Milk and Dairy

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 3:47pm

auspicious wrote: »

Though if I forcibly impregnated a female human against her will repeatedly for personal gain she would describe it as torture.
But if it happens to a cow it's not?

Farmers shouldn't do such barbaric things of course. Not in this day an age. They should allow the cow and bull to choose.

And of course, after the bull brings her out on a few dates, and she is satisfied to choose him as a partner, they can of course sign a legal consent agreement to make sure that consent is gained before doing the deed. We don't want any retroactive claims of #metoobulled. The contract will protect both willing partners.

Of course, she will also be facilitated in her access to whatever types of birth control she would like, just in case for example, she doesn't want to get pregnant at that point in time. It might not suit her career etc.

auspicious · 03-11-2020 3:54pm

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Is it just A.I that you don't like?? A bull in the field is ok but the choosing of specific bulls for a cow is not?
(there are many different reasons for choosing frozen semen bulls over using a bull in the field)

And I've seen cows break through hedges/fences to get to a bull, heard them roaring the shed down to get a bull to hear them & a bull about a half KM away responding in kind once he heard the cow.

Your second paragraph. And??
That's nature for you.
Though it is different when you intentionally place the bull and cow together. Your intended purpose is personal gain. That's what exploitation is.

auspicious · 03-11-2020 3:56pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Farmers shouldn't do such barbaric things of course. Not in this day an age. They should allow the cow and bull to choose.

And of course, after the bull brings her out on a few dates, and she is satisfied to choose him as a partner, they can of course sign a legal consent agreement to make sure that consent is gained before doing the deed. We don't want any retroactive claims of #metoobulled. The contract will protect both willing partners.

Of course, she will also be facilitated in her access to whatever types of birth control she would like, just in case for example, she doesn't want to get pregnant at that point in time. It might not suit her career etc.

Why secure the cow while forcibly impregnating her? Why doesn't she happily back up to the pipettes?

Lady Haywire · 03-11-2020 3:58pm

auspicious wrote: »

Your second paragraph. And??
That's nature for you.
Though it is different when you intentionally place the bull and cow together. Your intended purpose is personal gain. That's what exploitation is.

Yes, and if a heifer was to break away to a bull which is too big for her there will be complications at birth. Hence why frozen semen is used with a smaller breed of bull which may not always be available in the local area.

I don't run a farm to have pets. A cow has to pay her way to stay here. You say exploitation, I could also say she's an employee of sorts.

auspicious · 03-11-2020 4:03pm

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Yes, and if a heifer was to break away to a bull which is too big for her there will be complications at birth. Hence why frozen semen is used with a smaller breed of bull which may not always be available in the local area.

I don't run a farm to have pets. A cow has to pay her way to stay here. You say exploitation, I could also say she's an employee of sorts.

The cow was put there. It's captive.
Yeah when you keep slaves you gotta put them to work don't ya!

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 4:04pm

auspicious wrote: »

Why secure the cow while forcibly impregnating her? Why doesn't she happily back up to the pipettes?

So you want to change the goalposts from the concept of impregnating the animal to the method of impregnation? Interesting.

If the cow wasn't "secured" then you'd be fine? Easily enough done. I mean it's done for the safety of the person. But all you need to do, even if the cow wouldn't stand, is to put a bucket of meal in front of the cow even if she won't stand. She'd be so distracted eating that she wouldn't notice the "procedure".

Gary kk · 03-11-2020 4:06pm

Two fences a ditch and river is the record this year for heifers in heat.

auspicious · 03-11-2020 4:07pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

So you want to change the goalposts from the concept of impregnating the animal to the method of impregnation? Interesting.

".

Are you for real? Have I not repeatedly used the word FORCIBLY?
The fact that I'm now using lots of rhetorical questions speaks volumes.
Good luck.

Lady Haywire · 03-11-2020 4:07pm

auspicious wrote: »

The cow was put there. It's captive.
Yeah when you keep slaves you gotta put them to work don't ya!

Ah we're back to the old humanising of farm animals again. I keep slaves now. Well bejaypers, wouldn't you think I'd be arrested for that.

I'm trying to explain why things are done. And I'm being told I keep slaves. Fabulous.

auspicious · 03-11-2020 4:15pm

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Ah we're back to the old humanising of farm animals again. I keep slaves now. Well bejaypers, wouldn't you think I'd be arrested for that.

I'm trying to explain why things are done. And I'm being told I keep slaves. Fabulous.

Not humanising. It's called logical consistency.
And yes your sentient beings are enslaved. Anything enslaved by definition is a slave. That's logically consistent too.
You see everything I say from your perspective. Everything I say, I say from the animal's perspective.

NcdJd · 03-11-2020 4:17pm

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Ah we're back to the old humanising of farm animals again. I keep slaves now. Well bejaypers, wouldn't you think I'd be arrested for that.

I'm trying to explain why things are done. And I'm being told I keep slaves. Fabulous.

I would think your more the slave to them Lady H. I went through some of your tweets yesterday for a nosey and it's an absolute credit to you how you treat your animals. Any animal that lands on your farm is one lucky beast!

Lady Haywire · 03-11-2020 4:20pm

auspicious wrote: »

Not humanising. It's called logical consistency.
And yes your sentient beings are enslaved. Anything enslaved by definition is a slave. That's logically consistent too.
You see everything I say from your perspective. Everything I say, I say from the animal's perspective.

So what's your take on guide dogs, are they enslaved?
Ponies kept in stables for riding?
Animals in zoos being looked at by the public, even if being used as captive breeding for endangered species?

All slaves?

Or could we actually look at the meaning of slave & see that it refers to humans not animals.

(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Lady Haywire · 03-11-2020 4:22pm

NcdJd wrote: »

I would think your more the slave to them Lady H. I went through some of your tweets yesterday for a nosey and it's an absolute credit to you how you treat your animals. Any animal that lands on your farm is one lucky beast!

Ah sure I only do that for the cameras :rolleyes:

NcdJd · 03-11-2020 4:25pm

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Ah sure I only do that for the cameras :rolleyes:

True ya must be worth millions at this stage.

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 4:28pm

auspicious wrote: »

Are you for real? Have I not repeatedly used the word FORCIBLY?
The fact that I'm now using lots of rhetorical questions speaks volumes.
Good luck.

You actually don't have a clue of what you are talking about. How much physical "force" do you think is used or indeed "needed"? You are simply anthropomorphising

auspicious · 03-11-2020 4:29pm

I see nothing wrong with applying the term to animals to convey my opposition to their being exploited, held captive and 'put to work'.

While meat and dairy aren't essential a guide-dog could be argued to be.

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 4:37pm

auspicious wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with applying the term to animals to convey my opposition to their being exploited, held captive and 'put to work'.

While meat and dairy aren't essential a guide-dog could be argued to be.

What about cats? I asked that one because of the movement to eliminate outdoor cats.

You used the word "imprison" in relation to animals. Would a cat who is not let outdoors be imprisoned? Would you be ok with cats who are kept indoors fulltime and kept purely as human companions/entertainment?

I can understand the argument for wiping out all external cats. That is not "neutering" them and letting them live. That might be part of an initial strategy to try to eliminate them but the goal would be their total elimination.

Lady Haywire · 03-11-2020 4:38pm

auspicious wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with applying the term to animals to convey my opposition to their being exploited, held captive and 'put to work'.

While meat and dairy aren't essential a guide-dog could be argued to be.

Apply the term all you like but it's incorrect.
Comparing farming to slavery could be incredibly insulting to descendants of freed slaves, considering a lot of animals these days get excellent treatment, housing, food, access to veterinary care etc.

Markcheese · 03-11-2020 4:47pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Is it alright to do it if there is no profit in it?

Well that's most beef farmers covered so ... ðŸ˜

auspicious · 03-11-2020 4:56pm

Imprison means to hold captive. While one could not argue against the fact that the factory farmed pigs in the previously posted video are imprisoned it it's more difficult to apply it directly to cats kept indoors. Cats kept indoors are very safe and protected from succumbing to disease or injury outdoors. They on average lead long lives. Happy lives as long as all their basic needs are met. Keeping them indoors also protects against their impact on biodiversity.
Some are of the opinion that yes it is captivity and a cat should be allowed the experience of the outdoors. They are after all already alive and focus should be put on not allowing more ferals to populate, especially in landscapes not native to them or able to sustain them.

Markcheese · 03-11-2020 4:57pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As poor a post as I’ve ever seen.

Take a bow.

Also, I think the word you’re looking to explain the things you’re touching on is - Nature.

Well then ,bow deep i shall .
Natural good ? , human intervention bad ?

None of our food is natural ... It's been selectively bred ,over thousands of years , to grow in places it never originally could ,and in forms that bear little relation to their original type ..
That goes for plant and animal ...

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 4:59pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Well that's most beef farmers covered so ... ðŸ˜

That was going to be my response if there had been a reply

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 5:03pm

auspicious wrote: »

Imprison means to hold captive. While one could not argue against the fact that the factory farmed pigs in the previously posted video are imprisoned it it's more difficult to apply it directly to cats kept indoors. Cats kept indoors are very safe and protected from succumbing to disease or injury outdoors. They on average lead long lives. Happy lives as long as all their basic needs are met. Keeping them indoors also protects against their impact on biodiversity.
Some are of the opinion that yes it is captivity and a cat should be allowed the experience of the outdoors. They are after all already alive and focus should be put on not allowing more ferals to populate, especially in landscapes not native to them or able to sustain them.

You have given definitions but not your own viewpoint. My friend, from whom I learned all of this, loves cats but wants all outside cats to be eliminated and for all house cats to be kept indoors permanently. She has her own cat and treats it almost like a child. Probably better than some children get treated if the truth be told.

That is her opinion and she is clear on that. Her position is not to allow nature to run its course by allowing the cat to go out and hunt whenever its nature urges it to. House cats are fine but must be kept indoors at all time. (That seems like a prison to me in fairness.) . You talk about basic needs, but the cat has other instincts that cannot be satisfied by a life indoors.

Jjameson · 03-11-2020 6:28pm

auspicious wrote: »

Not humanising. It's called logical consistency.
And yes your sentient beings are enslaved. Anything enslaved by definition is a slave. That's logically consistent too.
You see everything I say from your perspective. Everything I say, I say from the animal's perspective.

Have you any experience of working with cows to be an authority on their perspective? Why would you assume that’d have you speak for them?

You’d still feed them to cats and older dogs?

Markcheese · 03-11-2020 7:36pm

Jjameson wrote: »

If the calf is taken instantly there’s no bond. The calf knows no different and the cow settles very quickly. Divide a 9 month weanling and there is stress.

Although there are ways of doing that now ,that seriously reduce stress in the cow and weanling ,( easiwean ,supposed to be the cats PJs )

auspicious · 03-11-2020 7:58pm

Jjameson wrote: »

Have you any experience of working with cows to be an authority on their perspective? Why would you assume that’d have you speak for them?

You’d still feed them to cats and older dogs?

I'm no authority. All you need is empathy to put yourself in somebody else's position and consider the ethical implications.

Yes I feed animal flesh to the cats. It is a necessity.
Once again questions are being asked which don't reflect an understanding of at least the definition of what a vegan is.

-Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

03-11-2020 9:03pm

Pretty disgraceful the ridicule you’re facing auspicious for your choices.

Not sure why it’s allowed.

The whataboutery is beyond ridiculous.

I’ve no idea why you’re responding to most of those posts that are clearly refusing or making any effort to understand your choices.

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 11:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty disgraceful the ridicule you’re facing auspicious for your choices.

Not sure why it’s allowed.

The whataboutery is beyond ridiculous.

I’ve no idea why you’re responding to most of those posts that are clearly refusing or making any effort to understand your choices.

Not one person has ridiculed anyone for their choice to be a vegan. If you want to be a vegan be a vegan and fair play to you. It is none of mine or anyone elses' business. Vegan meals can actually be quite nice and it could be an education for non-vegans to try them once in a while. A non-vegan can still eat and enjoy "vegan" food

People has challenged him/her on their incorrect assumptions about cruelty.

03-11-2020 11:41pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not one person has ridiculed anyone for their choice to be a vegan. If you want to be a vegan be a vegan and fair play to you. It is none of mine or anyone elses' business. Vegan meals can actually be quite nice and it could be an education for non-vegans to try them once in a while. A non-vegan can still eat and enjoy "vegan" food

People has challenged him/her on their incorrect assumptions about cruelty.

Well maybe you haven’t read many posts on the forum. There’s plenty of ridicule.

You think you run the rule on what’s cruel ?

Donald Trump · 03-11-2020 11:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Well maybe you haven’t read many posts on the forum. There’s plenty of ridicule.

You think you run the rule on what’s cruel ?

I didn't see anything on this thread in relation to attacking anyone for being a vegan. I have not read any other threads in the forum, never mind all of them.

I am not the god of cruelty. However, if someone tells me that something is cruel, when they obviously don't really understand what is going on, and therefore their assumption is not based on reality, then I am entitled to give my opinion.

Milk and Dairy

Comments