frostz

I don't agree with that. Firstly you're giving the chickens a human perception on the situation which alone is pointless. Secondly, by imagining yourself in their position you're no longer talking about whether animals should be kept in those conditions, but whether humans should, and applying your conclusion to the chicken scenario. In this case it's ok, but in other cases it can lead you to forget what these things are an alternative to, such as the "natural" method of dying - getting ripped to shreds by another animal and being eaten half-alive with guts hanging out..etc.

I think it's a great idea. Farming is going to happen regardless, and this is just another step to making it more humane.

well since we are talking about the "humane treatment of animals", i think that it is necessary to put yourself in their shoes so that one can sympathize with and understand whether or not treating the animal in a certain way is more acceptable than another.

The animal in question must have some intrinsic worth, while less than a human is still enough for a person to think, "hey i don't think we should be treating them this way because they are suffering." One of the reasons that people think about the suffering of animals is because of the slipper slope thing where they feel that if its okay to do something to an animal then it might become okay to do something like that to a human as well in the future. And of course this train of thought has to begin with the person "imagining themselves in the place of the animal we are talking about.

I mean there are examples of this in this thread, for example

That is probably the scariest real thing I've ever seen. I can totally see humans in those matrices someday for something like fighting wars.

So its not entirely pointless to give the chickens a "human perception" on the situation by asking people to imagine themselves as the chicken. By doing this it helps people to sympathize with them, which is what being humane ultimately means. Otherwise whats the point of being humane to animals right? i could just say something like oh, they are just animals i eat. I don't care how they are treated at all because they are in essence nothing but meat that is going to end up on my plate anyway. I feel nothing for them at all because they have nothing to do with me, are worth nothing to me, and i would never be in a situation like theirs and so I could care less about how they are treated before they end up in my stomach.

I would agree, a lobotomy sounds better being unconscious of the suffering rather then being conscious of it.
Remember, the argument here isn't whether the chicken should be free-range or mass produced.
It is already on the assumption that it is mass produced(because it is the profitable thing to do).
If so, would you rather the chicken know that is is suffering or not know. (Personally, i would turn vegan if it happens)
The concept is harsh though, it makes us think of how far are we willing to go just to have meat on the table.


Off-Topic: Hi Frostz, didn't see you for quite some time. (ever since you finish rushing to advance) Glad to see you back =)

Personally in these types of discussions i feel that people should put themselves in the place of the animal and sort of ask themselves something along the lines of,

If i were born for the sole purpose of being processed in the slaughter house, would i want to be raised and fattened up conscious and suffering or would i rather have them lobotomize me the moment i was born so i wouldn't have to go through all that trauma (being raised in a cage smaller than me etc). [everyone going vegan and setting all the chickens free is not an option of course]

going by that imo its pretty obvious which method is more "humane" (-lobotomized and unconscious even if the animal ends up growing in some kinda test tube. If they aren't suffering, and no longer have a brain then there really isn't a problem. It's basically just doing the slaughter part first and the growing part second. Since the fact that they were born to be killed isn't going to change, and something that literally has no brain is essentially dead, then there is really no real issue with what you do with the body afterwards when you take those two points into consideration..)

also
hi, i never really left. I'm usually just lurking and looking for things i find interesting.

What combination of characteristics are the best for a group of zombies?
Do you prefer zombies that sprint at their victims, or stumble slowly?
Should they be independent, or controlled by some kind of hive mind?
Destroy the brain? Or should other methods work too?
What else?

Let's not include voodoo zombies, conformists, television viewers, or any other humans which are sometimes called zombies.
28 Days Later or I am Legend type zombies are okay.
Please be specific: whether you are saying it's better for the zombies, the people, or whoever is watching/reading the story.

Realistically speaking fast zombies are "totally hax" and if they existed there would be no survivors for obvious reasons.

The best kind of zombie is the slow kind where you have to destroy the brain because it gives anyone who is careful a chance to survive for some length of time.

Fast zombies turns it into a bullet spam, reflex fest that is only good "cool" in video games but will get you killed within about 2 hours in the real world. Not to mention that in all their depictions fast zombies not only have super strength due to the removal of natural strength inhibitors in place before infection, run faster than the most athletic human, but they are able to climb as well giving them an edge that no realistic human can hope to overcome.

A note about fast zombies. Fast zombies are not "dead" they are infected humans. As such they can move fast indefinitely since their bodies are not actively decaying and will still repair the natural wear and tear of muscle tissue. However since they are technically living they are vulnerable to the destruction of not only their brain but any other vital organ as well such as the heart. However they do not feel pain and wounds anywhere else will not stop them. Depending on the depiction of the fast zombie, they may or may not bleed out and die from greater injuries depending on how many of their systems are shut down by the virus.

A slow zombie is only slow because the wearing out/ decay of their bodies and rigor mortis prevents them from moving past a certain speed, though freshly turned zombies can lunge (burst of speed) for a short period of time. The virus type zombie is vulnerable to the destruction of the brain, however this vulnerability does not apply to zombies raised through magic which can only be destroyed or at least stopped through complete dismemberment.

Anyone who believes that they can survive in a world that is being taken over by fast zombies are probably over exaggerating their own abilities and will be devoured as soon as they step outside and fail to look up and check to see if there is a fast zombie hiding in a tree, or hanging out on their roof. You can't even hope to out run them because as noted, they will either run faster than you, or you will tire and they will not. A single fast zombie will take you out unless you have training in marksmanship, or have a weapon with a reach of greater than 6 feet. Anything else and the chances of injury and thus infection grows exponentially. Engaging a fast zombie in melee is something that you would not really want to do anyway, because fast zombies maintain their physical integrity and are not mindless. They have a certain bestial instinct that may allow them to fight in a more intelligent manner the longer the fight drags on. The chances of you destroying their brain or heart in one blow is most likely not going to happen.

Besides in the end "fast zombies" arn't even real zombies anyway. They are more like people with super rabies who are unstoppable unless you shoot something vital or destroy their legs because they do not feel pain. If anything "fast zombies" should be re-categorized and renamed to ghouls/ghasts because they are certainly not "zombies" which is a category of undead that is used to describe the slower, mindless variety.


A zombie- a typical slow zombie of the slow variety, these cannot be fast for obvious reasons.



A ghoul - the term ghoul should be used to categorize anything that is a "fast zombies, rage zombies, etc". Calling a "fast zombie" a zombie is misleading. (notice the quotation marks)

It depends on my mood. If I'm looking for zombie comedy, I want them to be slow. If I want to be scared, they should be fast.

I want semi-intelligent zombies who think independently.

I can assure you that if there were slow zombies en-mass around your house you would be plenty scared. However if those zombies were fast and semi-intelligent, not only would you be scared but you would be dead because they would have busted through your window and devoured you the moment they figured out that you are inside your house.

In terms of movies on the other hand and this is probably what you were referring to, the psychological atmosphere is what determines if the movie is scary. You don't need to use fast zombies to make a scary movie and likewise you can make a movie with fast zombies into a comedy just as easily.

The phenomenon that is affecting zombie movies where recent movies involving slow zombies have being turned into comedies (zombie land, shaun of the dead, etc.) and fast zombie horror movies (mutants, i am legend) is the same one that is afflicting the vampire genre imo, where the lugosi type vampire is now always depicted in romance movies (twilight cough), and the nosferatu type is only ever depicted in the horror genre (these movies arnt even being made anymore). Thus this phenomenon is giving people the idea that a horror zombie movie must involve fast zombies, and a comedy must involve slow zombies.

i played a DOSbox game recently and i used this guide to get it up and running successfully with sound and all that.

http://www.glennsgui...e-download.html

Any game installed with dosbox probally uses the same set of instructions so give the guide i linked a try, i know its a different game but still, the steps should be the same.

note that the .exe names are different (cause different game) so keep that in mind when you get to the steps that ask you to enter the name of the exe to run.

I never realized that this was a thing. I mean sure I knew there was a weight characteristic but I didn't know you could alter it like that, wow.

Is there even an advantage to having a heavier pet?

I just googled it and it says that having a heavier pet would make it get hungry more quickly. I guess thats useful if you were trying to feed the pet stat increasing neggs?

Quote:The only area pets weight is influential is in how fast your Neopet gets hungry. The heavier your Neopet is, the more often it will wish to eat. This can be helpful if you are Negg Training (Raising stats by feeding your Neopets lots of Neggs at a time).

i havnt seen an unconverted cybunny in a long time either.
I would love to get my hands on one of these.

I am going to Paris France over the summer for a study abroad program in which the professor said that we would not be visiting the tourist hotspots but rather the historical sites and other places in which tourists never see.u

Now during this trip i am also supposed to be doing a report on a certain location in Paris that interests me, Since i have never been there myself i was wondering if anybody had any ideas on interesting places to go. I do believe that the criteria for this is again, no museums or tourist hotspots.

Not only this but i am pretty certain that i should learn some french phrases before i go, was wondering if anyone have any ideas about what is important? This is my first time going out of the united states to a country whose primary language is not english.

Do you really think someone will read that o__o

You wish me to post in a constructive manner, to post not follow the example of others who are seen as spammers in your eyes, and when i do so, you say LOL TLDR.

personally..i think that the christian bible has been retranslated as well as "edited" for the political reasons of the church so many times that its just not worth reading anymore.