Costco is having a discount on the eggs.
30pk caged eggs 1750g is $5.59 - saving of $1.10 https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/77976/56469/20180214_1…
18 pk free range eggs 1000g is $4.99 - saving of $0.50
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/77976/56468/20180214_1…
Rejoice, egg lovers.
PS: discount on free range eggs ends on 18th, caged eggs are discounted until 20th.
Do I risk ending up with egg on my face?
Eggsactly.
Eggcellent
Such an eggstatic news to hear
A few ruffled feathers on this thread.
I shell wait until everything has settled…down
Does it matter either way?
A deal is a deal. Let's not impose your moral judgement on the OP or anyone else…
Let's not impose your moral judgement on the OP or anyone else…
IE don't even talk about treading on me while I tread on other animals.
A deal is still a deal in instances where only some users like/appreciate/support the deal content.
Such as:
In other words, if you don't support caged eggs that is fine. But don't impose your moral choices on others.
@GreatWhiteHunter: Talking about laying hens is talk, not imposition. Buying eggs (caged or otherwise) is paying for imposition against those hens being exploited and killed. There is a point where personal choices stop being personal.
Do you eat meat?
Surely slaying an animal is worse than eating caged eggs?
Do you eat vegetables?
Why is killing a vegetable better than killing an animal or eating eggs??
facepalm
Are you serious with the vegetables comment? Surely you understand the difference between a sentient being and a plant?
Because, apart from any intuition, in the light of modern science, believing plants feel pain is not to dissimilar from believing the world is flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious…
Nothing in the links conclusively proves plants do not feel pain.
Please provide a specific reference in a specific article if you disagree.
Plants are born and grow. They bleed. They die.
They consume water and air and nutrients - ie. they eat.
Studies have shown some plants grow better when they listen to music.
Just because a plant cannot communicate in a fashion you understand, doesn't mean they don't feel pain.
All those banning caged eggs should also be supporting the total ban of bonsai plants.
The bonsai process is clearly cruel and painful.
Wow - you entirely read a wikipedia page and a scholarly article in 6 min. You are fierce!
No-one is denying plants live or have deterministic reactions with their environment.
Now remember when your house is burning down to ask the firefighters to save your plants as well as the dog. And never mow the lawn again. Oh, and stop eating eggs, because chickens eat more plants than you would eat on your own to get the same nutritional intake* by eating the plants directly rather than the eggs layed by hens.
(*Cholesterol excluded - plant's can't give you that)
To be fair the wikipedia page is not long, and the "article" is not even 2 full pages.
Not hard in 6 minutes.
I even had time to hit the search button on both to make sure I hadn't missed the mention of the word "plant".
ZERO references to "plant" in either link you provided.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pa…
Clearly, plants can communicate. But does that mean they can feel pain? It's a troubling scenario for salad lovers squeamish at the thought of eating foods with feelings, and for them the answer may not be that appetizing.
According to researchers at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn in Germany, plants release gases that are the equivalent of crying out in pain. Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured. Although not audible to the human ear, the secret voices of plants have revealed that cucumbers scream when they are sick, and flowers whine when their leaves are cut [source: Deutsche Welle].
There's also evidence that plants can hear themselves being eaten. Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that plants understand and respond to chewing sounds made by caterpillars that are dining on them. As soon as the plants hear the noises, they respond with several defense mechanisms [source: Feinberg].
For some researchers, evidence of these complex communication systems — emitting noises via gas when in distress — signals that plants feel pain. Others argue that there cannot be pain without a brain to register the feeling. Still more scientists surmise that plants can exhibit intelligent behavior without possessing a brain or conscious awareness [source: Pollan].
Comparing people who believe plants feel pain to those who believe the Earth is flat is insulting, offensive and inappropriate. Modern science is at the very least undecided about plants feeling pain - and arguably leans towards confirming that they do. Logic suggests that as a living thing, plants do feel pain.
The desire and ability to flee pain is required only for those species that can feel pain. You'll find that, even though they may be amongst some of the older species found on earth, no plants have any evolutionary adaptations to flee pain; that is to say they are not at all mobile. In fact, a large number of plants have (mostly reproductive) characteristics that draw in feeders, or that may be activated in harsh events such as fires.
You make pain out to be some sort of reaction when it is actually a response - maybe you should look into the difference between these qualities. (Hint: one is deterministic, the other is not. When the doctor hits your knee with a hammer your leg will jerk up as a deterministic reaction; what you feel about it is another matter and purely subjective.)
But this is all moot - as I said before, if you want to minimise plant suffering then stop eating animals. Or are you that callous that you don't care about plants at all?
Now remember when your house is burning down to ask the firefighters to save your plants as well as the dog. And never mow the lawn again. Oh, and stop eating eggs, because chickens eat more plants than you would eat on your own to get the same nutritional intake* by eating the plants directly rather than the eggs layed by hens.
GreatWhiteHunter wasn't advocating that anyone stop consuming plants. They were highlighting the slippery slope of where to draw the line when considering the welfare of more distant species.
In the same vein as your comment, are you concerned for the welfare of all the animals that are killed by the harvesting and delivery of all the vegetables and other products you consume?
Your continued consumption of virtually anything imposes some amount of suffering and death on animals. In that regard you aren't qualitatively different to the average meat-eating person.
Perhaps you could live off the land self-sufficiently and forage for your own vegetables, but try not to step on anything!!
@thevofa: Its really simple isn't it, stab a living Carrot and then stab a living chicken and see if you can make the distinction as to which is feeling pain. People just use plant pain as a ( silly ) argument to try and make a hypocrite out of vegans. Needless to say it doesn't work and they know it.. time for a checkup in the upstairs department.
@Zacsik:
Funny you never replied to the very first question and took off on a different tangent that suits your agenda.
are you concerned for the welfare of all the animals that are killed by the harvesting and delivery of all the vegetables and other products you consume?
Yes I am. I hope for a world where all practices take nonhuman interests into account but am realist enough to know that will never happen until we, as a collective, stop harming animals intentionally. In the mean time, short of removing myself from society - a major opportunity cost - the approach of no direct and least indirect harm is the most sensible approach - at very small opportunity cost.
For any harm you present in some hope of tu quoque, animal agriculture will be responsible for more.
They were highlighting the slippery slope of where to draw the line
There's nothing slippery about it. Sentient beings care about their own interests and deserve (moral) consideration, non-sentient beings do not. Period.
Yes I am.
Good, I appreciate your consistency on this aspect…
I hope for a world where all practices take nonhuman interests into account but am realist enough to know that will never happen until we, as a collective, stop harming animals intentionally.
The intention of battery hen farming is to minimise cost, not to harm animals.
In the mean time, short of removing myself from society - a major opportunity cost
There we have it folks. The logical conclusion of both veganism and environmentalism: The halt, reversal and destruction of human development — misanthropy! I'm glad to hear that you value your own opportunity and I hope you value that of other humans. Some of your partisans do not.
the approach of no direct and least indirect harm is the most sensible approach - at very small opportunity cost.
You aren't following the approach of least indirect harm. As I mentioned before, you could live off the land self-sufficiently and forage for your own vegetables, but you don't. Why?
You aren't following the approach of least indirect harm. As I mentioned before, you could live off the land self-sufficiently and forage for your own vegetables, but you don't. Why?
Because your reduction into absurdities can only end at the point where you challenge me to stop breathing so that I don't steal other animals' air.
Because you have implied that without completely removing myself from society and living in the bush there is no point to any progress.
Glad to see you're still around and still bothered by this topic enough to comment. But your logical fallacies are old, worn out and predictable; how I'd love to hear something fresh.
Because your reduction into absurdities can only end at the point where you challenge me to stop breathing so that I don't steal other animals' air.
Your lifestyle is already absurd to me without reduction. And I certainly don't want you to suicide!
But that is the logical conclusion of your espoused aim of "least indirect harm". You should note that a reductio ad absurdum is a logical form of argument, not a fallacious one1.
Because you have implied that without completely removing myself from society and living in the bush there is no point to any progress.
No, I'm simply highlighting the flaws in your aims and reasoning.
My argument against veganism is quite straightforward: I don't value the welfare of all the animals that you do. And holding that value is at odds with my values for natural complete nutrition, enjoyment of food and human development.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_absurdity ↩
@Scrooge McDuck: No, you have applied it fallaciously, just like you've finished with 2 hollow sentences. Human development? Complete nutrition? Whatever dude.
Ever been to a large scale free range chicken farm? They're not much better then caged. If you're worried about animal welfare, you're better off getting backyard eggs.
And that's where I get mine.
@Putnum: So you're saying me all those products you buy that contain eggs all come from your mate's backyard. Your mate must be in high places, or you only eat eggs whole and not contained in other products. And your mate keeps his hens till they die naturally > 10yo, and doesn't (pay to) kill the cocks at a day old. And snuggles the hens at night. Sounds awesome!
@Yarkin:
Not after free samples. Just a place where I can get these on a regular basis at the cheapest price.
(profanity) off, I bet you're one of those tards that goes around wiring anticap messages everywhere too
Could you please link me your Change.org campaign?
Just wondering since you gave positive vote here https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/360939 do you know if you are going to get one with free range eggs or caged eggs?
You have next-level spare time my friend.
Don't worry, I'm sure the people who valued your virtuous appearance will overlook your intellectual inconsistency.
Just like the lives of caged hens?
Time to grab some popcorn!
30pk caged eggs 1750g is $5.59 - saving of $1.10
The cheapest caged eggs at Woolies are $3.00 per dozen.
So equivalent pricing of $7.50 per 30.
Nice deal.
Yeah very cheap, even their normal pricing is $6.69 very cheep cheep cheep
It is not an illegal product. Your negative vote is invalid. I will neg your neg.
That's fine, at least I'm spreading awareness for the blatant mistreatment of animals.
I am fine with that.
I am fine with barely sentient creatures being used for their infertile eggs, I also wholeheartedly condone the killing of these animals for food. Obviously not the dirty caged up ones but, you get what I am saying.
Two negatives make a positive in case you’re wondering.
Mmm… Two chicks make a rooster?
Well maybe you should see what they do to some poor cows or lamb that end up on your dinner plate.
I'll tell you OP, you have some balls to post such a controversial deal.. +1 on that fact alone.
Thanks. I think eggs are used in most households and not everyone can afford eggs laid by hand fed, papmered chickens. Sometimes people need to use the money in a tight arse (respect) manner.
Quite frankly I have bought both, depending on whether free range is a decent price or not (and making sure they actually are) but most of the time I get eggs of my mate who owns chickens on his farm - cheaper than caged + bigger + better :)
Upvoted for the caged eggs, I don't want the Chickens running around all day not focusing on their job.
Plus the free range ones are feral and don't wash.
That's 1 for the albumin.
eggstacular
I deliberately buy cage eggs because of you spergs, you turned something compassionate and caring into a weird fringe cringe society.
@ MakingBacon, I always buy sow stall pigs.
Wow, what a sad world we live in when animal activists get labelled "weird fringe cringe". I do apologise for linking to a video made by Animals Australia.
Educating people in a gentle fashion is just fine, shoving it down peoples necks usually has the opposite effect and is waste of energy.
Wow you sure showed them
because of you spergs
What means this?
+1 for the Freerange eggs part of the deal.
Lol hunters have done more for lion conservation than the conservationists, poor choice of comparison buddy.
Wow, I'm so sorry if my choice of comparison doesn't suit your criteria.
I think if you're going to eat eggs from these tortured animals you have to own it.
Same reason I try not to eat pork products from overseas, the conditions they are kept in is too stressful and can only have negative effect on their health.
If you like the idea of eating meat or eggs from sick animals
Good luck with YOUR health.
Well, I don't eat much meat and eggs is every now and then. So far I have been living without much health issues.
Oh this post is getting egged. As soon as I saw it I remembered the last egging that went on. Eggxactly not what I wanted.
30 of these eggs = 18 normal eggs. Tiny reject eggs… So small. In a dozen, they might have to sell them as 500g.
You get what you pay for. Costco is rarely good value
It says in the photo that 30 eggs = 1750g, if you have a dispute I believe the ACCC would take any fraudulent weights & measures case quite seriously.
ACCC is quite a bit of a joke these days when it comes to actions. Good for basic advise. Always sends you to your respective CAT. Not worth my time, I just shop elsewhere.
1750g would make them 700g a dozen. Open the 700 dozen eggs next to the 30's and compare.
They've made no claim about size, so comparing size is pointless.
If the weight is not as advertised, that is a serious crime. Call A Current Affair or 60 Minutes.
@abb: Current affair has agendas
They did make a claim about size. They claim all sizes added up is 1750g. Not sure why you think it's pointless
@abb: You must be confused… You're saying that 1750g (30 pack) eggs SHOULD be a different size to 700g (12 pack) eggs?
@plague69: Someone is confused, but I assure you it is not me.
They SHOULD be the same size, but as Costco is making no claim about SIZE (they describe only the mass), there is no REQUIREMENT for them to be.
If the pack said "each egg is 50mm diameter", that would be a different story.
To give a contrived example: the physically larger eggs may be half filled with air. Grams (mass) are a better measure than size.
Maybe your "700g" example pack was actually 750g, and the Costco 1750g was exactly 1750g. Who knows. Unless you weigh them, you have no basis for a complaint.
I also found that Costco isn't amazing value for the extra trouble of shopping with them.
Meat at their butcher's is well priced though. We found it was a couple of dollars lower than the big supermarket specials.
I wonder if Costco could use the eggs in their delicious pastries baked in-store if they don't sell the eggs by 21st?
Do Costco bakery employees have a membership card?
Is the pastry free range?
Is the flour free range?
Is the flour flour free?
Oh dear, this may not end so well.