It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I partially agree with your analysis. Animals will be used for food, the problem is, will they live their lives in cruel conditions, or will they live a normal life and be humanely slaughtered. There is most definetly a difference. You don't agree?


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Do you understand the difference between a quick death and torture?


Animals are tortured in the ''quick death'' process.

In fairness, above all else, I'm sure the animal would like to live and not be needlessly slaughtered.


Your argument is akin to a murderer ''justifying'' his crime by saying ''at least I didn't torture my victim for too long before I killed him''.

edit on 6-2-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I am boycotting Subway. They donate money to make fat people skinny. I am skinny so Subway is obviously out to get me.

I will also boycott Jason's Deli because back in high school, they gave our rival team extra food. They were obviously biased against us.

I want equality damnit!


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Either it's acceptable to torture and kill an animal for food or it's not.

It is necessary to kill an animal in order to use it for food. It is not necessary to torture (inflict needless pain on) an animal in order to eat it. There are quick, essentially painless ways to kill an animal; they are used here in hunting (quick shot, immediate kill) and to put down old or sick pets 'humanely'.

You can make a point about killing animals for food (which I would debate of course), but it is inaccurate to equate killing an animal for food to torture.

And I fail to even see where that argument ties in with the topic? We were discussing Chic-Fil-A's religious leanings and donation practices. Did I miss a Biblical verse that says "Thou shalt not eat meat"?


TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Yes.. you must not read your bible. RIght there in Exodus.. Thou shalt not eat breaded chicken pieces. Everyone knows that.




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Your friend is consuming a lot of MSG and GMO's if that is the case. Weight is going to be the least of his problems... There is nothing Christian about the company...well except maybe the blind Republican, ignorant earth raping and deathward hurdling paradigm.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Well, there is the stuff on not eating pork, horses, rabbit, crab, shrimp, dolphin, etc.

I have followed that for about 6 months.

It is hard to pass on bacon, but I do feel a lot better physically and spiritually.

One does not realize how much pork we eat until you stop eating it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
If you think subway produces healthy food, you're going to need to re-evaluate nutirtion.



Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I am boycotting Subway. They donate money to make fat people skinny. I am skinny so Subway is obviously out to get me.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Nothing Christian about them?

And You come to that conclusion, how?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Reply to post by Advantage
 


You missed the part in Strong's Concordance that states that the translation for breaded chicken may mean all breaded chicken That is not fried in peanut oil.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I partially agree with your analysis. Animals will be used for food, the problem is, will they live their lives in cruel conditions, or will they live a normal life and be humanely slaughtered. There is most definetly a difference. You don't agree?


I'm resigned to the fact that humans are going to eat animals, and I agree that they should be slaughtered as ''humanely'' as possible.

What gnaws is the ''halfway house'' stance of some meat-eaters who, apparently for reasons of salving their nagging consciences, will take the moral high-ground about factory farming and slaughtherhouses.

I mean, do you honestly make sure of the farming conditions of every piece of meat that you eat ( by the way, I'm just assuming you're a meat-eater
).


Besides, as others have pointed out, this company in the OP is hardly alone in the use of factory farming. Why use it as a stick to beat this particular company with ?



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Here is an article that sheds light on chic-fil-a's farming practices:


www.all-creatures.org...


Perhaps I could produce a spin off thread on this...



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I'm personally going to boycott Wendy's, because their logo is discriminatory against blonds and brunettes, and males also! Who gave them the right to only use a redheaded girl on their signs? I think this one can go all the way to the Supreme Court!

And I'm boycotting McDonalds for being discriminatory against coulrophobics. How dare they employ a clown as their mascot! Have you ever heard of John Wayne Gacy?



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Again, Chic-Fil-A is hardly alone in that regard, and is non-essential to the discussion of the OP.

I look forward to your new thread.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It is necessary to kill an animal in order to use it for food. It is not necessary to torture (inflict needless pain on) an animal in order to eat it. There are quick, essentially painless ways to kill an animal; they are used here in hunting (quick shot, immediate kill) and to put down old or sick pets 'humanely'.

You can make a point about killing animals for food (which I would debate of course), but it is inaccurate to equate killing an animal for food to torture.


Well think of the way that animals are eventually taken away and slaughtered in the ''humane'' way, and imagine that that was humans. Wouldn't you think that that would constitute torture ?

There's also the logistical problem that the demand for meat will override - many times over - the capacity for farmers to raise and slaughter each animal ''humanely''.

But, as you suggest, perhaps this debate is for another thread...


Originally posted by TheRedneck
And I fail to even see where that argument ties in with the topic? We were discussing Chic-Fil-A's religious leanings and donation practices. Did I miss a Biblical verse that says "Thou shalt not eat meat"?


I think it was because there were a few people stamping their feet and throwing their toys out of the pram because this business didn't conform to their own personal sense of morality.

After most of us realised that someone's personal moral take on any organisation exercising their right to donate was irrelevant to the matter, others had to look for another stick to beat this company with.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I support your freedom of expression, however I feel you are wasting your potential with trivial issues.

For example, if you were to boycott an establishment because it wanted to fund laws that were in direct opposition to your lifestyle, that would be more worthwhile....


Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I'm personally going to boycott Wendy's, because their logo is discriminatory against blonds and brunettes, and males also! Who gave them the right to only use a redheaded girl on their signs? I think this one can go all the way to the Supreme Court!

And I'm boycotting McDonalds for being discriminatory against coulrophobics. How dare they employ a clown as their mascot! Have you ever heard of John Wayne Gacy?



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Burger King is sexist against females.

Dairy Queen is sexist against males.

Should be renamed to Burger Person and Dairy Person.

Equality for all, damnit!


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Heh.

It is called being facetious.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
This company is not alone in the factory farming regard, but if they are a beacon of morality, factory farming is a huge hypocracy. WWJD?


I think Chic-fil-A makes themselves an easy target for a myriad of reasons.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I mean, do you honestly make sure of the farming conditions of every piece of meat that you eat ( by the way, I'm just assuming you're a meat-eater
).


Besides, as others have pointed out, this company in the OP is hardly alone in the use of factory farming. Why use it as a stick to beat this particular company with ?




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Jesus would feed the masses with five loaves and two fishes.

And again, I dare you to find any substantial amount of meat that is not "factory."


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join