacle of that experiment is Stalin's Ukrainian farm policy. The others are just variations on a theme. Medium rare and a nice cabernet please.

[IrishHand]

Some responses in order:

"People is other places should do the same [concern themselves with not starving] with their own countries."
They do, only it tends to be awfully tough when the US is exploiting them to such a degree that they're unable to. Ethiopia, for example, produces more than enough food to sustain it's populace - its just that a shocking percentage ends up in the hands of Americans.

"They should be responsible for themselves."
Again, kind of tough for them to do so when the only means they have of being 'responsible for themselves' are being taken from them by American industrial interests.

"There is no right not to starve first of all. "
Read both the Declaration of Independance, the US Constitution and a large number of sweeping speeches made by countless US figures and I'm afraid that you'd discover that American and democratic 'doctrine' is completely opposed to your current perception. In fact, the only governmental theory which I'm aware of which has historically supported your proposition is fascism or some variant (re. Nazism). Hitler, for example, believed he had no responsibility to support or feed any Russians which had the misfortune of being in territories of Russia which he occupied. Not only did he force them to work for the German cause (analagous to current US policy in dozens of 3rd world countries), but he publicly declared that no Russian would eat while even one German was hungry (analagous to the above two arguments about food distribution).

"As to the practicalities, it is not like my having a steak causes all the problems that lead to famine in various places."
I'll assume you have no conception of the fact that a huge proportion of your steak comes from South America (among other places) where the land would be far better used feeding the South American populace - or better yet, providing oxygen for the earth. One of you will argue, no doubt, that it's their own fault for trashing their lands for the growing of cattle so they can sell us meat. However, this is hardly a consensus decision. The highly wealthy in 3rd world countries who own most of the land and means of production understand that they'll make more money selling the fruits of their country's labors to us than they would feeding their own people. Of course, those wealthy landowners and industrialists aren't going hungry, so they're about as concerned about the plight of their people as you are. They're content to say 'it's just the way of the world' as you are while millions around the world starve needlessly.

Certainly, I'd never argue that there aren't a ton of problems all over the world. However, it's pretty obvious that a large number of them exist solely at the behest of wealthy Americans.

[HDPM]

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (later changed to happiness) does not mean anybody owes you jack. You have the right to live without being killed or interfered with by someone else. You have the right to try to get food.
Your argument about Hitler's Russia strategy is specious and offensive. Not a good one.

[IrishHand]

"The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (later changed to happiness) does not mean anybody owes you jack."
A sensible person might argue that depriving a country of it's food would qualify as depriving them of the aforementioned rights, but I'm sure you're right.

[Jimbo]

IrishHand,

You bring up some interesting points but are you advocating isolationism? This has been tried and fails miserably, ask Woodrow Wilson. The steaks I eat are raised in Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Where do you shop for South American beef? Plus our constitution is designed to protect Americans and legal immigrants not other countries. It is easy to blame the big bad Americans for other countries troubles but we are far from the cause or even an underlying contributor.

[Mark Heide]

IrishHand,

I'm not arguing with Ray, but it has to be more profitable to raise animals for consumption, otherwise why would they do it? If you look at economics, people operate businesses that are profitable, otherwise they go broke.

If there was a race of humans that [censored] gold bricks they would be put on a ranch. If the production was too high, they would kill as many as needed, and feed them to their pets. If the production was too low they would force them to breed.

What the issue here is survival of the fittest. A farmer will harvest what he knows best, and can generate a profit. Ask the banana republics if they would rather harvest poppy or bananas.

Lastly, there is an overabundance of food on this earth, but the poorest will not get it. They will be restricted by armies and governments. Look what happened when the U.S. was delivering tons of grain to Africa, the local governments and armies confiscated the goods. So, these people are destined to die, and there is nothing you can do to save them. So, you really can not blame the USA, the responsibility lies with the controlling governments and armies of other nations.

Survival of the fittest governs the outcome.

Good Luck

Mark