|
Home > Archive > UK gardening > June 2006 > Re: Animal rights propaganda in schools
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Animal rights propaganda in schools
|
|
|
| beefeater <back@ya.spammer> writes
>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
>not have lived and benefitted from that life experience. The vegan agenda
>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.
It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.
Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
strange or un-natural.
In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
|
"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I@farmeroz.port995.com...
> beefeater <back@ya.spammer> writes
>
> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.
>
> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
> strange or un-natural.
>
> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
live as a result of it.
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer>
wrote:
>
>"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I@farmeroz.port995.com...
>
>I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths,
And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
> and a painless death
No death at all is far better.
>it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
>be if vegans had their way and set them free,
But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given the
benefit of life, make your mind up
> ignores the fact that eating them
>ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
>with them.
What benefit is abuse to any species, apart from a few weird humans
for personal gratification?
> When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
>painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
>live as a result of it.
It's called thinking about yourself, in that I doubt you have any
other thoughts, which is the very point.
Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you feel.
| |
|
| "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1@individual.net...
> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
'Cattle slaughter
The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
concussive blow.
If an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
conscious.
In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
for quite some time.'
In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
cause pain.
Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
then this does not matter.
.....'
Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
....
http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
> live as a result of it.
'Beef' Cattle
There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
"wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>
> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their lives happy
and give them a humane death before we eat them?
>
> No death at all is far better.
I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.
>
> But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given the
> benefit of life, make your mind up
I'm talking about the deaths of beef animals that have already been born
and then set free by the vegan agenda.
>
> What benefit is abuse to any species
Farming beef animals and then slaughtering them humanely isn't abusing them.
They benefit from the life experience we provide them, and so do we when
their lives are brought to a humane end to then eat them.
, apart from a few weird humans
> for personal gratification?
>
>
> It's called thinking about yourself,
No, I also think about the benefits animals get out of it as well. They would
not have lived if I didn't ask farmers to breed them for me.
in that I doubt you have any
> other thoughts, which is the very point.
>
> Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you feel.
lol
>
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
|
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:e7b7an$jtt$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1@individual.net...
>
>
> 'Cattle slaughter
>
> The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
> captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
> both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
> The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
> on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
> concussive blow.
That sounds pretty humane to me.
> If
Yes, IF.
an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
> not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
> Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
> effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
> animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
> stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
> conscious.
Then let's campaign together for more thorough stunning methods if they're
inadequate. Abolishing the beef industry because of poor stunning practices
instead of campaigning for better and more thorough methods is akin to
abolishing schools because of poor anti-bullying methods.
> In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
> either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
> However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
> that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
> restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
>
> Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
> are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
> are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
> wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
> the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
> for quite some time.'
>
> In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
> goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
> refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
> cause pain.
>
> Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
> they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
> inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
> novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
> slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
> considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
> then this does not matter.
> ....'
> Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
> of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
>
> Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
>
> Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
> Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
>
> Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
> ...
> http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
>
>
> True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or eaten alive
by a bear?
>
> 'Beef' Cattle
>
> There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
> being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
> put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
> are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
> feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
> have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
> iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
>
> To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
> on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
> common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
> stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
> way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
> "wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
> for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
>
> http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
>
Yes, I agree that some farm animals suffer, but you haven't persuaded me that
all do, or that it's the norm in beef production. Far from it.
| |
| Billy Bullseye 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
|
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7b7an$jtt$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
> they are killed.
They may also have a painless end - unlike worn out humans who are denied
such a luxury. I hope you don't happen to give birth Pearl - or die in a car
crash, get captured in Iraq, or turn into a hedgehog and get eaten alive by
a badger. Wouldn't all of those be very much worse than 2 goes with a
captive bolt?? - or simply having your throat cut?? I doubt if having your
throat cut ranks very highly on the scale of less than perfect ways to die.
If you want to avoid any chance of pain, please stop breathing now. How DO
you want the animals to die?? or do you not want them to be born at all??
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:38:07 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:
>"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1@individual.net...
>
>
>'Cattle slaughter
>
>The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
>captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
>both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
>The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
>on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
>concussive blow.
>
>If an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
>not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
>Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
>effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
>animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
>stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
>conscious.
>
>In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
>either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
>However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
>that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
>restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
>
>Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
>are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
>are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
>wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
>the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
>for quite some time.'
>
>In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
>goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
>refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
>cause pain.
>
>Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
>they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
>inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
>novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
>slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
>considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
>then this does not matter.
>....'
>Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
>of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
>
>Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
>
>Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
>Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
>
>Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
>...
>http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
>
>
>True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
>
>
>'Beef' Cattle
>
>There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
>being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
>put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
>
>At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
>are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
>feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
>have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
>iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
>
>To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
>on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
>common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
>stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
>way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
>"wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
>for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
>
>http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
>
I guess this just about covers it and should dispel any misguided
myths about good animal welfare being paramount in meat production.
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:40:07 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger@aon.at>
wrote:
>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> :
>
>
>Everything has to die.
OK you get dragged to the slaughterhouse and send us a note how you
felt before the bolt.
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:22 +0100, "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer>
wrote:
>
>"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d@4ax.com...
>
>To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their lives happy
>and give them a humane death before we eat them?
We don't. I suggest you take a good look at
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>
>I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.
It certainly is in my diet.
>
>
>I'm talking about the deaths of beef animals that have already been born
>and then set free by the vegan agenda.
We'd happily look after them.
>
>
>Farming beef animals and then slaughtering them humanely isn't abusing them.
>They benefit from the life experience we provide them, and so do we when
>their lives are brought to a humane end to then eat them.
Stop deluding yourself http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>, apart from a few weird humans
>
>No, I also think about the benefits animals get out of it as well. They would
>not have lived if I didn't ask farmers to breed them for me.
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>in that I doubt you have any
>
>lol
See.
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:33:42 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
<nospamthanks@none.com> wrote:
>
>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:e7b7an$jtt$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>
>They may also have a painless end - unlike worn out humans who are denied
>such a luxury. I hope you don't happen to give birth Pearl - or die in a car
>crash, get captured in Iraq, or turn into a hedgehog and get eaten alive by
>a badger. Wouldn't all of those be very much worse than 2 goes with a
>captive bolt?? - or simply having your throat cut?? I doubt if having your
>throat cut ranks very highly on the scale of less than perfect ways to die.
>
>If you want to avoid any chance of pain, please stop breathing now. How DO
>you want the animals to die?? or do you not want them to be born at all??
Nothing should be born to abuse.
| |
| Tim C. 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> :
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:40:07 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger@aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>
>OK you get dragged to the slaughterhouse and send us a note how you
>felt before the bolt.
What did I say to annoy you?
Everything has to die one way or another. Saying "No death at all is far
better" is simply naive, or at the best sloppy arguing style.
--
Tim C.
| |
| Tim C. 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> :
>It certainly is in my diet.
The poor plants stay alive after you've eaten them?
--
Tim C.
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:09:27 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger@aon.at>
wrote:
>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> :
>
>
>What did I say to annoy you?
Smart comment.
>Everything has to die one way or another. Saying "No death at all is far
>better" is simply naive, or at the best sloppy arguing style.
You're missing the point.
| |
| Tim C. 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> :
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:09:27 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger@aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>
>Smart comment.
Touchy!
>
>You're missing the point.
I know what your point is, but I think you're not helping yourself convince
anyone by sweeping statements like that.
--
Tim C.
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:v6di92tr7oija210danjibrqkro9lfg60m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:22 +0100, "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>
> We don't. I suggest you take a good look at
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
Campaign for better conditions if you think they're not up to your standards.
>
> It certainly is in my diet.
No.
>
> We'd happily look after them.
That's nice.
>
> Stop deluding yourself http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
I was just about to say the same, George.
>
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>
> See.
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
|
"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:OAOMIkDo1TmEFwLk@farmeroz.port995.com...
> beefeater <back@ya.spammer> writes
>
>
> Er, no.
Er, yes, and I'm sure you'll agree that current animal welfare standards do
provide happy lives for livestock and humane deaths.
> Animals MUST die to match those being born.
>
> Animals get born, the area can only support a certain number, therefore
> we DO need to kill the surplus. This can be done naturally (starvation,
> disease, parasites etc) or humanely in an abattoir.
>
>
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>
| |
|
| "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsnecF1jn911U1@individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:e7b7an$jtt$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> That sounds pretty humane to me.
You are not standing in the killing line.
>
> Yes, IF.
WHEN.
> an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
>
> Then let's campaign together for more thorough stunning methods if they're
> inadequate. Abolishing the beef industry because of poor stunning practices
> instead of campaigning for better and more thorough methods is akin to
> abolishing schools because of poor anti-bullying methods.
No it isn't. Unecessarilly curtailing the life of a healthy young animal,
- no matter how it is done, demonstrates utter contempt for that life.
Animals are routinely mutilated, confined and abused. It is bullying.
>
> No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or eaten alive
> by a bear?
I'll take my chances with the bear, TYVM. At least I'd have a sporting chance.
> Yes, I agree that some farm animals suffer, but you haven't persuaded me that
> all do, or that it's the norm in beef production. Far from it.
It's no life at all for the vast majority. Agony, boredom, discomfort, fear, pain,
then the merciful peace of death. In their place I'd rather never have been born.
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
|
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7bg4e$mfl$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4fsnecF1jn911U1@individual.net...
>
> You are not standing in the killing line.
They are stunned before slaughter, and that's the humane way to do it.
>
> WHEN.
No, IF. "IF an animal is not correctly stunned" If they are stunned properly
before being slaughtered I see no problem with it. WHEN they aren't stunned
properly before being slaughtered I do see a problem with it. But rather than
call for the abolition of beef farming I would campaign for improvements
instead.
>
> No it isn't. Unecessarilly curtailing the life of a healthy young animal,
> - no matter how it is done, demonstrates utter contempt for that life.
Or it could demonstrate a love of life generally and a way of ensuring the lives
of future generations to come.
> Animals are routinely mutilated, confined and abused. It is bullying.
If welfare standards are followed, those kind of things don't happen. If you
have a problem with animal welfare standards, campaign for higher ones.
>
> I'll take my chances with the bear, TYVM. At least I'd have a sporting
> chance.
I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins, then.
>
> It's no life at all for the vast majority. Agony, boredom, discomfort, fear,
> pain,
> then the merciful peace of death. In their place I'd rather never have been
> born.
In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were in
their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of comparisons.
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:53:53 +0100, "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer>
wrote:
>
>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:e7bg4e$mfl$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>They are stunned before slaughter, and that's the humane way to do it.
>
>
>No, IF. "IF an animal is not correctly stunned" If they are stunned properly
>before being slaughtered I see no problem with it.
How would you like it?
>WHEN they aren't stunned
>properly before being slaughtered I do see a problem with it. But rather than
>call for the abolition of beef farming
Why not, we don't need it.
> I would campaign for improvements
>instead.
But you don't. You just complain about those that do!
>
>Or it could demonstrate a love of life generally and a way of ensuring the lives
>of future generations to come.
I'd call it sick.
>
>If welfare standards are followed, those kind of things don't happen. If you
>have a problem with animal welfare standards, campaign for higher ones.
You don't like that either.
>
>I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins, then.
>
>
>In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were in
>their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of comparisons.
So being dumb makes it OK to be abused does it? Ignorance is no
defense, not even in law.
| |
| Billy Bullseye 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
news:4ft1beF1kb993U1@individual.net...
> In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were
> in their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of
> comparisons.
Yes - another good point.
The animals don't know that slaughter house = death or share our horror of
death.
I'd guess that children watching a video of animal slaughter would usually
find it more traumatic than the animals themselves. Humans are mostly able
to look ahead and anticipate or dread coming events and most would not be
keen on the idea of being sent to a slaughter house, but to an animal,
surely death is less traumatic than a human going into hospital for an
operation and not waking up again.
| |
|
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater"
> <back@ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>
> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
===============================
Hey georgie, then why are you on usenet spewing your ignorance
around the world? Afterall, you're killing animals here for no
more reason than your ENTERTAINMENT, killer!
>
>
> No death at all is far better.
=======================
Everything dies, fool...
>
>
> But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given
> the
> benefit of life, make your mind up
>
>
> What benefit is abuse to any species, apart from a few weird
> humans
> for personal gratification?
======================
You tell us, killer. You're the one defending killing animals
for entertainment but not food. Can you support your killing,
hypocrite?
>
>
> It's called thinking about yourself, in that I doubt you have
> any
> other thoughts, which is the very point.
>
> Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you
> feel.
============================
Try it yourself fool. You kill as many animals as anybody else,
killer.
>
>
| |
|
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:v6di92tr7oija210danjibrqkro9lfg60m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:22 +0100, "beefeater"
> <back@ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>
> We don't. I suggest you take a good look at
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>
> It certainly is in my diet.
=========================
You're a liar, hypocrite. You kill more animals for your food
than many that eat meat do. Why are you so monumentally
ignorant? Is it willful or just terminal?
>
>
> We'd happily look after them.
>
>
> Stop deluding yourself http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
========================
You're the deluded fool, killer. You're concerned about some
1000s of calves while posting to usenet! What a hoot! Power
generation, distribution and communications kill billiond upon
billions of animals every year. Why is there no concern on your
part about that, killer? Oh, yeah, that means YOU would actually
have to make some chnages in your life. It is far easier to spew
your hate about others instead, isn't it, hypocrite?
>
>
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>
> See.
| |
|
| "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4ft1beF1kb993U1@individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:e7bg4e$mfl$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> They are stunned before slaughter,
They sense what's coming.
> and that's the humane way to do it.
To kill unecessarilly.
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
...'
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67
What's humane about killing - for no good reason?
>
> No, IF. "IF an animal is not correctly stunned" If they are stunned properly
> before being slaughtered I see no problem with it. WHEN they aren't stunned
> properly before being slaughtered I do see a problem with it. But rather than
> call for the abolition of beef farming I would campaign for improvements
> instead.
It is happening now. What exactly are you planning to do about it?
>
> Or it could demonstrate a love of life generally and a way of ensuring the lives
> of future generations to come.
Classic doublespeak. Love of life = needless killing. Unbelievable.
>
> If welfare standards are followed, those kind of things don't happen. If you
> have a problem with animal welfare standards, campaign for higher ones.
'Animal welfare standards' allow mutilations without anaesthesia, and confinement.
>
> I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins, then.
That's a film/movie.
>
> In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were in
> their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of comparisons.
You're wrong.
'Cows hold grudges, say scientists
By Jonathan Leake
February 28, 2005
ONCE they were a byword for mindless docility. But cows have a complex
mental life in which they bear grudges, nurture friendships and become
excited by intellectual challenges, researchers have found.
Cows are capable of strong emotions such as pain, fear and even anxiety
about the future. But if farmers provide the right conditions, they can also
feel great happiness.
The findings have emerged from studies of farm animals that have found
similar traits in pigs, goats and chickens. They suggest such animals may be
so emotionally similar to humans that welfare laws need to be reconsidered.
The research will be presented to a conference in London next month
sponsored by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming.
Christine Nicol, professor of animal welfare at Britain's Bristol University,
said even chickens might have to be treated as individuals with needs and
problems.
"Remarkable cognitive abilities and cultural innovations have been
revealed," she said. "Our challenge is to teach others that every animal
we intend to eat or use is a complex individual, and to adjust our farming
culture accordingly."
Her colleague John Webster added: "People have assumed intelligence
is linked to the ability to suffer, and that because animals have smaller
brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic."
The Bristol researchers have documented how cows within a herd form
friendship groups of between two and four animals with whom they spend
most of their time, often grooming and licking each other. They will also
dislike other cows, and can bear grudges for months or years.
Donald Broom, professor of animal welfare at Cambridge University, will
tell the conference how cows can become excited by solving intellectual
challenges.
In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had
to find how to open a door to get some food. An electroencephalograph
was used to measure their brainwaves.
"The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some
even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment," Professor Broom
said.
The assumption that farm animals cannot suffer from conditions that would be
intolerable for humans is partly based on the idea they have no sense of self.
Latest research suggests this is untrue.
"Sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated
to seek it," Professor Webster said.
"You only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure
when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's
day. Just like humans."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,1011...7-13762,00.html
Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
by David DeGrazia
<review>
Most people who approach Taking Animals Seriously will share an
unspoken presupposition. This is that animal activists take animals too
seriously. They lack a sense of proportion. It's not that gratuitous cruelty
to members of other species is morally defensible. Surely it isn't. If
pressed, then all but the amoral, sociopathic or philosophically bewitched
are likely to grant that wanton animal-abuse is best discouraged. Instead,
the pervasive assumption is simply that animal suffering doesn't really
matter much compared to the things that happen to human beings - to us.
They, after all, are only animals: objects rather than our fellow subjects.
Animal consciousness, insofar as it exists at all, is minimal and
uninteresting.
Contrast one's likely reaction on learning that the infant or toddler next
door is being abused. Let's suppose that the abuse is being inflicted for
fun or profit - or, more broadly, for purposes that can be described only
as frivolous. In such a case, then one's intuitions are equally clear. The
suffering of the victim has to be taken very seriously. One has a duty
actively to prevent it. The interests of the child take precedence over the
wishes of the abuser. In extreme cases, the adults involved in persistent
abuse may need to be legally restrained or even locked up. Indeed, it is
cases of failure on our part to take action to prevent it - or failure to take
action by the social services or child-protection agencies - that demand
justification. To treat the suffering caused by child-abuse lightly would be
to show a sense of disproportion when confronted with the nature of the
practices involved - and our capacity to do something about them.
Yet here lies the crux.
After Darwin, a huge and accumulating convergence of physiological,
behavioural, genetic and evolutionary evidence suggests - but cannot
prove - an appalling possibility. This is that hundreds of millions of
the non-human victims of our actions are functionally akin - intellectually,
emotionally and in their capacity to suffer - to very young humans. In the
light of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their also
being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would be awful; in fact,
almost too ghastly to think about.
When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much more
convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to them,
there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise our actions.
Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
examination to be surprisingly thin.
....
http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
| |
|
|
"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message[color=darkred]
This not happening to the human race would appear to be a major risk to
the planet.
The green lobby would have us believe the over use of cars and people
taking flights for holidays is the problem The thing we need is a really
devestating war.
| |
|
|
"Tim C." <tim.challenger@aon.at> wrote in message
news:godi921jgr5gk3cicrs8tsi0hl50cq2fvf@4ax.com...
> Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> :
>
>
> The poor plants stay alive after you've eaten them?
======================
It's far more than the plants that die. Mono-culture cropping
starts with habitat destruction and goes downhill from there.
It's dependent on the petro-chemical industry, and the machinery
causes death and suffering through the entire process. Plowing,
seeding, spraying, harvesting. Then there are the direct,
deliberate deaths by poisoning just to keep the veggies clean and
cheap. Add power for processing processes and transportation to
kill more animals. It's easy to have a meat-included diet that
causes less death and suffering of animals overall.
> --
> Tim C.
| |
|
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:6gdi921vujcmb3lhunbpghur6hcdqa1cej@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:33:42 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
> <nospamthanks@none.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nothing should be born to abuse.
==============================
ROTFLMAO You really really are this stupid, aren't you
little-boy?
>
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:44:36 +0100, "Demon" <adv@voldedaer.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
>
>
> This not happening to the human race would appear to be a major risk to
>the planet.
> The green lobby would have us believe the over use of cars and people
>taking flights for holidays is the problem The thing we need is a really
>devestating war.
Be patient it's coming.
| |
|
|
"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
news:4ft1beF1kb993U1@individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
<snip>
eaten[color=darkred]
>
> I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins,
then.
>
If she had, she'd know that Hopkins' character survived by killing the bear.
| |
|
| "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1150902402.19271.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4ft1beF1kb993U1@individual.net...
> <snip>
> then.
>
> If she had, she'd know that Hopkins' character survived by killing the bear.
I haven't. Just the odd clip. Has 'beefeater', more to the point? lol.
| |
|
|
"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:wkpDxJE2wWmEFw$b@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Billy Bullseye <nospamthanks@none.com> writes
usually[color=darkred]
able[color=darkred]
>
> Anyone who has seen lions make a kill (eg wildebeest) know that as soon
> as the kill is made, the wildebeest simply stop running around and graze
> normally, often surprisingly close to where the bunch of lions is
> munching on a relative.
>
> Those with cows know that when an animal has gone down in the yard and
> the vet finds he can do nothing and uses his captive bolt humane killer
> in amongst the herd, it has astonishingly little effect on herd members
> watching on.
>
Isn't the point, in both your examples, that the onlookers realise they
themselves have nothing further to fear, for the time being?
Seems to me that the simplest way to deal with accusations of
'propagandising' what goes on in abattoirs would be for those who are
concerned about it to commission reputable independent filmmakers to
chronicle the whole process - from field or farm building to abattoir (via
market if appropriate) to butchers/supermarket/factory, for a variety of
livestock. These films, uncensored, could then be distributed to allow
watchers to judge for themselves whether what happens to the animals is what
they believe to be 'humane'.
| |
| George 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:56:38 +0100, Oz <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com>
wrote:
>Billy Bullseye <nospamthanks@none.com> writes
>
>Anyone who has seen lions make a kill (eg wildebeest) know that as soon
>as the kill is made, the wildebeest simply stop running around and graze
>normally, often surprisingly close to where the bunch of lions is
>munching on a relative.
>
>Those with cows know that when an animal has gone down in the yard and
>the vet finds he can do nothing and uses his captive bolt humane killer
>in amongst the herd, it has astonishingly little effect on herd members
>watching on.
Similar phenomena occurred in the concentration camps among the
inmates. Your point?
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:irki9293l6525jgv5tb7leisk622v7a5a1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:53:53 +0100, "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>
> How would you like it?
No one likes to die, but if I 'm given the choice between being killed by a bear
or stunned before a humane slaughter I'd pick the latter.
>
> Why not, we don't need it.
There's a lot of things we do that we don't need to do, but we still do them
because we want to, and beef farming is one of those things.
>
> But you don't. You just complain about those that do!
I don't complain against those who campaign for better animal welfare
conditions. I'm right behind them, but I'm against those who campaign for the
abolition of beef farming.
>
> I'd call it sick.
You're welcome to your opinion.
>
> You don't like that either.
I do if the standards campaigned for are reasonable.
>
> So being dumb makes it OK to be abused does it?
You haven't shown that animal welfare standards and a humane killing is abuse,
George.
Ignorance is no
> defense, not even in law.
>
>
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"Billy Bullseye" <nospamthanks@none.com> wrote in message
news:4ft3lbF1k8g2rU1@individual.net...
>
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4ft1beF1kb993U1@individual.net...
>
>
>
> Yes - another good point.
> The animals don't know that slaughter house = death or share our horror of
> death.
> I'd guess that children watching a video of animal slaughter would usually
> find it more traumatic than the animals themselves. Humans are mostly able
> to look ahead and anticipate or dread coming events and most would not be
> keen on the idea of being sent to a slaughter house, but to an animal,
> surely death is less traumatic than a human going into hospital for an
> operation and not waking up again.
I agree. There's no reason to suppose animals can understand the things we do,
and if I'm expected to put myself in an animal's place to get their perspective
on being slaughtered, those who ask me to do it also have to take account of the
fact that once that place is adopted I wouldn't have the mental capacity to know
I was in that place making comparisons.
| |
|
| "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4ftcokF1jsqrmU1@individual.net...
>
> "George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
> news:irki9293l6525jgv5tb7leisk622v7a5a1@4ax.com...
<..>[color=darkred]
>
> There's a lot of things we do that we don't need to do, but we still do them
> because we want to, and beef farming is one of those things.
"because we want to". Like spoilt five-year-olds.
> You haven't shown that animal welfare standards and a humane killing is abuse,
> George.
In (many) more ways than one.
'a·buse
...
To hurt or injure by maltreatment;
....
An unjust or wrongful practice:
...
http://www.answers.com/abuse&r=67
How does your desire for a particular flavour justify the suffering all these
animals -are- forced to endure? How does it trump animals' desire to live?
It doesn't.
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7bmaf$oc0$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4ft1beF1kb993U1@individual.net...
>
> They sense what's coming.
>
If they're clever enough to sense what's coming (a painless, humane slaughter),
what's the big deal?
>
> To kill unecessarilly.
>
> humane
>
> adj
> Definition: kind, compassionate
>
> Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
> uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
> ..'
> http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67
>
> What's humane about killing - for no good reason?
The fact that we do it painlessly and ensure future generations of them.
>
> It is happening now. What exactly are you planning to do about it?
Offer support to those who campaign for better welfare reforms, like everyone
else.
>
> Classic doublespeak. Love of life = needless killing. Unbelievable.
No. Love of life = ensuring the lives of future generations to come.
>
> 'Animal welfare standards' allow mutilations without anaesthesia, and
> confinement.
Then campaign for higher animal welfare standards, not total abolition.
>
> That's a film/movie.
That's right. It's about three men being chased by a man-eating kodiak bear. I'd
rather be killed by a bolt through the head than be eaten by a bear.
>
> You're wrong.
No. If you want me to take their place to get their perspective, once adopted I
wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise I was in their place to make those
comparisons.
> 'Cows hold grudges,
Oh come on, Pearl.
>say scientists
And many scientists say exactly the opposite.
> By Jonathan Leake
> February 28, 2005
>
> ONCE they were a byword for mindless docility. But cows have a complex
> mental life in which they bear grudges, nurture friendships and become
> excited by intellectual challenges, researchers have found.
>
> Cows are capable of strong emotions such as pain, fear and even anxiety
> about the future. But if farmers provide the right conditions, they can also
> feel great happiness.
There ya go!
> The findings have emerged from studies of farm animals that have found
> similar traits in pigs, goats and chickens. They suggest such animals may be
> so emotionally similar to humans that welfare laws need to be reconsidered.
>
> The research will be presented to a conference in London next month
> sponsored by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming.
>
> Christine Nicol, professor of animal welfare at Britain's Bristol University,
> said even chickens might have to be treated as individuals with needs and
> problems.
>
> "Remarkable cognitive abilities and cultural innovations have been
> revealed," she said. "Our challenge is to teach others that every animal
> we intend to eat or use is a complex individual, and to adjust our farming
> culture accordingly."
>
> Her colleague John Webster added: "People have assumed intelligence
> is linked to the ability to suffer, and that because animals have smaller
> brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic."
>
> The Bristol researchers have documented how cows within a herd form
> friendship groups of between two and four animals with whom they spend
> most of their time, often grooming and licking each other. They will also
> dislike other cows, and can bear grudges for months or years.
>
> Donald Broom, professor of animal welfare at Cambridge University, will
> tell the conference how cows can become excited by solving intellectual
> challenges.
>
> In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had
> to find how to open a door to get some food. An electroencephalograph
> was used to measure their brainwaves.
>
> "The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some
> even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment," Professor Broom
> said.
>
> The assumption that farm animals cannot suffer from conditions that would be
> intolerable for humans is partly based on the idea they have no sense of self.
> Latest research suggests this is untrue.
>
> "Sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated
> to seek it," Professor Webster said.
>
> "You only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure
> when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's
> day. Just like humans."
>
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,1011...7-13762,00.html
>
> Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
> by David DeGrazia
> <review>
>
> Most people who approach Taking Animals Seriously will share an
> unspoken presupposition. This is that animal activists take animals too
> seriously. They lack a sense of proportion. It's not that gratuitous cruelty
> to members of other species is morally defensible. Surely it isn't. If
> pressed, then all but the amoral, sociopathic or philosophically bewitched
> are likely to grant that wanton animal-abuse is best discouraged. Instead,
> the pervasive assumption is simply that animal suffering doesn't really
> matter much compared to the things that happen to human beings - to us.
> They, after all, are only animals: objects rather than our fellow subjects.
> Animal consciousness, insofar as it exists at all, is minimal and
> uninteresting.
>
> Contrast one's likely reaction on learning that the infant or toddler next
> door is being abused. Let's suppose that the abuse is being inflicted for
> fun or profit - or, more broadly, for purposes that can be described only
> as frivolous. In such a case, then one's intuitions are equally clear. The
> suffering of the victim has to be taken very seriously. One has a duty
> actively to prevent it. The interests of the child take precedence over the
> wishes of the abuser. In extreme cases, the adults involved in persistent
> abuse may need to be legally restrained or even locked up. Indeed, it is
> cases of failure on our part to take action to prevent it - or failure to take
> action by the social services or child-protection agencies - that demand
> justification. To treat the suffering caused by child-abuse lightly would be
> to show a sense of disproportion when confronted with the nature of the
> practices involved - and our capacity to do something about them.
>
> Yet here lies the crux.
>
> After Darwin, a huge and accumulating convergence of physiological,
> behavioural, genetic and evolutionary evidence suggests - but cannot
> prove - an appalling possibility. This is that hundreds of millions of
> the non-human victims of our actions are functionally akin - intellectually,
> emotionally and in their capacity to suffer - to very young humans. In the
> light of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their also
> being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would be awful; in fact,
> almost too ghastly to think about.
>
> When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
> psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
> Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much more
> convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to them,
> there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise our actions.
>
> Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
> exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
> gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
> examination to be surprisingly thin.
> ...
> http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
>
>
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7c0m3$rd7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4ftcokF1jsqrmU1@individual.net...
> <..>
>
> "because we want to". Like spoilt five-year-olds.
No, like adults who enjoy doing things they want to do.
>
> In (many) more ways than one.
>
> 'a·buse
> ..
> To hurt or injure by maltreatment;
> ...
> An unjust or wrongful practice:
> ..
> http://www.answers.com/abuse&r=67
>
>
> How does your desire for a particular flavour justify the suffering all these
> animals -are- forced to endure? How does it trump animals' desire to live?
Isolated cases of malpractice doesn't show that beef farming causes suffering,
and you haven't shown that animals understand life and desire to live, either.
>
> It doesn't.
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150902402.19271.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4ft1beF1kb993U1@individual.net...
> <snip>
> eaten
> then.
>
> If she had, she'd know that Hopkins' character survived by killing the bear.
I don't think she's seen it. Did you notice that the actor who got eaten by that
Kodiak bear went on to star in The Matrix and Lost (Michael)? That gruesome
death scene made him a star.
| |
|
|
"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
news:4fte24F1jcm1hU1@individual.net...
>
> "Billy Bullseye" <nospamthanks@none.com> wrote in message
> news:4ft3lbF1k8g2rU1@individual.net...
were[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
usually[color=darkred]
able[color=darkred]
be[color=darkred]
>
> I agree. There's no reason to suppose animals can understand the things we
do,
> and if I'm expected to put myself in an animal's place to get their
perspective
> on being slaughtered, those who ask me to do it also have to take account
of the
> fact that once that place is adopted I wouldn't have the mental capacity
to know
> I was in that place making comparisons.
>
>
Once transformed, you might lack the intelligence to analyse and vocalise
your state of mind, but I'd be surprised if the animal 'you' was unable to
experience fear, pain, distress, if circumstances warranted it. Unless you
are perhaps suggesting that an inability to articulate a feeling is
synonymous with an inability to experience it, and, therefore, that animals
are incapable of experiencing fear, distress, pain, etc?
| |
| beefeater 2006-06-21, 5:25 pm |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150914005.45942.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
>
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4fte24F1jcm1hU1@individual.net...
> were
> of
> usually
> able
> be
> do,
> perspective
> of the
> to know
>
> Once transformed, you might lack the intelligence to analyse and vocalise
> your state of mind, but I'd be surprised if the animal 'you' was unable to
> experience fear, pain, distress, if circumstances warranted it.
I'm not suggesting animals can't experience those things. What I'm saying in
response to those who suggest I put myself in an animal's position to get their
perspective, is that once in that position I would lose the human capacity to
make those comparisons I'm supposed to make.
Unless you
> are perhaps suggesting that an inability to articulate a feeling is
> synonymous with an inability to experience it, and, therefore, that animals
> are incapable of experiencing fear, distress, pain, etc?
>
No, I'm not doing that either.
| |
| Tim C. 2006-06-21, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:51:49 GMT, "rick" <stop@stop.net> wrote:
> It's easy to have a meat-included diet that
>causes less death and suffering of animals overall.
You've got to feed the cattle on something.
--
Tim C.
| |
|
| "George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote
> I guess this just about covers it
Could you be any more of an idealogue?
| |
|
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:40:07 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger@aon.at>
> wrote:
>
>
> OK you get dragged to the slaughterhouse and send us a note how you
> felt before the bolt.
Maybe you could go live in an orchard while it's blanketed with pesticides,
or in a grain field while they apply herbicides. Just to be fair let's make
the doses proportionally larger to your body-weight to a one-once vole or
bird. If you spent a fraction of the time thinking about the impact of your
own lifestyle as you spend on histrionics over the impact of other people's
you might start to develop an actual conscience instead of this
self-serving, self-righteous posturing you are indulging in now.
| |
|
| "George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:22 +0100, "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
> It certainly is in my diet.
It certainly is not, you're delusional.
| |
|
| "George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote
> Nothing should be born to abuse.
Livestock are born to provide a source of food, not to abuse.
| |
|
|
"George" <87rfguy4rgf@kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:0rdi92tv7uasvfrr0gibtpi8ip9heqag20@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:09:27 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger@aon.at>
> wrote:
>
>
> Smart comment.
>
>
> You're missing the point.
No, you are. Every food we consume, every product contains a legacy of
death. Whether we eat the animals we kill is a matter of disposition of the
corpse.
| |
| Billy Bullseye 2006-06-21, 5:25 pm |
|
"Demon" <adv@voldedaer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e7bm1e$rgj$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
>
>
> This not happening to the human race would appear to be a major risk to
> the planet.
> The green lobby would have us believe the over use of cars and people
> taking flights for holidays is the problem The thing we need is a really
> devestating war.
bad for the environment. Mutated bird flu would be better.
| |
|
|
"Tim C." <tim.challenger@aon.at> wrote in message
news:jk7j92ti2ee9crifoa63dj6kn9ogpsapc7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:51:49 GMT, "rick" <stop@stop.net> wrote:
>
>
> You've got to feed the cattle on something.
=====================
Sure, grass. Grows quite well. It's also something we cannot
eat, so we plowed down vast prairies just to plant OUR crops...
> --
> Tim C.
| |
|
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150906834.40775.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
These films, uncensored, could then be distributed to allow
> watchers to judge for themselves whether what happens to the animals is
> what
> they believe to be 'humane'.
>
Unfortunately 'allow' is not on the agenda, I wish to maintain the right
of my childen to be spared the knowledge
of the process of the humane killing of animals until they wish to learn.
What I want from primary and seconday education is the basic skills of
reading, writing and arithmatic. With that add
skills of independant reasoning and a child is all set to make his own
choice in what political, moral and social research
the child feels of interest.
Animal rights as with other religious and political opinions have no place
in pre-university education. until a child has the skills to
recognise opinion from facts formal education should be restricted to facts.
| |
|
|
"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
news:4fth4kF1ks1f3U1@individual.net...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1150902402.19271.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
sporting[color=darkred]
Hopkins,[color=darkred]
bear.[color=darkred]
>
> I don't think she's seen it. Did you notice that the actor who got eaten
by that
> Kodiak bear went on to star in The Matrix and Lost (Michael)? That
gruesome
> death scene made him a star.
>
>
I hadn't noticed that, myself. I enjoyed the film, though.
| |
|
|
"beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
news:4fthvcF1j5nq2U1@individual.net...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1150914005.45942.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
horror[color=darkred]
not[color=darkred]
animal,[color=darkred]
an[color=darkred]
we[color=darkred]
account[color=darkred]
capacity[color=darkred]
vocalise[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> I'm not suggesting animals can't experience those things. What I'm saying
in
> response to those who suggest I put myself in an animal's position to get
their
> perspective, is that once in that position I would lose the human capacity
to
> make those comparisons I'm supposed to make.
>
> Unless you
animals[color=darkred]
> No, I'm not doing that either.
>
>
Pretty pointless, really, then? If you are going to allow a hypothetical
situation where you can be placed in an animal's position, why couldn't it
stretch to some sort of transmitter sending your emotions to human
observers, who would have the ability to analyse what you were feeling as
the bolt was being lined up?
Reminds me a bit of a kid watching 'Buffy' who said he found it unbelievable
because Buffy was a girl, and 'everybody knows girls can't beat up
vampires'. He could believe in vampires, but not female superheroes :-)
| |
|
|
"Demon" <adv@voldedaer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e7drpf$63r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1150906834.40775.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
> These films, uncensored, could then be distributed to allow
>
>
> Unfortunately 'allow' is not on the agenda, I wish to maintain the right
> of my childen to be spared the knowledge
> of the process of the humane killing of animals until they wish to learn.
I was not suggesting that it should be compulsory viewing, rather that a
fair and unbiassed record of the facts should be available for anyone
interested. A record which was not prepared to suit any particular agenda,
and which, therefore, would not be 'propaganda'.
>
> What I want from primary and seconday education is the basic skills of
> reading, writing and arithmatic. With that add
> skills of independant reasoning and a child is all set to make his own
> choice in what political, moral and social research
> the child feels of interest.
Quite so, and if and when she/he becomes interested in the morals of meat
production, I am suggesting there should be an unbiassed source to which
they can turn for non-slanted information.
>
> Animal rights as with other religious and political opinions have no
place
> in pre-university education. until a child has the skills to
> recognise opinion from facts formal education should be restricted to
facts.
>
>
>
What, no opinions, no moral values at all, up to the age of 18? Impossible.
| |
|
|
"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:p53VWiEPjbmEFwNc@farmeroz.port995.com...
> BAC <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>
>
> I doubt any animal has anything to fear at a well-run abattoir.
> After all they just think its a particularly de-luxe race to a foor
> trimming/drench/weighing, why would they think otherwise?
>
> They can't understand english and can't read, after all.
>
(via[color=darkred]
what[color=darkred]
>
> Ah, now you are being anthropomorphic.
How is it anthropomorphic to suggest people use their own judgement as to
whether or not they approve of that which they observe?
>
> Clearly the animals don't fear in the films I have seen since they are
> showing none of the relevant symptoms. Anyone who has had to handle even
> modestly fearful animals knows that for a human to force 3/4 ton of
> animal to go where it doesn't want to go is asking for failure.
>
> Very probably rather painful failure.
>
> Remember most of us on UBA handle animals on a regular basis and to do
> this you need to understand how they are thinking.
>
Of course you do, I'm not suggesting you don't. However, watching what
actually happens, albeit second hand, should allow people to reach a
relatively informed decision rather than relying on the opinions and
judgements of others. Note I am not suggesting that the majority of people
would necessarily decide one way or the other, that would be for them alone
to come to terms with.
| |
|
| "Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:dZ4YupFyFrmEFwJg@farmeroz.port995.com...
> BAC <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>
> No, that's absolutely not so. Without experience of handling and caring
> for animals themselves they can only rely on the opinions and judgements
> of those with adequate experience.
"The suffering of these animals is undeniable. On a recent visit to an
abattoir I saw the terror, misery and abuse experienced by the animals
waiting to be killed and in the process of being killed. Those scenes
will never leave me.
If we are truly committed to creating a world where violence and
unnecessary suffering are not accepted, we must take a good hard
look at the way we treat those who cannot defend themselves against
us. The choice is ours, we can choose to kill animals and eat their
flesh, or we can choose a more compassionate, peaceful path.
Animal abuse stems from passive attitudes and choices. It is time
to recognise animals as sentient beings who are not for us to exploit.
Nichola Kriek
Wellington SPCA
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/a...work.htm#lovely
| |
|
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote
>
> "Demon" <adv@voldedaer.co.uk> wrote
>
> I was not suggesting that it should be compulsory viewing, rather that a
> fair and unbiassed record of the facts should be available for anyone
> interested. A record which was not prepared to suit any particular agenda,
> and which, therefore, would not be 'propaganda'.
>
>
> Quite so, and if and when she/he becomes interested in the morals of meat
> production, I am suggesting there should be an unbiassed source to which
> they can turn for non-slanted information.
>
> place
> facts.
>
> What, no opinions, no moral values at all, up to the age of 18?
> Impossible.
No, this falls into the category of political influence by the teacher, like
showing videos of abortion, religious or political opinions. Anything of
this nature if presented to children in schools must be done so only in the
most carefully balanced and academic fashion, not by inflammatory
propaganda.
| |
|
| "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4ftfkoF1jtg89U1@individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:e7bmaf$oc0$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> If they're clever enough to sense what's coming (a painless, humane slaughter),
> what's the big deal?
'Abattoir killing involves herding the stock on to trucks - usually
with the aid of electric cattle prods - trucking them long distances,
then unloading them into yards where the smell of blood from
the animals already killed "sends them ballistic". - Slaughterman
Wayne Evans (NZ)
'In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment,
the electric goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle
and pigs if they are refusing to move forwards. This cruel device
is intentionally designed to cause pain."
'Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still.
They are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently.'
http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
>
> The fact that we do it painlessly and ensure future generations of them.
On average 1 cow or bull out of every 15 (5-10%) is not stunned by
the first shot. They are either shot again, or go on to be knifed and
butchered conscious. You are aware of this, so what's your game?
To whose advantage are future generations exactly? Not wildlife.
'In the soggy British Isles -- where more than half of the land has
been converted to livestock pasture -intensive, long-term sheep and
cattle grazing has stripped the land of native vegetation, laid bare
and damaged the soil, and even created sand dunes in some areas.
Herders from the European mainland invaded the British Isles
beginning about 6000 years ago, cut most of the forest that covered
the land, and exterminated all bears and wolves. Livestock kept
forests from growing back by eating and trampling saplings.
Recent reports are that intensive sheep grazing, clearing of livestock
fields, and tree planting have diminished the heather on English
moors by 25% in 20 years. (The British were the second most
powerful historical influence on ranching in the Western US.)
....'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
>
> Offer support to those who campaign for better welfare reforms, like everyone
> else.
What reforms are you thinking of? Head restraint systems are already
in use in most abattoirs, and can also cause a great deal of distress.
>
> No. Love of life = ensuring the lives of future generations to come.
Love of life means protecting and caring for the living, present and future.
>
> Then campaign for higher animal welfare standards, not total abolition.
There are beef farmers reading this. Let's see you make your case to them.
Ask why they mutilate young animals, and confine them for months on end.
>
> That's right. It's about three men being chased by a man-eating kodiak bear. I'd
> rather be killed by a bolt through the head than be eaten by a bear.
Then you're a gonner. Pray you're rendered unconscious before you're cut up.
>
> No. If you want me to take their place to get their perspective, once adopted I
> wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise I was in their place to make those
> comparisons.
Nothing to do with comparisons.
>
> Oh come on, Pearl.
>
>
> And many scientists say exactly the opposite.
Cites?
>
> There ya go!
Right back at you.
[color=darkred]
| |
| Hamish 2006-06-22, 1:25 pm |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150983169.2937.1@damia.uk.clara.net...
>
> What, no opinions, no moral values at all, up to the age of 18?
> Impossible.
>
Moral values are really the province of the family. Otherwise we are
heading for state and family being at odds
and children reporting parents to the state for 'incorrect views'
It is almost impossible for a class of over 30 children to be given a
comprehensive and cohesive set of moral and social values.
This really is where the family and close social group of the home
environment kicks in.
Remember the government is considering makeing the parents legally
responsible for criminal activities of the children, not the teachers.
| |
|
|
"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:Y5rZW1F8HrmEFwLv@farmeroz.port995.com...
> BAC <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
it[color=darkred]
>
> Not a problem. The animals has never seen a bolt before, its completely
> neutral, and triggers no innate fear reactions. The reaction (per se) is
> thus nil. A large feline, sudden strange unexplained noise etc etc would
> be quite another matter.
>
Perhaps so, in which case that is what the experiment, if possible, would
record.
| |
|
|
"Oz" <Oz@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:dZ4YupFyFrmEFwJg@farmeroz.port995.com...
> BAC <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
of[color=darkred]
is[color=darkred]
>
> Because, in part, the average person has no idea how animals behave or
> think.
So what? Notions of 'humaneness' are human value judgements, not
approximations of 'acceptable' animal behaviour.
Another part is that you excluded the birth and life of those
> animals.
Add in what you like.
>
> For example many would consider allowing calves to live outside in the
> snow and rain with mum, rather than bringing them inside to warm
> draught-free buildings as 'inhumane'.
What makes you assume that?
>
>
> No, that's completely untrue. Typically the uninformed 'member of the
> public' is totally unable to reach an informed decision under these
> circumstances. They can, quite reasonably, only be expected to take an
> anthropomorphic decision, that's all they know.
You have misread what I said, which was "to judge for themselves whether
what happens to the animals is what they believe to be 'humane'." 'What
they believe to be humane', is their personal opinion, which may be based on
anything or nothing in particular, including life experiences with animals,
religious/philosophical beliefs, etc.
>
>
> No, that's absolutely not so. Without experience of handling and caring
> for animals themselves they can only rely on the opinions and judgements
> of those with adequate experience.
Not so, IMO. Encouraging people to think for themselves is far better than
leading them to rely on someone else's possibly prejudiced views, whichever
side of the argument they're coming from.
>
>
alone[color=darkred]
>
> They wouldn't even realise they were actually taking an (mostly wrong)
> anthropomorphic judgement.
Their judgement might be wrong, but I still don't see why it is
anthropomorphic. People don't normally assume that animal treatment is
inhumane, just because it would be unacceptable if done to humans, e.g.
neutering, euthenasia. IMO, people are quite capable of discriminating
between animals and humans.
>
> Remember I was just such a person until my early twenties and had to
> learn (fast) from others who had a lifetime's experience and knowledge,
> as well as making my own (increasingly informed) experience.
>
> I am acutely aware how incorrect my early viewpoints were.
>
I expect we have all changed our views about many things as we have grown
older.
| |
| Billy Bullseye 2006-06-22, 5:25 pm |
| "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7ehg6$l1q$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
Please forgive my snipping it . . .
I just wanted to say that you obviously see yourself as a cow . . . or
perhaps a little woolly sheep - going off to slaughter and dreading what is
going to happen. Didn't you read Ozs post regarding anthropomorphism??
You put forwards a very good argument against farming humans, but that is
not what we are discussing. Your experience of farm animals may be limited
to the propaganda you wallow in.
If you want to see what goes on in a slaughter house and how it is perceived
by the animals, I'd suggest that you are not a suitable observer because you
will doubtless see just what you want to see - ie in place of driving
animals forwards you will see abuse, in place of curious glances you will
see terror, in place of a bleated call to a sheep in another pen you would
hear a desperate cry for help.
Would you be happy with the current system if the animals went to slaughter
with virtual reality head gear on?? Somehow I get the feeling that even if
all your points were dealt with you would suddenly find a lot more. Are they
possibly not your real reasons at all?? After all, animal rights extremists
seem to have little regard for pain and distress when they inflict it on
humans, so they can't really be that bothered about it. So if pain and
trauma are not a real concern to you why are you so against farming?? You
lot make me think of rouge blood cells that turn against the system that has
nurtured them for so long.
Looking back over the millenia, we see a happy inter-dependance between man
and the animals - dogs, horses, cats, hens, meat and milk and wool producing
animals. I think it has worked well. We survived. The animals survived. But
you are not happy with it. Where do you think it went wrong?? Should we have
exterminated the animals several millenia before Christ and lived on beans??
Should we have given the animals Africa and let them fight it out?? Should
we have let them prevail and eat us??
Perhaps you are happy with the past and just want to change the present??
You would clearly like to abolish pain, fear and discomfort for animals. So
what do you propose?? You think of them as if they were humans - but would
you be prepared to give them your house?? Where do you want them to live
then?? How free would they be?? How would they be policed??? Would they have
responsibilities to go along with their rights?? Do you want them to be
eligible for social security, council housing, NHS and care homes?? Do you
think that would give them a more fulfilled life?? . . . Should they die in
hospital?? Are you prepared to pay for that?? or nurse them??? or do you
think natural deaths are kinder for them?? or do you want them just to go
extinct like the dodo??
Well what then??
| |
|
| amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>I think you've missed the point that humans are animals.
>
1) If you can't be arsed to snip, then in future I can't be arsed to
read your posts.
2) I am very well aware that humans are animals, have I ever suggested
otherwise?
3) Our behaviour patterns are still not the same as food animals since
in general animals have different behaviour patterns. These need to be
learned by humans as they are not innate.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
| |
| Billy Bullseye 2006-06-23, 3:25 am |
|
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7ehg6$l1q$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "beefeater" <back@ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4ftfkoF1jtg89U1@individual.net...
> Love of life means protecting and caring for the living, present and
> future.
Too true. But what has this got to do with vegetarianism. Why do people
become vegetarians??? All is revealed:
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/veggie.html
"OPINIONS
Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard.
I have had this title on this web-site for some while, but had not got
round to writing the article. Indeed, I have been planning to write this
since I was at university. Part of the reason that I have delayed so much,
is that there are simply so very many reasons why vegetarianism is a bad
thing that this essay threatened to develop into a tiresome tome of a
thousand pounding reasons not to become a veggie. Here follows what I hope
will be a tolerably short list of reasons, most of which attack the subject
by countering the many and various daft arguments in favour of
vegetarianism. At the end of the essay, I shall offer my theory to explain
why people really become vegetarians, which is quite a different reason from
the one they cite.
I became a vegetarian because it is a better nutritional diet.
This is a bizarre argument, largely because the reason is so flagrantly
false. The tiniest amount of enquiry into the subject quickly reveals that
meat is exceptionally nutritious. Weight for weight, almost any meat is more
densely packed with nutrients than almost any plant. There are a few
nutrients which are impossible to get without eating meat, and a significant
number which are very difficult to get with | | |