Being alive brings you closer to your death.

Quiche, Already printed out 2 copies of this:

1. For the Fridge at Redlands

2. Scotty D wanted one to put up at his work so the waitresses know whats up.

W00t!

Exactly. You were you, OPA!, before you ever came out. So, as a presumably breeding male.

You have always been a drama-queen. Now, the emphasis has moved from the first half of the compound noun to the second.

Sha-ha! NAZR MUHAMMAD.

i don't really care about the torture techniques of KFC, i just know that their chicken is slimey and gross. i like the idea of popcorn chicken but KFC's execution of it sucks, you get like 5 pieces of actual chicken and 20 pieces of breaded crust. i like their potato wedges and those parfait thingys.

and the perversion just gets deeper.

Roscoe's is amazing...
Damn this thread - I haven't eaten any meat (save the occasional sushi) in ove 4 months now, but all this talk of KFC is threatening to turn me back...



NAZR MOHAMMED!!!

do i want to read this whole thread

YES.

yes

it gets pretty good around pages 4 and 5...


oh and this place had awesome chicken but it's closed now for some yuppified cafe or something. they had onion rings as big as my head.

you cocks better be right about this.

here we go

The Wendy's next to my house sells fried chicken.

Oh, and the Dodge's chicken wings from Dodge's on Elvis Presley Blvd. in Memphis are certified badass. Or maybe I was reaaaallly drunk.

oh, and by the way, we're making chicken tonight, no lie.

i read a recipe today in the paper for chicken thighs with blood orange sauce *drool*

well, that was an interesting read.

Wendy's is horrible, horrible food. But, no wonder. Dave Thomas was adopted.



Return to your sitting positions and listen, it's fittin'... I'm miles away, but it chases me. Show my face on tee-vee, then we'll see.

I had chicken tonight, too.

Built a time machine and went back to when the chicken was just born. Rescued it from the factory farm then raised it myself and gave it a cot in the downstairs hallway. We had a few beautiful months as close friends and confidants before it went away for a stint in the Peace Corp. Later, it found fame as the first chicken to star in Rent. It stopped by for a visit tonight and I ate it.

lockstock -

As a biologist, I have to chime in and say that Chickens, however dim, have a perfectly adequate nervous system for the domestic lives they've been bred to. The fact that you think that they have no perception, no sensation suggestst that you know very little about what an animal is, let alone what it feels. I've worked with worms that have no more than 1500 cells in their bodies, yet still showed signs of having a memory of pain from earlier in their lives.

One of the great fallacies left over from the hierarchical thought of the Neoclassical era is that animals are arranged in a great chain of being, from "lower" to "higher" taxa, with humans perched, triumphant, under God at the top of the heap. Truth be told, the fact that all extant species have survived to be around today is a testimony to equivalent "worth." Sure, biological complexity is different, but most biologists couldn't really tell you why complex is better than simple.

If you'd like to hear about this more, I can point you to thousands of peer-reviewed papers on animal cognition.

As for carnivory - yeah, I like it as much as the next guy. Unfortunately, it is ecologically wasteful to eat high on the food chain (ergo, bear is worse than cow), and my political view is that corporate meat isn't any good for humans, the livestock, or the planets, so I try to buy organic, "animal friendly" meat when I have a hankering.

Hopefully I'll own my own chickens here in a year or two, raise them for eggs, enjoy their company, and kill one when it's time for dinner every now and then. Just because I kill it doesn't mean I have to belittle its existence as a life form. I like the native american tradition of thanking the prey for sharing its life with you - it's the right attitude to have about the whole mess. More honorable.

My .02

I believe that animals have sensations, I've said it in prior posts. I don't believe they have the ability to know what these sensations are or what they mean. They physically react to the sensation, but their is no emotional reaction. If you want, point me to anything that is FACTUAL and says animals are capable of emotion. Christ, nevermind, I'm not getting drawn back into this.

Edit: Also, thank you for informing me that chickens do have a nervous systems. I had no idea.

My dog has emotional reactions to everything he ever does and everything done to him. If you can spend any time with a horse or a dog or a parakeet or a monkey or any animal and believe they don't have emotional, personality-based reactions to things, you're looking at the world in a very untruthful manner.

Chickens are, however, very, very stupid.

You're all fucking nuts.

Animals have feelings too

Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior Temple Grandin with Catherine Johnson Scribner: 358 pp., $25

By Laurel Maury, Laurel Maury is an occasional contributor to Book Review and an editorial assistant for the New Yorker.

Temple GRANDIN'S fame came for the wrong reason. She's known as an autistic woman with a doctorate in animal science because neurologist Oliver Sacks devoted an essay to her in his book "An Anthropologist on Mars." But Sacks' book came after Grandin quietly made life better for farm animals. All over the world, her livestock management systems made animal husbandry more profitable and humane.

"Animals in Translation" is basically a book about the mammalian brain, ours and those of other (mostly furry) creatures. Animal behaviorists are learning that what we believe makes us unique — language, emotions, the ability to reason — exists throughout the animal world. The main way we differ from animals is that our minds filter what we see.

To understand filtering, imagine watching a basketball game. Your job is to count the passes, and at one point, a woman in a gorilla suit wanders by. You think you'd notice, right? Well, in a noted experiment, subjects were asked to count passes in a video of a basketball game. Half didn't notice when the woman in the gorilla suit wandered onto the court. That's filtering — what neurologists call "inattentional blindness." Meaning humans tend not to see what we're not looking for.

Animals don't have inattentional blindness. They don't filter information. Autistic people filter far less than the rest of us. And people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia filter somewhat less than the rest of us. Grandin believes that she sees the world more as an animal sees it, visually — without much of a subconscious. Without denial or repression.

But animals do have emotions and desires. Love, curiosity, attachment to offspring and friendship are survival tactics that evolution bred in. An animal that is not curious is less likely to find food. Love and friendship allow animals to work together. Reading Grandin, one wonders whether Freud should have looked more to the animal kingdom when formulating his theories. Grandin makes her philosophical challenges through simple descriptions of scientific data — she has more than 300 articles to her name — but without scientific murkiness. Her literal prose, almost completely without metaphor, allows ideas to sink in until they feel like your own.

Unfortunately, what will sell the book are the National Enquirer-style animal stories: rapist roosters; sex-crazed stallions; superstitious pigs. Or, more interesting, that prairie dogs use language to describe the individual personalities of hawks and wolves. Communicating with language is simply what some animals do to keep from being eaten.

The real reason to read this book is its deeply logical approach to compassion. "Animals in Translation" tells what it's like to have a mind that is not normal for humans. Grandin believes she sits between animals and humans. Like a cow or a dog, she sees exactly what is there. We have to know how a consciousness — human or animal — experiences the world if we are to reduce suffering.

The most uplifting section describes how dogs helped us evolve into modern humans. Skull studies show that not only did canine brain size decrease as wolves became dogs, but our brains reduced in size in the areas governing smell and sense during the same period. Dogs took over the prey and predator detection, allowing evolution to favor human intelligence over human sense of smell. Wolves may also have taught us friendship; humans are the only primates who have friends, while wolf packs depend on it. We owe our dogs ourselves.

There are disturbing moments: Studies of other animals with large frontal lobes indicate that violence in young males is an evolutionary trade-off. Intelligent brains take a long time to mature. Some brains, especially those of males, can short-circuit along the way. Chimpanzees wage war. Dolphin gangs rape and kill.

"Animals in Translation" may end up being the best animal book of the year, certainly the most human. It's cold science proving a near-religious argument for compassion. Some brains filter less and so become overwhelmed — the autistic person curled up in a corner, the ADHD child running wild. The dyslexic who sees and is hurt by the flicker of fluorescent lights, or cows hurting when they go quickly from light to darkness. Grandin's argument is simply that living beings should not be exposed unnecessarily to pain

Hardly. It's nuts to think a dog doesn't have emotions. Of course it does.

Great article, Haq

I totally just googled "animals have feelings too" to be a dick, but ended up being fascinated. A fascinated dick.

You have an autistic son, right Phil?