This is not normal

This is not normal.

THICC

THICKKEN

For me,

>wanting to discuss something other than youtube celebrities or my regional fast food is better than your regional fast food
in before op is banned from all boards

>only quads can stop the gicka chicka

I cant bring myself to eat chicken but once in a while as a guilty pleasure because of this. It just feels wrong. Same with most meats but Im not a vegan.

>This is not normal.
Is this supposed to be news or something? Shit's been known for decades.

This is why factory farmed meats taste so bland compared to properly raised animals or wild game. They're bred to grow fast fast fast without any care given to flavor. It's all about price as opposed to quality. That's my biggest gripe with industrialized agriculture, and it's also why I think that lab-based meat is going to be equally awful.

...

You do know that these cornish crosses are just a 4 breed cross right? No genetic or hormonal tampering going on.

LMAO, fuck off PETA

>Im not a vegan.
And yet you talk like you have a B12 deficiency. Go eat a steak, you'll feel better in no time.

Sounds bad but it's better for the planet to grow chicken like this. Takes less resources to get more quantity of meat.

I've got nothing against eating animals, user. They're delicious.

That's the whole fucking point, really. Why make them less delicious with industry? Do it the old school way, and that way the finished product actually tastes amazing instead of meh.

Old school way is energy and land intensive, start sterilizing people and we can go back to the old way.

>implying b12 sumplement is not safer than antibiotic and hormon dosed garbage meat

Roll

It tastes fine to me and I guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a double blind test with the bullshit hippy organic stickers removed

Stop promoting the vegan agenda, you dumb yuppie. We were meant to be carnivores

>Old school way is energy and land intensive
That's fine, I'm happy to pay more for quality. When you actually cook for yourself food is AMAZINGLY cheap. I am far from rich but I can easily afford to spend on good quality meats. (And I do. I often mail order or drive out to local heritage farms. I got half an Ossabaw hog last month)

There's also the simple volume trade-off. Instead of eating a ZOMG 24-ounce steak, eat an 8 oz one, but much better meat. There is honestly too much meat in the average Western diet as it is. Eat less, but better meat and both your tongue and your health will be improved.

No need to sterilize people. You go back to the old agrarian ways before the current levels of selective breeding, mechanized labor and fertilizers/pesticides, and famine will take care of all of it for you.

Eating game meats is not part of the vegan agenda you illiterate. Humans also aren't carnivores, but omnivores.

>implying concentrated supplement absorption of B12 is the same as that of meats

>It tastes fine to me
Probably because you've never had much to compare it to.

Ever had fresh tomatoes or strawberries from grandma's garden? Gone hunting or fishing and gotten some really fresh meat? It's honestly night-and -day different from most of what you'd get at a supermarket.

The sad thing here is that many people are eating crap food and are completely clueless about it because they've never tried the alternative.

>>Stop promoting the vegan agenda,
I'm not. I'm preaching meat, user. Good meat. Meat is tasty. Old-school raised and wild game even more so.

It doesn't need to be as high. You can just dose the fuck out of it, it's cheap as shit. Who cares if the efficiency is less, just take more.

the downside of shitmeat is far greater than the downside of supplements

>in 2008 we have bigger chickens at the mass market level

i love that all you normies gleefully swallow the idea that this is somehow a bad thing

newsflash: you have the same opportunities now as you did in 1947. breed your own chickens or go to a farm or butcher where they have the skinny ass chickens you seem to love so much. good meat has always been scarce and always will be. stop whining that the food industry has come up with an alternative product for the people who are too poor or dumb to get the good stuff.

What do you even mean by that, and why would it equal bad?

domestic animals in general are not normal or natural, but we do it because its convenient and tasty

>chickens are evolving back into dinosaurs

>there's only one type of chicken
>implying humans haven't been altering animals since husbandry was innovated

I too just saw Food Inc.

>ood meat has always been scarce and always will be

But that's not true in the slightest. Turn the clock back a couple generations. The average family had a small garden or perhaps what you might call a "farm". Garden-fresh vegetables, eggs laid that morning, and meat from the chickens that free-ranged in said garden was the norm. Even the poorest peasant had fresh eggs, fresh veggies, etc.

Nowadays we have a much better variety of food. But the quality of that food has taken a serious hit due to industrialization.

Of course you can still do a lot of the old school stuff yourself. Backyard chicken keeping is a growing trend, for example.

>I'm happy to pay more for quality.
Not everyone has money to pay for quality, dude. Why do people always forget that poor people need food too? The industrialization of food has allowed poor people everywhere the capability of eating foods that used to be considered a luxury such as meats.

you are using the term 'quality' in a rather subjective way

The average family living in a city a few generations ago did not have any of that. They went to their local market to buy all of that.

by generations, do you mean centuries?

>But that's not true in the slightest. Turn the clock back a couple generations. The average family had a small garden or perhaps what you might call a "farm".

no they did not. whatever they did have would offer nowhere near enough to sustain the average modern diet in any case.

industrialisation was voluntary. people do not want to live a subsistence lifestyle.

>meat from the chickens that free-ranged in said garden was the norm
And you are just talking out of your ass.

a challenger approaches

The poor can still eat just fine. Even good quality meats are not prohibitive if you use them sparingly. And as I mentioned before, the current western diet has a massively unhealthy proportion of meat in it anyway. Eating less meat would be a good thing.

The people I know who are "poor" are that way because of bad spending habits. They constantly talk about how "poor" they are, but they eat 3 fast food meals a day, plus sodas and snacks. You could eat like a fucking king if you took that same budget and actually cooked from scratch.

The problem I see is that the wide availability of relatively cheap food has become so tempting to people that they end up spending far more money than they need to in order feed themselves.

What did you think a fucking peasant farmer ate? Chicken gets too old and stops laying? That's food. What do you think people did with male chicks? You only need one or maybe two roosters for a flock of chickens. Any more are unwanted because they fight. Those young male chickens? Fucking food.

Even a lot of classic dishes originated that way. The famous French dish "coq au vin"? That's a peasant recipe: when you were so fucking poor the only thing you had to eat was the stringy 'ol barnyard rooster so you had to slow look the fucker in wine for ages in order to make it tender and palatable.

>The poor can still eat just fine. Even good quality meats are not prohibitive if you use them sparingly. And as I mentioned before, the current western diet has a massively unhealthy proportion of meat in it anyway. Eating less meat would be a good thing.
According to who? The poor can still eat just fine because of industrialization. Before that they had to eat mostly starches and had really poor diets lacking in nutrition.
>The people I know who are "poor" are that way because of bad spending habits.
Not every poor person is poor like the people you know.
>The problem I see is that the wide availability of relatively cheap food has become so tempting to people that they end up spending far more money than they need to in order feed themselves.
Never in the history of mankind would you find somebody making the assertion that the wide availability of cheap food is a "problem". Even today, in African countries, you would never hear that described as a problem. All Americans live a life of luxury.

>no they did not. whatever they did have would offer nowhere near enough to sustain the average modern diet in any case.

Offer near enough "what"? Do you think that people in the past (who often had massive families due to lack of contraception) somehow had a problem feeding all those kids? Hell no.

>>industrialisation was voluntary. people do not want to live a subsistence lifestyle.

Indeed. It's certianly less work. But people gave up quality along with it. Some people are OK with that, and that's fine with me. But other people don't even know what they're missing.

You see it time and time again. A few weeks ago a dude here mentioned he tried real butter for the first time in his life because all his family bought was margarine. He was completely blown away with how good it was by comparison. I saw the same thing with an intern of mine: we were out running work errands and stopped at a restaurant. They had fresh-squeezed lemonade. Intern was completely shocked at not only how good it tasted, but also the fact that it was literally as easy as squeezing lemons and adding sugar.

No shit they ate fucking chicken, your statement that every fucking person had chickens and gardens is just fucking shit smearingly retarded, you fucking mong.

Well, it is the same with the American population

I raised some Cornish X Rocks like those before. It was a horror show. You have to restrict their feeding a great deal to prevent them from becoming massive to the point where they break their legs and die of heart attacks. Ever see a chicken have a heart attack right in front of you? I have.

I've raised them on two occasions. The first was terrible. The second was fine since I fed them very little and made them go out and forage. They did a lot better and the mortality rate before butchering went down to almost nothing. Now I mostly raise egg layers and turkeys. Next year I'm going to try to get a flock of Bourbon Red turkeys, for that ultimate flavor profile.

Hits too close to home, man. More than 2/3s of us are obese. 70% of us are overweight.

>Do you think that people in the past (who often had massive families due to lack of contraception) somehow had a problem feeding all those kids? Hell no.
You are a pure fucking mongoloid.

That is a lot.

Sorry, forgot i wasn't on /b/

...

That's not what he's saying you fucking retard. He's saying the norm was anyone who was raising chickens did it free range until industrialization came along. And even if it's not every person, up until this last century, the majority of our country's workforce was farmers where most didn't participate in pure monoculture so it's safe to assume at least most of them had one goddam chicken coop.

>Do you think that people in the past (who often had massive families due to lack of contraception) somehow had a problem feeding all those kids? Hell no.
Hahaha, oh my sides.

...

I went omni to vegan pretty much over night and it was easy.

Its just like the Americans waistline.

Leave this to me

WTF did they do to that thing? It should be a final boss in some 80s video game.

joke was already made

Neither is this then.

Its a breed. Perfectly natural

It all depends on how it was done. If done through selective breeding then its sort of normal, just helped along by humans. If it was done through gene cutting, selection, splicing, and artificial gene plantation for captured embryo and test tube chickens, which has been done here, it is not normal. There are monsanto and Tyson shills that will come in and say this is the same as selective breeding. It is NOT the same and it is not normal.

no domestic animal or plant is natural

If they select specific, yet naturally occurring genes for gene splicing, wouldn't that still technically be selective breeding? As long as they aren't pumping the chickens full of steroids I can't really see the issue there aside from retard bible thumpers who are afraid of science.

>I'm happy to pay more for quality.
>how to advocate for the genocide of brown people and still be a good little liberal.

I don't believe there are any chickens (or animals for that matter) available for purchase that have been genetically modified by modern techniques

Why?

I'm brown, and I pay more for quality. Don't worry about me, we've been eating less meat and more vegetables since before it was cool. Worry about yourself. Or don't, it makes no difference to me.

Can I see your dick?

because the process of domestication is entirely unnatural

But isn't it done by humans? Are we not natural?

Or is the domestication of aphids by ants also not natural?

>Implying I voted for trump
You people really can't form a cogent point without running to your stockpile of embarrassing images of trump voters can you?

...

>You people
Y so raciss?

in general English usage, unnatural refers to things done by humans to change nature

I am certainly not saying being unnatural or natural is a useful thing to know or care about though

I was hoping for a BBC :(

>in general English usage, unnatural refers to things done by humans to change nature
I thought unnatural is something abnormal or against the course of nature. Again, humans are part of nature.

by that definition literally everything is natural, that is not how that term is used though
I am not arguing that humans are not part of nature, just saying words have specific meanings that I do not choose

So if a monkey were to somehow discover how to genetically engineer chickens to grow larger, it would still be natural because a monkey is not a human? What if a robot did it? Would it go back and still be natural because there was no human interference?

I don't think robots fall under the category of a natural being. Do they?

Dude, I don't make this shit up, I didn't ask for words to be used in this manner

I think the distinction between natural and unnatural is generally useless, but I can't help that it exists

I'm scared

You must be a foreigner. In America it's legal to defend yourself

Before some PETA faggots come rolling in here... sometimes cocks will get too aggressive and start harassing other chickens which leads to decreased egg production due to stress, and in some more serious cases dead chickens. It can be necessary to put down a back cock in order to preserve the greater whole.

Peta are the ones bankrolling lab grown meat you dipshit
Not the guy you replied to btw

Then quit nitpicking over semantics

What? I wasn't

Upgrade chicken.

everything humans do is natural, we are natural, any behavior we exhibit or wonder we construct is natural too. Our sky scrapers are every bit as natural as an ant hill, the only difference is we made a better hill

cosmic waves and heat bombarding our planet causing the gasses to swirl knocks down a tree and blocks a river

in what way is that more "natural" than a creature that spawned forth from this planet dragging it there instead?

thats explicitly not what the word natural means though. You should focus on how people caring whether food is natural are dumb, and how agriculture is inherently unnatural rather than trying to change the definitions of words

They get hormones and antibiotics, so ...