Priorities...Geese vs Humans

Discussion is locked
Reply to: Priorities...Geese vs Humans
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Priorities...Geese vs Humans
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
I'm waiting for even worse

such as when doctors could be required to perform abortions upon patient request or risk losing their license to practice medicine. Another would be that medical schools could require doctors, especially OB/GYNs, to undergo specific training on how to perform elective abortions at any stage of pregnancy. This would likely kill any Catholic medical school including some such as Loyola in Chicago that have traditionally been quite prestigious. I could also guess it discourage many persons of high moral standards that wanted to practice medicine.

- Collapse -
RE:Geese vs Humans

Post was last edited on February 6, 2019 12:02 PM PST

- Collapse -
RE:but we’d better protect geese
but we’d better protect geese from being fattened and killed.

I thought you were an animal lover, dogs and cats, but not geese? Be grateful you don't live in a country where cats and dogs are on the menu.

Perhaps they don't mind "free ranch geese"...it's the cages and being force fed they object to.

They aren't doing that ONLY to 'protect the geese'...they are doing it for the publics own good.

Removing the temptation of a slow death and a strain on the health system

Foie gras is unhealthy for humans despite its low-carb content. About 85 percent of its calories are from fat — a 2-ounce serving contains 25 grams of fat and 85 milligrams of cholesterol

RE:do you really think you can win on this insanity?

The "insanity" of comparing force feeding geese to abortion?

PS let me correct "free RANCH geese" to "free RANGE geese"....RANCH DRESSING enhances the taste of geese. And Ranch dressing is not "free"....it cost about $3 up here.

Post was last edited on February 6, 2019 7:59 AM PST

- Collapse -
There is a difference between

'abortion' and murder of a living, BREATHING human being. I'm guessing you are ok with both since you didn't address the REAL issue and instead defended the geese. (BTW...I'm against abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger, including rape victims since living babies can be adopted instead) A heartbeat is the FIRST thing you are aware of in the early stage of pregnancy and the LAST thing you hear in an abortion. After 60 MILLION abortions since RvW, are liberals justifying replacing American citizens with illegals now because we need a 'workforce'? More women are entering the workforce and having careers because they 'can't' do so easily if they need to raise children and/or hire sitters so abortion is THEIR answer to that solution?

- Collapse -
RE: you didn't address the REAL issue
you didn't address the REAL issue and instead defended the geese

The REAL issue wasn't geese? Then why did YOU bring geese into the discussion?

I wasn't defending the geese, I was showing why the people would be protesting the treatment of animals.

You started the comparison not me....I just carried it on.

RE: Priorities...Geese vs Humans

after you're born you're on your own? murder of a living, BREATHING human being.
- Collapse -
RE:so abortion is THEIR answer to that solution?

And, if THEIR "answer" resulted in YOU paying more taxes , YOU would have NO problem with that?

The start of socialism?

- Collapse -
You mean my tax money going

toward paying for THEIR abortions? Of course, I would have a problem with that? How would you think otherwise?

- Collapse -
RE:toward paying for THEIR abortions?

Not quite.

I mean, they have the baby, you put them in the system, you support the system with your tax dollars.

The system paid for by the government/the taxpayer.

That's why I would think otherwise...YOU paying to do anything to pay a penny towards what you consider misdeeds by others.

- Collapse -
Excuse me????

".YOU paying to do anything to pay a penny towards what you consider misdeeds by others."

The MISDEED is the murdering of babies.....abortion to you. It is NOT a misdeed to have the baby and put it up for adoption instead. I would much prefer my tax money go to the latter than the former. What an asinine thing for you to think otherwise. I would also much rather prefer to pay for adoption costs for that baby to NOT go into a system of welfare benefits that many ALSO take advantage of by having one kid after another and see that as a 'lifestyle' because THAT environment has a tendency to be passed down from one generation to another.

- Collapse -
RE: to NOT go into a system of welfare benefits
to NOT go into a system of welfare benefits that many ALSO take advantage of by having one kid after another

And you know for sure exactly how things are going to work out when a baby is born?

It WILL be adopted and not end up as a foster child?

and then there is another "system" someone has the baby, and YOUR system puts that baby up for adoption, the baby is adopted/fostered and the babies guardian receives taxpayer money (YOUR MONEY) for adopting/fostering the child....

Some "have one child after another"...others "adopt/foster one child after another"...or the child gets passed from one foster parent to another...you don't want to pay for one SYSTEM, but you will pay for the other SYSTEM?

It's appears there is something you don't mind paying taxes for.

AND I'm not expressing MY feelings on abortion at all (one way or the other)...Just expressing MY opinion on YOUR statements regarding paying taxes for others to live a lifestyle you don't agree with.
- Collapse -
Taxpayer money doesn't

normally go toward adoptions...once a baby is adopted the new parents take that responsibility. Yes, taxpayers pay for fostering, but most times that's for children taken from parents and/or temporary fostering when a child is up for adoption and waiting for the paperwork to finalize. I completely agree with adoption rather than murder. Organizations such as Catholic Charities never charged for their adoption services...but shut its doors when they refused to adopt children out to gay people/couples. I don't know about other faith-based organizations' 'rules'. Many relied on donations rather than government assistance. Orphanages were the same way...I don't even know if any exist anymore since fostering became more popular and government funded.

Because I don't want to pay for crappy lifestyles since most times it's THEIR decision to live that way is MY choice, not the government's to condone it by paying them for that decision. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to be the norm anymore

- Collapse -
Re: Taxpayer money doesn't
- Collapse -
"that MAY be available"

which is the same as NORMALLY isn't. Good grief......…..if you're going to try to dispute something, at least make it good for a change.

- Collapse -
YOU said "DOESN'T"

I showed it DOES...not all the time, but sometimes....fer instance

IF they aren't adopted by the time they are

Six years old or older and has been in foster care for eighteen months or longer

six years old?....is that their best before/sell by date?

Post was last edited on February 7, 2019 12:54 PM PST

- Collapse -
And I said "NORMALLY"

which is the same as your 'not all the time, but SOMETIMES'

Get a life, JP......you can't win this one.....even if you are trying your best to deflect away from liberals having more compassion for a goose than a human being.....and domestic geese, like chickens, are literally RAISED to be eaten.

- Collapse -
RE:And I said "NORMALLY"

NO......you said DOESN'T NORMALLY,

which is the same as your 'not all the time, but SOMETIMES', but leaning more towards they DON'T normally.

YOU could have said they DO NORMALLY receive assistance and we would not be having this discussion.

And I showed an example of when the child reaches 6 years old and has been in the system for 18 months...the adopting parents DO NORMALLY/WILL receive adoption assistance, along with other examples where adopting parents DO NORMALLY/WILL receive assistance.

RE:are literally RAISED to be eaten.

I see the point they were complaining about has gone over your head, once again.....The geese are being raised in cages and being force fed, That is the problem...cages and force feeding them....animal welfare.

Why not force feed the individuals that want to eat goose liver...Eliminate the middle goose.

- Collapse -

YOU say they 'DO NORMALLY' NOW, but before you said "SOMETIMES, NOT ALWAYS. Make up your mind, JP.....And, as you pointed out, I said "DON'T NORMALLY".....which is the SAME thing as what you originally said. You pointed out nothing other than to AGREE with me.

As for the geese....you SEE the point of ANIMALS being force fed for FOOD CONSUMPTION, but CAN'T SEE the point of murdering babies being a big deal by being FORCED TO DIE A SLOW DEATH OR A PAINFUL ONE. Good to see where YOUR priorities sit. At least the geese die quickly by probably having their heads chopped off instead of having injections into their hearts or brains or being kept 'comfortable' after being born to starve to death.

There are months and months before birth that allow mothers and doctors to make decisions....there are NO excuses for waiting until the birth to do kill him/her.

- Collapse -

And I said it then...

they DO NORMALLY when the adopting parents meet certain conditions....

- Collapse -
RE:At least the geese die quickly


AFTER being caged their entire life and having a tube stuck down their throat numerous times a day for months?

The geese took the easy way out?

What a bunch of pate de foie (lily livered) geese.

They can't miss what they never had?

PS....caged?...in the womb?....entire life?...9 months? Force fed?.... umbilical cord? Is that the connection your link was trying to make between force feeding geese and abortion?

Post was last edited on February 8, 2019 7:24 AM PST

- Collapse -
Well, if nothing else, you have

literally proved where the liberal compassion REALLY lies, and it's NOT with human beings. Babies mean nothing to them because they are 'caged' for 9 months and 'force fed' by their mothers and need to be 'set free' via abortions.

Good to know.

- Collapse -
I was just trying to figure out how YOU connect

force feeding a goose with abortion.

Can't perform an abortion unless there's a womb, a time period and an umbilical cord.

caged?...in the womb?. check

entire life?...number of months? check

Force fed?.... umbilical cord? check

RE: 'set free' via abortions.

I made NO mention of "being SET FREE" via abortion and did not connect those "dots" YOU did.

Dying sets a person free? tsk, tsk, tsk

- Collapse -
YOUR priority and concern from the

start of this entire thread has been with food animals....spin it any way you want.

- Collapse -
RE:spin it any way you want.

Speaking of "spinning stuff anyway WE want".

I noticed that the 2 or 3 times i've mentioned DJT and his "he could shoot somebody and not lose any voters." claim you are strangely silent.

YOU are pro-life as long as it has to do with abortion...after that....WHAATTever!!!!....

HIS claim is so ridiculous you can't even defend/spin it?

RE:YOUR priority and concern from the start of this entire thread has been with food animals...

Now ya' got it....how many posts did it take? I thought I said that many posts ago.

AND I'm not expressing MY feelings on abortion at all (one way or the other)

- Collapse -
Th difference is that

Trump DIDN'T actually shoot anybody and get away with it, did he?

Unlike Ted Kennedy....praised by Dems as an iconic supporter of WOMEN....really DID kill someone, a WOMAN, and get away with it.

And killing FOOD is STILL more important to you than human beings......

- Collapse -
RE:The difference is that
Assuming/taking YOUR claim as true, that Ted Kennedy DID "intentionally kill" somebody....

Ted Kennedy didn't go around bragging about being able to do it, BEFORE he did it., I haven't hear of him taking credit for doing it, have you?

Unlike DJT., it's like DJT is advocating violence.

When DJT said He could shoot someone and HE wouldn't lose any voters.

Do you think he was going to shoot someone that was too young to vote, a REALLY late term abortion?

Only shoot Dems OR Non Tea Party Republicans?

RE:And killing FOOD is STILL more important to you than human beings......

IF I had to prevent an abortion in order to stay alive/not die of malnutrition ...I would be dead a long time ago....How bout you?

ALL the "FOOD" YOU eat is raised in a cage and force fed"?

That must limit what you can eat.

Did you eat yesterday?....Did you prevent an abortion yesterday?


- Collapse -
Three years or more ago

a statement was made by Trump with NO results from it and you are still carping that he advocates violence, but a DEM deliberately leaves someone to die by HIS hands, and HIS message was 'the Kennedys CAN get away with murder'. Which is worse, do you think?

- Collapse -
RE:he advocates violence
with NO results from it.

Yes, he does, doesn't HE?

Donald Trump faced criticism during his successful 2016 presidential campaign based on the aggressive atmospheres of many of his rallies, where tension and intimidation repeatedly spilled over into violence.

Is "eating crow', the same as eating pate de foie goose?


Where did you hear that term lately?

Imitation?...the most sincere form of flattery?
- Collapse -
RE:And I said "NORMALLY"
- Collapse -
I'm pro choice
- Collapse -
NOBODY who is a no-never-none folk

would rather save geese than the babies....are you serious? Or have you been hanging around JP and drp too long that even your own sentences don't make sense anymore?

Both of you need to actually read the article I linked to....people want to ban a FOOD because it means killing a goose, but cheer out loud and light up a freaking building TOWER to celebrate killing babies.

CNET Forums