А-А-А !!! ПАНИКА!!! А-А-А!!! -

А-А-А !!! ПАНИКА!!! А-А-А!!! - Интернет-магазин www.koba.com.ua
А-А-А !!! ПАНИКА!!! А-А-А!!! - Интернет-магазин www.koba.com.ua picture


youandmeintime says:
posted on oct 29, 2009  

if only we really would set the piglets of the world free, then humans would never have gotten swine flu in the first place, swine flu originated in factory farms in awful, overcrowded conditions where they never see the light of day causing the pigs to be sick, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that overcrowded conditions spread disease very, very, very quickly!

educate yourself on factory farms





jidder [deleted] says:
posted on oct 30, 2009  

Proven fact, factory farms=more cheap bacon. You just can't beat those statistics.

youandmeintime says:
posted on oct 30, 2009  

Factory farms are not cheap at all in FACT we pay a very high cost for “cheap” factory farmed meat.

Approximately 10 billion animals (chickens, cattle, hogs, ducks, turkeys, lambs and sheep) are raised and killed in the US annually. Nearly all of them are raised on factory farms under inhumane conditions. Factory farms are extremely dangerous for their workers, pollute our environment, are unsafe to our food system and harmful for our health and contribute significantly to global warming, one of the top 3 contributors to global warming, more than ALL transportation in the world!

This is far too large of a price to pay for "cheap" meat!!!

Unfortunately most people are unaware of where their food comes, what is actually in the "food" they are eating, the conditions in which it came from, and the consequences of eating what they are eating. It is our responsibility to know these things and what we are putting into our bodies. And we should care what we put in our bodies! We should care about our health, environment and the quality of life we are having. If more people were aware of where their food came from there would be more of an outcry, which is desperately needed to help the future of our health and that of our environment, which is our home and what directly happens to our environment happens to us.

“If the way we raise animals for food isn't the most important problem in the world right now, it's arguably the No. 1 cause of global warming: The United Nations reports the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.

It's the No. 1 cause of animal suffering, a decisive factor in the creation of zoonotic diseases like bird and swine flu, and the list goes on. It is the problem with the most deafening silence surrounding it.

Even the most political people, the most thoughtful and engaged, tend not to "go there." And for good reason. Going there can be extremely uncomfortable. Food is not just what we put in our mouths to fill up; it is culture and identity. Reason plays some role in our decisions about food, but it's rarely driving the car.

We need a better way to talk about eating animals, a way that doesn't ignore or even just shruggingly accept things like habits, cravings, family and history but rather incorporates them into the conversation. The more they are allowed in, the more able we will be to follow our best instincts. And although there are many respectable ways to think about meat, there is not a person on Earth whose best instincts would lead him or her to factory farming.
Today, the factory farm-pandemic link couldn't be more lucid. The primary ancestor of the recent H1N1 swine flu outbreak originated at a hog factory farm in America's most hog-factory-rich state, North Carolina, and then quickly spread throughout the Americas.

It was in these factory farms that scientists saw, for the first time, viruses that combined genetic material from bird, pig and human viruses. Scientists at Columbia and Princeton Universities have actually been able to trace six of the eight genetic segments of the most feared virus in the world directly to U.S. factory farms.

Perhaps in the back of our minds we already understand, without all the science, that something terribly wrong is happening. We know that it cannot possibly be healthy to raise such grotesque animals in such grossly unnatural conditions. We know that if someone offers to show us a film on how our meat is produced, it will be a horror film.

We perhaps know more than we care to admit, keeping it down in the dark places of our memory -- disavowed. When we eat factory-farmed meat, we live on tortured flesh. Increasingly, those sick animals are making us sick.” Jonathan Safran Foer (author of “everything is illuminated” and his lates book “Eating Animals” that comes out this week, recommend checking it out).

I see a couple of ways at looking at this cartoon, the first, and what I am afraid a lot of people see here is that it seems to be placing blame on pigs with the others in this cartoon staring angrily at piglet and sending him off, when pigs in fact did not cause the swine flu, humans did, with factory farming, people are to blame for the spread of this disease and any potential pandemic that may arise from the practices of factory farming, which is exactly the way I can also see someone looking at this cartoon and how I would much prefer people to, to recognize that piglet is innocent.

Please take some time to think about where your food comes from and what it is connected to.

Here are some films worth checking out:

serenatran says:
posted on oct 31, 2009  

And you really think letting them roam "Free" will be less expensive? lol@u

I'd rather have cheap bacon tbqh

hellraiser007 says:
posted on oct 31, 2009  

youandmeintime, let me guess, you think that meat and produce just magically appear in the store. So let's play your game for a moment. OK, all the little animals are running free and happy, but you and your family are hungry. You go the store to buy some meat for dinner, but alas, there is no meat in the store because it is all out in the forest running free and happy. Ironically, there is no longer any forest because all of the little critters have decimated the forest from over grazing, but we are still playing your game so. No meat at the store, yet you and yours are very hungry, what are you going to to. Choice number 1; you stay hungry. choice number 2; you raise your own meat, ah, but that would require you to kill and butcher your farm pets. I don't think you are prepared to do that, why, well you know lots of blood and guts, entrails all over the place, things like that. Could YOU do it.. Worse still is choice number 3; you will actually have to take up a firearm and go into the forest and shoot one of those cute little creatures that we had to set free because of your perverted sense of morality. Let's say you have gathered the courage to go hunting, and now you have Wilbur or Bambi or Thumper or whoever in your sights and you must pull the trigger. Hunger drives you and you squeeze the trigger... BLAM you blow Bambi's brains all over the forest floor. Now you must field dress the animal, cut it into manageable pieces and pack it back to your house. Are you and little Johnny and Suzie ready to do that? Probably not.... The moral of this little game is.. be thankful that there are people willing to own and operate farms and feed lots so that you can drive to the store and buy that big juicy steak or that slab of bacon or those boneless skinless chicken breasts and feed your family. Because I doubt if you could feed you yourself the old fashion way. In the case that you are a vegetarian, enjoy your nuts and twigs, and shut the hell up already!!!!

psycosm says:
posted on oct 31, 2009  

Of course this pic would also have a lot more impact if swine flu was actually dangerous!

ludwigtr says:
posted on nov 01, 2009  


let me guess, all this would be avoided if we were just vegans, or vegetarians right?

This is how meat was obtained to support a civilization nearly forever, this is just on a larger scale. and you're saying that it's more expensive than we know to do it this way.
what is your alternative to keeping meat affordable?
in the event that you are a vegetarian, how about the price paid for all the fluffy animals that are brutally murdered to serve no purpose what-so-ever by farm combines? that's just cruel to me, that doesn't even benefit anyone.

you people only bitch about how unethical and horrible these farms are, but you have no real-world solutions to offer, all you can say is "no don't do it that way, it's bad"
try posing an argument with an actual solution, if you THINK once in a while you'll see you're pretty little world isn't as cut and dry as you want it to be. yeah, it sucks, the animals suffer, but I'm going to spend my time worrying about how HUMANITY is suffering, starving, and dying instead of how my food is treated before I eat it.

jidder [deleted] says:
posted on nov 01, 2009  


I would just like to point out that eating producers, such as plants, is more energy efficient than meat consumption. The higher up the energy pyramid you go (from say grass, to cows, to humans) the more energy disappears into things such as regulating homeostasis, movement, etc. With the acres required to sustain a cow until harvest time, you could grow much more crops. Which ultimately would feed more people, as even with the cheaper prices from factory farms many of the world's poor still find meat too expensive. Granted, your bone mass and energy levels might be slightly lower than a meat-based diet, and you might sorely miss the savory taste. But farming has become so efficient that there is very little likelihood that you would starve.

Also, when were farm combines murdering fluffy animals for no reason? Do you mean rabbits and groundhogs, animals that actually hurt crops? Or just chinchillas, minks, and otters that are plain adorable?


Sir, you are being quite melodramatic. I sincerely doubt youandmeintime is advocating a return to a hunter-gather lifestyle. It sounds like he/she has nothing against free range animal farms. They might produce less of a quantity of meat, but they maintain the quality one would desire.


The domestic animal-human disease connection has existed almost since the start of man's commitment to farming. In Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond mentions how the diseases it bred were largely responsible for the Europeans' relative ease in conquering the Americas. Very interesting stuff.

arey says:
posted on nov 03, 2009  


You are very long-winded.

1. Humans are omnivorous creatures.

2.The problem is not the large "factory farms". The "factory farms" are a symptom, not the problem. The problem is that there are too many humans.

3. A viable solution to this problem would be to kill yourself and set a good example for the rest of humanity.

Lucy says:
posted on nov 03, 2009  

Buying meat from your local butcher isn't an option I presume...

erocker says:
posted on nov 04, 2009  


That only works in theory. Humans are hard pressed to find all of the necessary nutrients in just plants. Now, I understand that vegans can attain all of the necessary nutrients and in fact have a healthier life-style.

Now, @hellraiser007

You have taken that a little far there bud. Now, I personally associate myself with PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals, and have used similar arguments before. The problem is that youandmeintime is most likely a vegan, and would not rely on eating meat.

*steps on soapbox*
But you do raise a point. Many people depend heavily on the disgusting mass production of meat of all kinds, from poultry to beef to eggs. Lets say that legislation was passed and all the slaughterhouses were to be shut down tomorrow and the animals killed humanely, and there was a general world-wide ban on mass factory meat production (extremely unlikely and unrealistic, I know, but we are just saying)

Thousands of businesses would collapse, from trucking to restaurants, and many people would be forced to suddenly change their eating habits in a sudden fashion.

Now, yes, this is hypothetical, so no one freak out on it. But I think it is in our best interest, for health and economy, to slowly reform the food industry. Get rid of these disgusting farms that spawn nothing but filth (and bacon) and just improve conditions slowly but surely. This will increase food costs but it is better for our health. But if it happens this instant, I don't know if the common person will be able to afford such a significant price increase on the staple of their diet (just meat).
*steps off soapbox*

Now, referring to the cartoon, ROFL

hellraiser007 says:
posted on nov 05, 2009  

@ jidder

Yes of course I am being melodramatic, to illustrate a point, and that point is; if you are a meat eater, these farms and feed lots and such are a necessary evil. The last thing I want is a a large population of people in the woods with weapons. Good lord, its dangerous enough for us hunters with just the city slickers out there that want an "outdoor experience". Nor am I advocating going back to a hunter-gather lifestyle.

Erocker makes a good point, improve and fix the system already in place over a period of time. Although, if we did go back to hunting for our food it would solve two problems: 1. put an end to factory farms. 2. human population control, because I am sure many people would starve. lol just kidding....

But seriously, in order to feed the teeming masses of humanity, industries of this nature are required. However they will not be able to support these numbers for much longer and another solution is necessary. What that solution is, I will save for another discussion.

As arey says, humans are omnivores. Our bodies evolved to eat meat and as a result we need the particular proteins and amino acids that meat provides. No combination of plant proteins can replace that, they can come close, but no cigar. Yes you could survive on plants, but as you said yourself, the result is lower bone density(mass) and reduced energy levels. Why change a successful evolutionary strategy. Otherwise lions would become vegetarians. lol. :)

sillypanda says:
posted on nov 06, 2009  

... Swine flu originated from the bird flu you idiots. >.> God, at least try to know what you're talking about before you all post it up on a forum. Blaming swine flu on factory farms. Ha. Besides, if you're going to get rid of those, you would have free range meat. Which means you would not let the little piggies run free. They would be in a fence, you other idiots. Lord. I, personally, am for free range, because it cuts down on the disease and adrenaline that's naturally pumped into these animals throughout their lives, meaning tastier bacon. yay!

hellraiser007 says:
posted on nov 07, 2009  

Alas sillypanda, you are correct, one should know what they are talking about before they are thought the fool. Or in your case, after they open their mouth and remove all doubt. Name calling is uncalled for here, it only shows your ignorance.

For your information, and please get this straight the first time so I do not have to repeat myself. Swine Flu(H1N1) did not originate from Bird Flu. It is a mutation from the original Swine Flu that has been around for some 80 years or so after it was classified. There are currently seven variations of Swine flu that we know of including; influenza A and C, H1N1, H1N2, H3N1, and H2N3.

Bird Flu, on the other hand is a mutation of avian influenza that has made the jump to humans(H5N1) and is considered to be an emerging pandemic.

As for your inadequate knowledge of the term "Free Range" according to the USDA all that is required for a food animal to be classified as free range is to release the animal into a larger pen for one hour a day. That pen only needs to be marginally larger that the holding pen so the animal may get a modicum of exercise. This practice does not reduce disease significantly.

Free range is merely a consumerism catch phrase to lull the sheepeople, like yourself, into thinking they are getting something to rationalize the higher prices charged for so much nonsense.

Now, after you remove your foot from your mouth, do some research!!!

iambaytor says:
posted on nov 09, 2009  

Well, you're half right, but it's the important half you're wrong about. Swine flu in pigs did originate in factory farms, and fortunately that strain is unique to pigs. Humans do NOT get swine flu from pigs and they never have, while the virus is transmittable from human to pig the opposite is not so, it is called swine flu because the original recorded pandemic affected pigs at the same time as humans and decimated the populations of both. Now factory farms can be attributed to this as they are run by human beings who probably had the virus and spread it to the pigs which then spread it to each other, it is why factory farms now have such stringent security when it comes to pigs. It's why employees are given frequent health screenings and cannot be in the presence of other pigs than those they work with.

Factory farms didn't cause the virus, they suffered from it. And where do you propose we set all these little piggies free? Because wherever it is they're going to decimate the local ecosystem and likely clog up the place with their rotted corpses because they are domestic animals that don't know how to live in the wild. Did you also know that pigs are in fact carniverous and freakishly smart and a pack of feral pigs is more dangerous than a pack of wild dogs?

Also, if you want to stop super viruses from happening (of which swine flu is not, swine flu kills less people yearly than the regular garden variety flu) then maybe you should look at pharmaceutical companies, viruses keep getting stronger because our medicines are getting stronger and our natural immune systems are getting weaker.

So please, step down off that high horse you're perched so proudly atop and go throw some blood on old ladies in fur coats with the rest of your ilk. Leave problem solving to the people who know what they're talking about and stop shoehorning your own personal beliefs into other people's real problems.

beetles12 says:
posted on dec 17, 2009  

Hmm, as long as we are doing history lessons on flu pandemics, let me clarify a couple things.

The primary reservoir for influenza virus is birds (generally geese and ducks). Birds can host all influenza A virus strains that humans can get, in respect to hemagglutinin (HA) and neuroaminidase (NA) at least. However, birds can also host many other antigenic variants that are not currently transmissible to humans.

Bird to human transmission is generally poor because at any point of transmission the virus in question has adapted to bird cell receptors and not human cell receptors. However, there are closer ecological and physiological similarities between birds and pigs, and then between pig and human receptors. Therefore, the immediate transmission event that passes a virus capable of human to human transmission, generally comes from human interactions with swine. However, most of the viral reassortment that yields "new" flu strains happens several years before... in birds, between old and mutant flu strains. The birds can then pass it directly to humans, or to the swine that will eventually give it to humans.

Of course, density-dependent diseases like flu tend to evolve faster in more tightly packed populations. However, that does not mean that the current flu strain would not have evolved if animals were not kept tightly packed. Flu has an extremely high contact transmission rate, muting out the extreme density dependent contact effects seen in many other viral diseases. Moreover, birth constantly adds new susceptible individuals to a population, diminishing the proportion of those who have some cross-reactivity to reassorted viruses due to previous exposure to old viruses. Therefore, while tightly packed animals no doubt exacerbate the problem, giving free range to animals would only delay the inevitable.

xxskittl3z13xx says:
posted on jan 20, 2012  

Awww...thats sad I love piglet..but its a fact..cant change that tho..how sad haha :P

Would you like to say something?

Sign up to comment (it's free!) or log in if you're already a member.