A Far Off Reward

The increasingly militant Animal Liberation Front struck again last night, freeing dozens of chickens bound for delicious snack packs.
The Debate

1. "These nuts have got to be stopped," demands concerned consumer Roxanne Hendrikson. "They need to face the fact people want snack packs, no matter how many innocent chickens must be sacrificed. Besides, chickens would do the same to us if they had the chance."


2. "These Liberationists are highlighting an important issue," pleads Freddy Chicago. "Too often, animals are put through needless cruelty, just to make their flesh taste a little more deliciously succulent. I'm sure we could ban the more horrific abuses without putting too much of a dent in our national obesity figures. Couldn't we?"


3. "Animals have feelings too!" yelled protestor Miranda Winters, before being set upon by hungry passers-by. "Free the animals! Ban meat-eating!"


4. Economist Buy Longfellow has an alternative. "You don't need to take away the people's right to choose. You just need to build the costs of animal suffering into the price. A tax on meat-eating, in proportion to the amount of cruelty involved, would do the trick. Plus think of the benefit for the national coffers! Of course, poor people wouldn't be able to afford meat, but that's just more incentive for them to get jobs."
___________________________________
I need an answer before tomorrows immunity challenge.

Not 3. Not 1. I say 2 but if someone have another argument for why 4 is better then 2 I could buy it.

My vote is for #2.

I agree, it has to be 2.

Yeah, lets go with 2.

2 works

I think we should force feed animals so they are fatter. i fuckin love fat on meat. its so dam yummy. ya'll r friggin gay for sayin we should be nice. they dont have real brains or shit.