A dog is a pig is a bear is a boy.

auspicious

Andy Merrick's inauguration speech to Victoria's parliament.
Andy a long-term vegan has continuously campaigned against animal injustice.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPAXpb7pPg

davidjtaylor

Fair play to him. In the land of the barbie!

Charles Ingles

I don't get the vegan logic, if animals weren't farmed they would serve no purpose and wouldn't exist.
A cow is better to have lived a life looked after properly with kindness and slaughtered in the most human way is better than never have lived at all

henryporter

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I don't get the vegan logic, if animals weren't farmed they would serve no purpose and wouldn't exist.
A cow is better to have lived a life looked after properly with kindness and slaughtered in the most human way is better than never have lived at all

I presume from that statement that you haven’t watched the video in the OP which centers on the idea of compassion towards all animals. Anyone who believes in this day and age that farmed animals are all treated humanely would need to start educating themselves a bit.

davidjtaylor

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I don't get the vegan logic, if animals weren't farmed they would serve no purpose and wouldn't exist.

Right, so let’s apply your logic, shall we? Dolphins or woodlice or what have you shouldn’t exist, because we don’t farm them.

endacl

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Right, so let’s apply your logic, shall we? Dolphins or woodlice or what have you shouldn’t exist, because we don’t farm them.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Donald Trump

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Right, so let’s apply your logic, shall we? Dolphins or woodlice or what have you shouldn’t exist, because we don’t farm them.

Well it's silly to use that try to say his point is completely untrue.


Cows and sheep (or domesticated pigs) would not survive in the "wild". Or at least not in very large numbers.

Fair enough say it would be better for the planet to have no cows - but you can't pretend that they would be all out lazing in nice green pastures if people didn't eat them or make use of them in some way.


You are of course welcome to purchase any land that is for sale and allow whatever animals you want to roam free on it. But if you buy a cow, you need to remember that generations of selective breeding have led to certain traits which need human attention/maintenance.

davidjtaylor

endacl wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum.

I’m only repeating what he claims - that a species goes extinct if it isn’t farmed.

Charles Ingles

There would be no cows in the" wilds" of Ireland if we stopped using them for milk meat and leather there wouldn't be a cow in Ireland.
Does anyone disagree with this?

Charles Ingles

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Right, so let’s apply your logic, shall we? Dolphins or woodlice or what have you shouldn’t exist, because we don’t farm them.

Come on really, at least be honest do you want the earth's population of cows wiped out?

davidjtaylor

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Come on really, at least be honest do you want the earth's population of cows wiped out?

One thing I always am is honest. Don’t make assumptions about me.

As to what I want: the deliberate use of all animals, by humans, to stop.

Charles Ingles

davidjtaylor wrote: »

One thing I always am is honest. Don’t make assumptions about me.

As to what I want: the deliberate use of all animals, by humans, to stop.

So what happens to the animals?
No farmers no cow's surely a life for the for the food chain better than no life at all?

Donald Trump

davidjtaylor wrote: »

One thing I always am is honest. Don’t make assumptions about me.

As to what I want: the deliberate use of all animals, by humans, to stop.

Fair enough.


Kill all cats and dogs as well. Especially guide dogs who have to work for humans.



I say kill all cats because wild cats are partly responsible for the decimation of bird species around the world.

davidjtaylor

@Donald Trump: Why should we kill cats? What’s it got to do with us?

Donald Trump

davidjtaylor wrote: »

@Donald Trump: Why should we kill cats? What’s it got to do with us?

Cats in the wild kill lots of birds (and small mammals).
There are environmentalists that want to do away with outdoor cats
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/
The reason there are so many cats is because of people


And if other people don't want cats indoors for human pets then you can't have any cats indoors or outdoors

Anteayer

Given the conditions that some animals are raised in, I'd say quite a few would be a lot better off had they never existed.

While some farming tries to be humane, globally more of it really doesn't bother at all. I'm particularly talking about areas like intensive poultry farming which can be really inhumane. I mean from hatchling to the end of their lives many of those animals don't experience anything other than an exploitive factory situation. It's a far cry from traditional farmyard hens.

Donald Trump

Anteayer wrote: »

Given the conditions that some animals are raised in, I'd say quite a few would be a lot better off had they never existed.

While some farming tries to be humane, globally more of it really doesn't bother at all. I'm particularly talking about areas like intensive poultry farming which can be really inhumane. I mean from hatchling to the end of their lives many of those animals don't experience anything other than an exploitive factory situation. It's a far cry from traditional farmyard hens.

Unfortunately people want cheap food. Even in the West where people are educated and have the money, they often choose cheaper food and a newer iphone over alternate food choices.


The farmer has very little power. Almost zero in fact. Food tends to be produced at or below cost for the farmer as it is.


As long as people choose the cheaper food, the supermarkets (who have the real power) will demand quantity over quality

gozunda

Charles Ingles wrote: »

There would be no cows in the" wilds" of Ireland if we stopped using them for milk meat and leather there wouldn't be a cow in Ireland.
Does anyone disagree with this?

The problem with the sentiment that "A dog is a pig is a bear is a boy" is that under current vegan ideology - a dog, a pig, a bear and will never ever allowed to be a 'boy'.

That animals under the reign of veganism will never be given the rights of a 'boy' - rather they are to be eradicated. This is already happening and is practiced by various vegan groups such as PETA who are currently and actively killing stolen pets.

".. killing is not an ancillary part of PETA’s program; it goes to the core of the mission. “The objective of the program,” (it) “was to get as many animals as possible and the vast majority of those animals were killed.” Nothing came between that objective and the staff, including lying by telling people the animals would be adopted knowing full well they would be killed:

For details of the theft of many of these animals by PETA See:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/killing-animals-petas-open-secret_b_59e78243e4b0e60c4aa36711

The same ideology also advocates the wiping out of all wild animals which eat meat under the guise of eradicating "Wild Animal Suffering" (WAS) - an increasingly promoted part of popular online vegan ideology.

Imo It is not that there is concern for such animals, rather the existence of these animals both farmed and wild is a very real obstacle to the ideology of veganism as the 'only way'

And all because a small minority do not like meat - it is being actually suggested that we get rid of all domestic animals and to ultimately eradicate all wild animals who depend on meat for their survival from the face of the earth.

Absolutely incredible imo.

Tar.Aldarion

Charles Ingles wrote: »

So what happens to the animals?
No farmers no cow's surely a life for the for the food chain better than no life at all?

You can follow that logic to the end and say they same of humans. Your reasoning is one people used and likely still do to justify slavery. That being the case, there is something else you are missing with that line of reasoning, what amendments would you make to your philosophical thought?

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

You can follow that logic to the end and say they same of humans. Your reasoning is one people used and likely still do to justify slavery. That being the case, there is something else you are missing with that line of reasoning, what amendments would you make to your philosophical thought?

Unfortunately you are using the standard faulty vegan logic of conflating animal agriculture with human slavery.

Not only are such juxtapositions or comparisons of little merit in any rational argument - it is a fact that the use of such logic is offensive to all those of any race who live within the legacy of slavery

Veganism has a serious race problem. Type ‘vegan’ into Google and you won’t need to scroll through many pages to see what I mean. The routine comparisons of animal abuse to the enslavement of Black people shows exactly how little value white members of the vegan community, generally considered a liberal breed, place on Black life. This racism, so casually delivered, is designed to add shock value – to trigger a dietary epiphany. 

https://mediadiversified.org/2015/12/16/veganism-has-a-serious-race-problem/

Unlike mainstream vegan ideology - it remains that animal agricultural does not advocate for the wiping out of entire species of animals.

Varta

davidjtaylor wrote: »

One thing I always am is honest. Don’t make assumptions about me.

As to what I want: the deliberate use of all animals, by humans, to stop.

If you are ever unfortunate enough to meet a hen as big or bigger than you are, it will eat you in the blink of an eye. Any campaign for the humane treatment of farm animals I am happy to support, but I reserve the right to eat meat.

Tar.Aldarion

gozunda wrote: »

Unfortunately you are using the standard faulty vegan logic of conflating animal agriculture with human slavery.

Not only are such juxtapositions or comparisons of little merit in any rational argument - it is a fact that the use of such logic is offensive to all those of any race who live within the legacy of slavery



https://mediadiversified.org/2015/12/16/veganism-has-a-serious-race-problem/

Unlike mainstream vegan ideology - it remains that animal agricultural does not advocate for the wiping out of entire species of animals.

I am not "conflating animal agriculture with human slavery". The two components do not particularly matter, I am showing somebody a flaw in logic with a real world example, so as to ground it. "surely a life for the for the food chain better than no life at all". They do not extend this to all life, so amendments must be made to clarify their actual meaning.

Charles Ingles

Human Life and animals are hard equal.
Yes should be treated compassionately but a human being is comparable to an animal

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I am not "conflating animal agriculture with human slavery". The two components do not particularly matter, I am showing somebody a flaw in logic with a real world example.
"surely a life for the for the food chain better than no life at all". They do not extend this to all life, so amendments must be made.

Then why introduce slavery to the argument?
If I had a cent for each of the occasions where I have seen it used - I'd be retired tbh.

Eitherway the farming of animals is irrelevant to your point that it "does not extend to all life" as animal agriculture is clearly not a case of "no life at all". Neither does farming advocate for entire species of domestic animals to be eradicated. That is only true of veganism.

Tar.Aldarion

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Human Life and animals are hard equal.
Yes should be treated compassionately but a human being is comparable to an animal

I am not saying they are equal, clearly animals are different from each other in differing ways.
In your view:

For humans: A life is not worth living simply if they are a part of the food chain.
For other animals: A life is worth living simply if they are a part of the food chain.

In one example the ends justify the means, the other the ends do not justify the means. what makes you draw that differing conclusion to similar, if not equal, things?

Charles Ingles

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I am not saying they are equal, clearly animals are different from each other in differing ways.
In your view:

For humans: A life is not worth living if they are a part of the food chain.
For other animals: A life is worth living if they are a part of the food chain.

In one example the ends justify the means, the other the ends do not justify the means. what makes you draw that conclusion?

My point is well treated animal reared by a loving compassionate farmer then to be slaughtered with compassion is better than to have not lived at all just my opinion

Tar.Aldarion

gozunda wrote: »

Then why introduce slavery to the argument?
If I had a cent for each of the occasions where I have seen it used - I'd be retired tbh.

Eitherway the farming of animals is irrelevant to your point that it "does not extend to all life" as animal agriculture is clearly not a case of "no life at all". Neither does farming does advocate for entire species of domestic animals to be eradicated.

The example is to exemplify differing thought about the same philosophical questions. Often people have different answers to the same basic principles but they can not bring this to the forefront in their mind without examples, over which they hold the opposite opinion in relation to basic principles.

Tar.Aldarion

Charles Ingles wrote: »

My point is well treated animal reared by qaloving compassionate farmer then to be slaughtered with compassion is better than to have not lived at all just my opinion

Fair enough if that is your opinion. I'm just interested in why you think that. Say I raise an animal for a few years and kill it, that that is better than it not existing. Why do you think that is?
Now say I raise a human and give it a good life for a few years and kill it, is that better than it not existing. Why? Why not?

Charles Ingles

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Fair enough if that is your opinion. I'm just interested in why you think that. Say I raise and animal and kill it, that that is better than it not existing. Why do you think that is?
Now say I raise a human and give it a good life and kill it, is that better than it not existing. Why? Why not?

Human beings are not part of the food chain.
Also if you kill a human being it's murder.
I'm pro eating meat once the animals have been treated well and given best life possible

gozunda

Charles Ingles wrote: »

My point is well treated animal reared by qaloving compassionate farmer then to be slaughtered with compassion is better than to have not lived at all just my opinion

It is also evident that all animals on this planet are constituent parts of the process of entropy where the recycling of energy involves both consumers and producers.

To isolate animal farming from this process and say it is wrong also shows that vegans are not simply against animal agriculture but essentially they are against the eating of any meat.

If that's not the case should we perhaps we could revert to hunting animals with spears and chasing them over the edge of cliffs? I dont believe too many vegans would support this either. Are there improvements which could be made to some farming practices? Yes they are. It does not mean we should abolish farming just because some are attempting to justify the abolition of animal agriculture as they do not agree with others eating meat as part of their normal diet.

_Brian

Anteayer wrote: »

Given the conditions that some animals are raised in, I'd say quite a few would be a lot better off had they never existed.

While some farming tries to be humane, globally more of it really doesn't bother at all. I'm particularly talking about areas like intensive poultry farming which can be really inhumane. I mean from hatchling to the end of their lives many of those animals don't experience anything other than an exploitive factory situation. It's a far cry from traditional farmyard hens.

This is true indeed.
Back in the 90’s I was given a tour of a caged chicken farm producing eggs and it was shocking with cages stacked 12 high, bottom six cages the chickens had feathers burned off from dropping coming down through cages from above. . Seeing free range egg production now there is no comparison and the chickens have a decent life if a bit short.

Our chickens roam free, non laying chickens turn into pets living out their life with the laying hens, they don’t live long anyway.

Similarly commercial pig units while clean and warm resemble nothing close to a pigs natural environment. Farrowing crates, well I don’t know how essential they are, guy we buy piglets from doesn’t use them, some losses as a result but he feels it’s a more natural set up. I think the crates guaranteed 100% survival where without it would be 70-80% piglet survived.

At the very least animals should be reared and kept in conditions close to that of their ancestors and how they developed.

Our pigs live outdoors with a small shed for shelter and they choose to either be in or out themselves. Growth rates are but a fraction of commercial rates though, similarly we use just a fraction of the meal they feed. The result I feel it happier pigs and a better end product.

We’ve been moving our cattle to a similar system over the winter with access to green pasture all the time and anshed to use for shelter, they spend huge % of time outside during winter and bad weather.

All this reduces profitability. But I beleive were overproducing meat at present and it’s become a basic commodity cheaply priced. I’d like to see less meat production but better prices, that would better reflect the product it is.

deaglan1

We are where we are because of human intervention - the entire landscape is nothing like what it would be except for human intervention. Domesticated animals and the entire plethora of garden plants/trees are here simply by human intervention - all would revert back to a wilder format or simply not survive without human intervention. Now, I have no problem with fancy plants but "fancy" = domesticated varieties of wild animals, sentient beings, that are born to be slaughtered does not appeal to me. The old chestnut that it is better to have lived than not at all is the carnivores mainstay argument, yet not one of them has ever talked to a domesticated animal to ask its opinion.

So, lets say that there exists a superhuman race who evolved from a common ancestor with us many millions of years ago. These superhumans have bred us mere humans in order to consume us. Better to have lived you say than knowing about how it will all end for us at the infant, child or teenage years (in the middle of the night with the superhuman custodians forcing you onto a truck with no physical restraint on their part). Shunted/beaten into the killing rooms for the old bolt in the head and then cut to pieces so that Mr Ordinary Superhuman can consume you. A lovely tasty bit of human leg Mary, says he. Of course, some mere humans will be allowed to live on for a while for procreation purposes. No oldies allowed as they would be economically a drain on the Superhuman economy. Most superhumans are lovely people, just your average guys n gals enjoying the simple things in life such as consuming a human child at festive celebrations, what with its lovely tender texture. Some superhumans keep a few human babies in stock as well - wring their necks for a tasty bite on the barbie when friends call over. Lovely superhumans, salt of the earth types, who attend their local spiritual services centre to thank the Great One for the human bounty he has so graciously delivered and to reaffirm how the great circle of life is inevitable - "we must respect the human animal" says the scriptures, human animals that the Great One has provided to us for our earthly needs, so that we can be nourished as we toil and strive to live a purposeful life that reflects the sublime peaceful doctrines of the Great One.

davidjtaylor

Very well said deaglan1; shame you’re going to get beaten by several large sticks for daring to post such poetic and sincere thoughts.

gozunda

deaglan1 wrote: »

...
So, lets say that there exists a superhuman race who evolved from a common ancestor with us many millions of years ago. These superhumans have bred us mere humans in order to consume us. Better to have lived you say than knowing about how it will all end for us at the infant, child or teenage years (in the middle of the night with the superhuman custodians forcing you onto a truck with no physical restraint on their part). Shunted/beaten into the killing rooms for the old bolt in the head and then cut to pieces so that Mr Ordinary Superhuman can consume you. A lovely tasty bit of human leg Mary, says he. Of course, some mere humans will be allowed to live on for a while for procreation purposes. No oldies allowed as they would be economically a drain on the Superhuman economy. Most superhumans are lovely people, just your average guys n gals enjoying the simple things in life such as consuming a human child at festive celebrations, what with its lovely tender texture. Some superhumans keep a few human babies in stock as well - wring their necks for a tasty bite on the barbie when friends call over. Lovely superhumans, salt of the earth types, who attend their local spiritual services centre to thank the Great One for the human bounty he has so graciously delivered and to reaffirm how the great circle of life is inevitable - "we must respect the human animal" says the scriptures, human animals that the Great One has provided to us for our earthly needs, so that we can be nourished as we toil and strive to live a purposeful life that reflects the sublime peaceful doctrines of the Great One.

Poetic - maybe. Hyperbole - definitely. Reality - no

It remains animals have been eating other animals since the dawn of time. It is what it is. The eating of meat is a part of entropy and the recycling of energy in ecology . And yes humans eat other animals species and not as in your conflation sub species "humans". Like it or not we are now the dominant animals and have learned to farm animals that we once used to hunt. Farming allows us do this in a way which means we no longer have to chase animals over cliffs with spears etc.

Rather animals are reared, fed and protected from predation and diseases that would face in the wild. They are killed yes - under highly controlled and regulated conditions. Some humans choose not to eat meat and that's fine - others do - thats how it is.

Nice story at the end but tbh i dont know too many religous types who follow gospel and who use a godhead to decide whether they should eat normal a 'human' diet. Certainly there are religions with restrictions - but none that even come close to that piece of fiction - poetic or otherwise.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Very well said deaglan1; shame you’re going to get beaten by several large sticks for daring to post such poetic and sincere thoughts.

david - why the need to reduce practically every discussion to an imagery of attack etc. People may have varying opinions and express those opinions without having them reduced to a narrow vision of censorship. You keep reiterating this again and again - perhaps you could engage rather than throw rocks from a distance. Thanks.

_Brian

I think the big mistake in much of the logic is that animals don’t have human levels of comprehension, it’s just not true.

So if we humans were being bred for food and knew it i we would understand the concept all our lives.

My cows for example are just happy and relaxed, living their lives away in a big field of grass, moved to the next field of grass when that one is eaten. They’re not sitting round discussing the greater things in life, they’re just living each day as it is.
Our pigs the same, yes they have a level of intelligence, but transferring human level intelligence onto them is wrong.
You could explain it to them every day and they wouldn’t have a clue.

I know people here aren’t emotionally comfortable with animal slaughter and I respect that.

But imagining up feelings and intelligence levels for animals is wrong.

deaglan1

gozunda wrote: »

Poetic - maybe. Hyperbole - definitely. Reality - no

Like it or not we are now the dominant animals and have learned to farm animals that we once used to hunt. Farming allows us do this in a way which means we no longer have to chase animals over cliffs with spears etc.

Rather animals are reared, fed and protected from predation and diseases that would face in the wild. They are killed yes - under highly controlled and regulated conditions.

"Dominant animal" - yes, I agree.
"Need to raise and slaughter other animals" - no, this is no longer required - science has told us that all our nutritional requirements can be obtained from non-animal sources
"Rather animals are reared, fed and protected.......they are killed yes - under highly controlled and regulated conditions - Absolutely true, so why not substitute the words pet dog for animal in your discourse - how measured does your response seem now?

Doctors room ghost

_Brian wrote: »

This is true indeed.
Back in the 90’s I was given a tour of a caged chicken farm producing eggs and it was shocking with cages stacked 12 high, bottom six cages the chickens had feathers burned off from dropping coming down through cages from above. . Seeing free range egg production now there is no comparison and the chickens have a decent life if a bit short.

Our chickens roam free, non laying chickens turn into pets living out their life with the laying hens, they don’t live long anyway.

Similarly commercial pig units while clean and warm resemble nothing close to a pigs natural environment. Farrowing crates, well I don’t know how essential they are, guy we buy piglets from doesn’t use them, some losses as a result but he feels it’s a more natural set up. I think the crates guaranteed 100% survival where without it would be 70-80% piglet survived.

At the very least animals should be reared and kept in conditions close to that of their ancestors and how they developed.

Our pigs live outdoors with a small shed for shelter and they choose to either be in or out themselves. Growth rates are but a fraction of commercial rates though, similarly we use just a fraction of the meal they feed. The result I feel it happier pigs and a better end product.

We’ve been moving our cattle to a similar system over the winter with access to green pasture all the time and anshed to use for shelter, they spend huge % of time outside during winter and bad weather.

All this reduces profitability. But I beleive were overproducing meat at present and it’s become a basic commodity cheaply priced. I’d like to see less meat production but better prices, that would better reflect the product it is.

I’d be interested in the sums on the pigs. The pigs reared indoors in a warm commercial unit are fed adlib ration mixed with water when finishing.say one of them pigs eats x amount of ration to hit target lw.

You’re pigs outdoors are roaming and using way more energy in order to forage and stay warm compared to the commercial pig.you may be subbing it’s ration with household food waste.
That outdoor pig is surely eating as much if not more in ration than the commercial pig when you factor in the extra time in weeks it will take for the outside pig to hit target lw

deaglan1

_Brian wrote: »

I think the big mistake in much of the logic is that animals don’t have human levels of comprehension, it’s just not true.

So if we humans were being bred for food and knew it i we would understand the concept all our lives.

My cows for example are just happy and relaxed, living their lives away in a big field of grass, moved to the next field of grass when that one is eaten. They’re not sitting round discussing the greater things in life, they’re just living each day as it is.
Our pigs the same, yes they have a level of intelligence, but transferring human level intelligence onto them is wrong.
You could explain it to them every day and they wouldn’t have a clue.

I know people here aren’t emotionally comfortable with animal slaughter and I respect that.

But imagining up feelings and intelligence levels for animals is wrong.

I appreciate that you are a person who strives to provide a nice environment for your animal stock. Can anyone, layman or scientist, define an animal's level of comprehension and, even more importantly, an animals level of emotions? Using throwaway phrases such as "they're not sitting around discussing the greater things in life" and "wouldn't have a clue" are too crude of descriptions to define animal psyche. Take a simple example of cows being separated from calves so that humans can avail of milk and milk-based products - to say that the cows are clueless would be a gross insult when witnessing that very distressing sight. Becoming inured to routine farming methods is inevitable for a farmer just as the abattoir routine is to a worker there. Normality & familiarity do not necessarily mean that the slaughtering of sentient species is therefore an acceptable practice. Why do you believe that empathizing with the feelings and intelligence levels of animals is wrong? - is it not giving due consideration to other species, even if we do not yet have sufficient knowledge to know what these levels of feelings and intelligence are or how they relate to the human versions of these characteristics.

_Brian

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

I’d be interested in the sums on the pigs. The pigs reared indoors in a warm commercial unit are fed adlib ration mixed with water when finishing.say one of them pigs eats x amount of ration to hit target lw.

You’re pigs outdoors are roaming and using way more energy in order to forage and stay warm compared to the commercial pig.you may be subbing it’s ration with household food waste.
That outdoor pig is surely eating as much if not more in ration than the commercial pig when you factor in the extra time in weeks it will take for the outside pig to hit target lw

Nonfogures here as we rear purely for our own table.
There many free range commercial growers though.

I think what your hinting at is it would drive an increase in unit price ??
I’d actually like to see this, meat is a valuable commodity, making it cheap demeans the effort and true value of it. People eating better quality, ethically reared meat will pay more and possibly eat less quantities, nothing wrong with that picture.

I’m not comfortable with grow houses for pigs or cages for chickens, I’d rather see the food more expensive.

_Brian

deaglan1 wrote: »

I appreciate that you are a person who strives to provide a nice environment for your animal stock. Can anyone, layman or scientist, define an animal's level of comprehension and, even more importantly, an animals level of emotions? Using throwaway phrases such as "they're not sitting around discussing the greater things in life" and "wouldn't have a clue" are too crude of descriptions to define animal psyche. Take a simple example of cows being separated from calves so that humans can avail of milk and milk-based products - to say that the cows are clueless would be a gross insult when witnessing that very distressing sight. Becoming inured to routine farming methods is inevitable for a farmer just as the abattoir routine is to a worker there. Normality & familiarity do not necessarily mean that the slaughtering of sentient species is therefore an acceptable practice. Why do you believe that empathizing with the feelings and intelligence levels of animals is wrong? - is it not giving due consideration to other species, even if we do not yet have sufficient knowledge to know what these levels of feelings and intelligence are or how they relate to the human versions of these characteristics.

Cows are distressed at calf separation, probably for 24/36 hours, same with the calf. Both go back to a base level contentness after that time.

they of clurse have a consciousness, my problem is people inferring human level emotions and consciousness onto them when it’s not appropriate, they simply don’t have that level of comprehension.

I don’t farm because of “normality or familiarity”, i farm hecause I beleive in what we do, I respect the animals for what they are and feel the vast majority of farmers do also, do they all, no, but I have reported neighbor farmers to the dept for inappropriate behaviour same as anyone should be they farmed animals or pets, they all deserve a good life and respect.

Farmers, farming and their relationship with their animals is far more complex that most people understand. Farmers know and understand their animals very well. There’s massive irony in people who don’t keep or understand livestock insisting they know more about them than people who have tended the same livestock all their lives, you could swap irony for insult and it would be appropriate.

For me where this doesn’t happen is on large style factory farms where massive numbers are happening, this is where things fall down and this system is something to be avoided.
For me low density extensive farms where farmers know and respect their animals are fantastic places, the animals have great lives and beautiful nutritious food is produced with low carbon footprint and major benefit to the local economy.

davidjtaylor

deaglan1 wrote: »

I appreciate that you are a person who strives to provide a nice environment for your animal stock. Can anyone, layman or scientist, define an animal's level of comprehension and, even more importantly, an animals level of emotions? Using throwaway phrases such as "they're not sitting around discussing the greater things in life" and "wouldn't have a clue" are too crude of descriptions to define animal psyche. Take a simple example of cows being separated from calves so that humans can avail of milk and milk-based products - to say that the cows are clueless would be a gross insult when witnessing that very distressing sight. Becoming inured to routine farming methods is inevitable for a farmer just as the abattoir routine is to a worker there. Normality & familiarity do not necessarily mean that the slaughtering of sentient species is therefore an acceptable practice. Why do you believe that empathizing with the feelings and intelligence levels of animals is wrong? - is it not giving due consideration to other species, even if we do not yet have sufficient knowledge to know what these levels of feelings and intelligence are or how they relate to the human versions of these characteristics.

Thank you deaglan1 for expressing what many people instinctively feel but may not be able to put into plain words (at least, not without constantly being given some kind of keyboard mugging ).

gozunda

deaglan1 wrote: »

"Dominant animal" - yes, I agree].
"Need to raise and slaughter other animals" - [no, this is no longer required - science has told us that all our nutritional requirements can be obtained from non-animal sources
"Rather animals are reared, fed and protected.......they are killed yes - under highly controlled and regulated conditions - Absolutely true, so why not substitute the words pet dog for animal in your discourse - how measured does your response seem now?

"Science" can be used to tell us a lot of things. Unfortunate those telling us that are in the main not divested scientists. And if you include in that lot the Dietetic Association of America etc - the association was co founded by a veg*n Seventh Day Adventist and the advice written by veg*ns.

Ah the old "why dont you eat dog" megabulk****e argument favoured by some militant vegans. Let me ask do you a question - Do you eat all vegetation? Grass? Cactus? Why not? Are you speciest?. Why is that? How measured does your response seem now? & etc ...

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

"Science" can be used to tell us a lot of things. Unfortunate those telling us that are in the main not scientists. And if you mean the Diatetic Association of America etc - the association was co founded by a vegan Seventh Day Adventist and the advice written by veg*ns.

Ah the old "why dont you eat dog" megabulk****e argument favoured by some militant vegans. Let me ask do you a question - Do you eat all vegetation? Grass? Cactus? Why not? Are you are speciest?. How measured does your response seem now? & etc ...

Plenty of people eat dog, I’ve had it and for me it’s a poor quality meat not worthy of a good meal.
What meats we eat is just a feature of our food culture, food culture is a fascinating subject. I’ve had horse a few times in France, probably more times in Ireland than I actually knew about too. It’s fine.

gozunda

_Brian wrote: »

Plenty of people eat dog, I’ve had it and for me it’s a poor quality meat not worthy of a good meal.

Yeah that's the problem. It's ****e quality meat. Eaten in poorer countries and banned in others because of disease issues. But I just love the logic that If I eat beef then by extension I should also eat rat! Hmmm I just love juicy rat and cactus burgers - they're yummy!

Though tbh if people out there do have to eat rat or whatever then its' not for me to join them just because they do.

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah that's the problem. It's ****e quality meat. Eaten in poorer countries. But I just love the logic that If I eat beef then by extension I should also eat rat! Hmmm I just love a juicy rat and cactus burgers - they're yummy!

Haven’t had the opportunity to sample rat, it’s eaten in poor parts of India and Korea from programs I’ve seen, not sure if it were available would I sample it, maybe.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Thank you deaglan1 for expressing what many people instinctively feel but may not be able to put into plain words (at least, not without constantly being given some kind of keyboard mugging ).

deaglan1

gozunda wrote: »

"Science" can be used to tell us a lot of things. Unfortunate those telling us that are in the main not divested scientists. And if you include in that lot the Dietetic Association of America etc - the association was co founded by a veg*n Seventh Day Adventist and the advice written by veg*ns.

Ah the old "why dont you eat dog" megabulk****e argument favoured by some militant vegans. Let me ask do you a question - Do you eat all vegetation? Grass? Cactus? Why not? Are you speciest?. Why is that? How measured does your response seem now? & etc ...

Gozunda, I am not quoting anything sensational, nor from any specific organization, whether scientifically reputable or quackery based - it is a simple mundane etched-in-stone, calcified fact that humans do not require animal-based products to meet their nutritional needs.

The dog was included because it is an animal that many people are very fond of as pets. From our day of birth though we tend to be overwhelmingly conditioned to withdraw that empathy for other more culturally acceptable edible species - to me, this is akin to the desensitizing of soldiers going into battle with other humans - they are no longer human, just vile filthy things.

I don't eat all vegetation because much of it is highly poisonous or too acrid.

Doctors room ghost

_Brian wrote: »

Nonfogures here as we rear purely for our own table.
There many free range commercial growers though.

I think what your hinting at is it would drive an increase in unit price ??
I’d actually like to see this, meat is a valuable commodity, making it cheap demeans the effort and true value of it. People eating better quality, ethically reared meat will pay more and possibly eat less quantities, nothing wrong with that picture.

I’m not comfortable with grow houses for pigs or cages for chickens, I’d rather see the food more expensive.

I agree with you in that I’d rather be eating a pig that spent its life outside in a proper environment with the sun on its back.
I was just questioning your sums as I reckon unless you are getting food waste for free to fatten the pigs outside, I reckon on paper the outside pigs will cost you more in ration to finish as opposed to your original statement saying the indoor pigs would eat more.

_Brian

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

I agree with you in that I’d rather be eating a pig that spent its life outside in a proper environment with the sun on its back.
I was just questioning your sums as I reckon unless you are getting food waste for free to fatten the pigs outside, I reckon on paper the outside pigs will cost you more in ration to finish as opposed to your original statement saying the indoor pigs would eat more.

Yep, they are more expensive. But that’s ok. I’ve saod before I think meat is too cheap. It needs to cost more to reflect its true intrinsic value.

There is also no energy consumed in environmental controlls etc.

We rear them this way for ethical rather than financial reasons.

_Brian

deaglan1 wrote: »

Gozunda, I am not quoting anything sensational, nor from any specific organization, whether scientifically reputable or quackery based - it is a simple mundane etched-in-stone, calcified fact that humans do not require animal-based products to meet their nutritional needs.

The dog was included because it is an animal that many people are very fond of as pets. From our day of birth though we tend to be overwhelmingly conditioned to withdraw that empathy for other more culturally acceptable edible species - to me, this is akin to the desensitizing of soldiers going into battle with other humans - they are no longer human, just vile filthy things.

I don't eat all vegetation because much of it is highly poisonous or too acrid.

Interesting that you dehumanise people on that statement, actually the most of humanity. (Yes, yes we all saw your use of the word akin to associate meat eaters with desensitised murderers)

It doesn’t surprise me, it’s probably just an extension of the emotional weakness and confusion that brings on veganism in people.

I think the big problem is tue intolerance of veganism.

Great you have a belief that’s not based on evidence or fact, I appreciate that religious extremes have always existed. But when it preaches intolerance and hate for others it’s out of control, your previous statement where you refer to people as “vile filthy things” is akin to the sort of religious extremism we see murdering innocent people of opposing views - it’s a perfect example of how fascists in Germany demeaned Jews to try push their propaganda.

How about demonstrating tolerance and acceptance that the different views of others, while unacceptable to you, are perfectly acceptable to co exist with without interference.