Earthlings

[Raeven0]

maybe cows do have feelings?

Cute. I don't even know what to say.
"OMG IT CAN PRODUCE TEARS!!!1`2!~~ OBVUZLY IT HAVE FELIGS LOLOL~!@"

I mean... these corporations have more money than god, do you REALLY support their cost cutting practices?

I don't support brutal mistreatment of animals. All I have asked for is evidence that such mistreatment happens often to make it a substantially pressing issue.

Claiming that it is substantially pressing merely because it happens is insufficient. As previously posted, I would rate human rape, murder, torture, mistreatment, famine, and war higher on my list of concerns than insubstantiated claims that a few animals in isolated slaughterhouses are being badly harmed.

That's insane and completely out of context

You said:

How is even once not often enough?

There are only two options. You can either:
- accept a pervasive, omnipresent police force, or
- accept that shit will happen.

why do we have to eat the dolphins

They taste good?

 

[Raziaar]

I don't support brutal mistreatment of animals. All I have asked for is evidence that such mistreatment happens often to make it a substantially pressing issue.

Claiming that it is substantially pressing merely because it happens is insufficient. As previously posted, I would rate human rape, murder, torture, mistreatment, famine, and war higher on my list of concerns than insubstantiated claims that a few animals in isolated slaughterhouses are being badly harmed.

How is there ever going to be more evidence of the events, besides these videos showing many different cases of it? Everything is done behind closed walls.

They taste good?

Apparently they don't taste good enough to be marketed as Dolphin meat, so obviously the taste is still under the same category as whale meat, whatever that tastes like.

Tuna fetches a FAR larger price, whereas an entire dolphin fetches only 300 bucks, I believe. 300 bucks for the corpse of one of the most intelligent animals on earth other than ourselves.

 

[Raeven0]

How is there ever going to be more evidence of the events

how about a well-thought-out and organised study of slaughterhouses and other animal care centres across the country and the greater planet Earth conducted by a nonbiased third party and laid out in easy-to-read texts and graphs? (In two words: "VALID EVIDENCE".)

If such evidence can only be attained by underhanded and/or illegal tactics, then how do you plan to prove your point? I'm certainly not going to follow a phantom argument.

Apparently they don't taste good enough to be marketed as Dolphin meat

Wouldn't know, never had one.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

There are only two options. You can either:
- accept a pervasive, omnipresent police force, or
- accept that shit will happen.

Or I can be ignorant of shit happening. Since that is no longer an option, I can lobby to make shit not happen, or keep it from happening myself.
Sure it may be futile, but half the fun is fighting for what I believe.

 

[Raziaar]

Well if you're not willing to focus on the animal side of things... why not focus on the human side? From wikipedia.

Slaughterhouse Workers

Animal and human rights activists are concerned with the treatment of slaughterhouse workers, who are very often abused, overworked, and underqualified for their duties. Generally uneducated and without competent English skills, they are desperate for work. Some employees report that they are threatened with the loss of their jobs should they attempt to complain about the factory. They are expected to slaughter one animal every three seconds--and are penalized when they slow down. This translates to frustration and anger on the part of the workers, and further abuse for the animals they slaughter.

And from another source. It's detailed within the quote.

The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and
Inhumane Treatment Inside the US Meat Industry
Gail A. Eisnitz

You may be getting more than just beef in that burger. This shocking book shows what "USDA Approved" really means.

"I'd been documenting and exposing animal abuse for nearly 15 years. But nothing-not the grisly cockfights nor the pathetic puppy mills, not the ritual animal sacrifices nor horrific livestock auctions-could have prepared me for what I'd encounter once I ventured behind the closed doors of America's slaughterhouses."

So writes award-winning author Gail A. Eisnitz in Slaughterhouse, a highly critical and all-too-real tour through some of America's major livestock processors. With powerful descriptions, reminiscent of Upton Sinclair's masterpiece The Jungle, hers is a frightening look at where our beef, pork, and poultry are "mass-produced" on disassembly lines that run 24-hours a day. And where U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors who are supposed to be assuring the public a safe food supply and protecting the animals from inhumane treatment-ignore federal regulations, take payola, and turn a blind eye to the horrors that occur each day.

Often safety standards are simply ignored. As the speed of the "kill lines" that prepare thousands of animals for slaughter is increased to boost productivity, more and more semiconscious and frightened animals pass through their flailing limbs lashing out and injuring workers before being brutally hacked off. But the kill line keeps going because the pressure to mass produce is intensifying to the point that human life is placed on par with that of the animals.

Eisnitz includes interviews with numerous slaughterhouse workers who speak candidly of their experiences on the front line of one of the nation's largest agribusinesses. While documenting many instances of worker cruelty toward live animals, Eisnitz sees these employees as victims of the system. The meat industry, she contends, is a giant, monolith that only rewards speed and productivity, while penalizing those who take time to do the right thing.

Slaughterhouse will outrage, horrify, and disgust everyone concerned about animal welfare, human rights, consumer safety, and government regulatory practices. Ninety-one years ago, Upton Sinclair brought attention to slaughterhouse atrocities, and now Eisnitz is here to report that they've only gotten worse.

GAIL A. EISNITZ (Bigfork, MT) has been investigating animal abuses for many years, and her work has appeared in numerous newspapers including The New York Times, Detroit Free Press, and the Denver Business Journal, and magazines: Animals, Sassy, and Defenders of Wildlife.

280 pp (Exclusive Photographs) ISBN 1-57392-166-1 Cloth $25.95 (6 x 9)

But surely these are just propoganda? Look... I don't subscribe to vegetarian, or vegan propoganda... I hate that shit, because I love the taste of meat, and meat products, and I will not stop consuming them. But I am concerned about the treatment of not only the animals, but also the workers at the facilities.

From the same book.

Working conditions in these Flesh Factories are deplorable, with chances of injury or illness six times greater than working in a coalmine. Workers cannot leave the floor to take a bathroom break, and often urinate into the blood trench or on themselves. If a worker removes a carcass as "condemned", the Supervisors at the plant often put it back into production and reprimand the worker.

Again, this isn't some sensationalist cry for the treatment of animals, it's about the human working conditions.

G) Animals go through the Kill Line ALIVE all the time, it is so common that slaughterhouse workers do not even see it as an infraction any longer, they are more worried for their own safety from dropped carcasses, flying hooves, slashing knives, faulty equipment, and inhumanely high speed Lines.

Some more from a different source. http://www.ericsecho.org/investigation2.htm

The injury rate among meatpackers is the highest of any occupation in the United States. Working in a slaughterhouse is three times more dangerous than working in an average American factory. Every year about one-third of all slaughterhouse workers - roughly 50,000 men and women - suffer an injury or an illness that requires first aid on the job.

Perhaps the leading determinant of the injury rate at a slaughterhouse is the speed of the production line. Meatpackers often work within inches of each other, wielding large knives. As the pace increases, so does the risk of accidental cuts and stabbings. About seventy-five cattle an hour were slaughtered in the old meatpacking plants in Chicago. Twenty years ago, the Monfort plant in Greeley slaughtered about 175 cattle an hour. By the early 1990s, the Monfort plant slaughtered as many as 400 cattle an hour, about half a dozen animals every minute, sent down a single production line, carved by workers under tremendous pressure not to fall behind.

Beef slaughterhouses now operate at a low profit margin. The three giant meatpacking companies - Monfort, IBP and Excel - try to increase earnings by maximizing the volume of production at their plants. A faster pace means higher profits. Declining beef consumption in the United States has been prompted less by health concerns than by the price of beef compared with the prices of other meats. The same factors that make beef slaughterhouses inefficient (the lack of mechanization, the reliance on human labor) also encourage companies to make them even more dangerous (by speeding up the pace).

Jose (not his real name) had been employed at the slaughterhouse for more than ten years. During that time many workers had lost fingers, mainly while using power saws. One man lost an arm in the box-making machine. People get cut all the time, trying to keep up with the pace. "The knives don't know any difference between cow meat and human meat," he said. Jose hurt one hand while operating a machine and badly injured a shoulder during a fall.

Read that page, it's mainly about the workers.

Today, the safest hamburgers in the United States are probably the ones being sold at fast-food restaurants. All of the major fast-food companies have recently adopted some sort of microbial testing.

 

[Yuri]

Or I can be ignorant of shit happening. Since that is no longer an option, I can lobby to make shit not happen, or keep it from happening myself.
Sure it may be futile, but half the fun is fighting for what I believe.

You are missing the point, Sir ZuRucken. The point is that shit will happen no matter what you do. If you want to create a police state where only certified individuals can interact with animals, maybe then animal cruelty would be (almost) eliminated (although it will probably still occur). But I'd rather live in a free society and accept that once and a while, crimes will occur.

Crimes include, and are not limited to, muder, rape, theft, genocide, fraud and even... animal cruelty.

No matter what happens and no matter what you do, you cannot stop people from doing things that are bad. You can make it harder for them to do bad things, but I see no logical way to enforce this than what we already have. My neighbors abused their pets, and we called animal control. The pets were freed. I see no way to make this more efficient.

I'm only saying that complaining about it and telling people that they suck for not complaining about it is not only futile, but annoying. (Not that you did the latter, but a lot of people do). If you have any better ideas, please share them, but just complaining about it isn't going to do anything more than someone who just complains about murder.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

HAY GUYZ WHATS THE DEAL WITH MURDER?

i mean really, whats up w/ that??

just say "no" to murdering people!!


Problem solved.

 

[jverne]

'Systematic' would imply that an actual system exists designed purely to abuse animals.

For it to be systematic, there would need to be a vast, evil international conspiracy and surely you don't believe in...

Oh.

mecha i think you know what i meant by systematic. why do you have to warp everything...please spare me the conspiracy accusations.

by systematic i meant, like often practiced, with detailed instructions. ok maybe the word systematic isn't the best choise here, but i think you know what i mean. the animal slaughter look systematic or automatized. in the movie there was a rotating drum where the cow was put and it turned upside down, sot that the butcher could cut its neck. please do tell me what is that then?

there are tons of useful informations there, it is propaganda only if you want it. but i agree that this shouldn't be shown to minors, but a grown adult possibly could see the difference. if not...too bad for him.

 

[Ludah]

Jverne, you can't completely misuse half of your wording and they say "Well, like, you should totally know what I mean, you dick!".

 

[jverne]

Jverne, you can't completely misuse half of your wording and they say "Well, like, you should totally know what I mean, you dick!".

i apologize...but the word is still adequate altough not the best, therfore your rant is not justified.

hmm...but i can't find "you dick" anywhere in my post...hmm...wonder where did you got that....by lying?


edit: but i presume i know what you mean.

 

[Ludah]

The "you dick" addition merely expressed the way you always snap off at him in any argument you have.

 

[jondy]

hmm...but i can't find "you dick" anywhere in my post...hmm...wonder where did you got that....by lying?


edit: but i presume i know what you mean.

Don't be silly.

 

[jverne]

The "you dick" addition merely expressed the way you always snap off at him in any argument you have.

hmm maybe...i just don't like he twist things. he came form propaganda to cinspiracy, i belive i stayed on course the whole thread.

i still didn't got any good answer form him, like:

quoting myself:

"you don't often see people tie down other people and drive over them on a mass scale for fun or profit, do you?"

"so when did phoenix said we should eat like him?"

"who said anything about owtlawing meat?"

"so avoiding pain is not rational or logical in real life situations (because i do agree that pain is nothing from a material POV, but we are talking about real life)?"

"if it is why then couldn't it be used as an argument?"

"so you're basicaly saying that everything less developed than humans has no right to feel emotions and thus is allowed to be killed without "dignity"?"

...

and a few others, he naswered a few questions but not very argumented like:

"The cost of eating meat is mainly the lives of cows, fish and chicken. The benefits are that far more humans are able to be fed than would be otherwise possible."

as far as i can see, he didn't accounted for the unneccesary measures to kill these animals, like sliting troath because meat tastes better. or animals for fur, wich nowdays synthetics make it obsolete.


but i'm willing to forget about that. one thing that i can't stand is his extremism. from what i read or talked with him he looks like color blind and only sees the world in black and white. but no, i don't know him personaly so i can't be 100% sure. even this i'm willing to forget, but he insulted me a few times.

in the 9/11 thread he labeld me as a conspiracy theorist, even when i said it a million times i'm not. now his first reaction was accusin me of animal lover, vegetarian and PETA supporter (altough not very directly):

"What you've presented here are four logical fallacies and a big 'ol dodge on the fact that JP is almost literally a PETA posterboy using identical tactics to support the same agenda, which involves enforced vegetarianism and "the liberation of all animals"."

"Joaquin Phoenix here is taking footage of that abuse and using it to scare you into eating like him and wearing what he does."

and i think he is somewhat implying that i'm acting out on emotion not reason

"The correct answer is that it can't, as it's Anecdotal Evidence that makes an Emotional Appeal towards Wisdom in Repugnace. (Those are, yes, logical fallacies by the way)"


so mecha, my advise to you is to stop being so one-sided. and no, i'm not saying my point of view is the only right.

now we can get back arguing about unneccesary animal abuse.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"you don't often see people tie down other people and drive over them on a mass scale for fun or profit, do you?"

I had already pointed out that that was a red herring.

"so when did phoenix said we should eat like him?"

I already repeatedly pointed out that yes, he does.

"who said anything about owtlawing meat?"

I repeatedly pointed out that PETA does.

"so avoiding pain is not rational or logical in real life situations (because i do agree that pain is nothing from a material POV, but we are talking about real life)?"

Avoiding all pain is impossible. Reducing pain is good, but relatively low on the scale of importance. I've already pointed this out repeatedly.

"if it is why then couldn't it be used as an argument?"

???

"so you're basicaly saying that everything less developed than humans has no right to feel emotions and thus is allowed to be killed without "dignity"?"

That's very nearly the opposite of what I said.

So I ignored your stupidest posts. I'll try not to do that in the future.

"as far as i can see, he didn't accounted for the unneccesary measures to kill these animals, like sliting troath because meat tastes better. or animals for fur, wich nowdays synthetics make it obsolete."

First off, it's not my duty to respond to every single thing you say, especially if what you say is stupid. In this case though, I had already stated that abuse isn't good.


"but i'm willing to forget about that. one thing that i can't stand is his extremism. [...] in the 9/11 thread he labeld me as a conspiracy theorist, even when i said it a million times i'm not."

Now why would I call you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

shut up mecha...i just find some answers stupid!

"The owner of the WTC signed a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy 6 weeks before 9/11 specifically covering terrorism"

say what the hell you want but i consider 6 weeks a short time to make an 3.5 billion insurance policy, what a coincidence right?! JEAH...right!

an if there was nothing wrong why would the CIA size all video footage? please do tell me?


It was really a terrorist attack, but the US gov saw a good oppurtunity to have its way, so they "accidentaly" ignored it.
This is called white crime my idiot friend!

I simply don't belive the worlds strongest nation could not shoot down two 747s!?

I repeat! IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, IT WAS NOT STAGED. IT WAS SIMPLY IGNORED!!

Oh, right. Because you had theorized a conspiracy surrounding 9/11.
Also, weren't you complaining about insults just now?


"now his first reaction was accusin me of animal lover, vegetarian and PETA supporter (altough not very directly)"

I'm seeing a bit of a trend here.
"I am offended by things that no-one has seen happen, but which I assume happen anyways!"

"[...] i think he is somewhat implying that i'm acting out on emotion not reason"

It's not implied. When every single thing you say in a post is a logical fallacy, it is a fact that you aren't being reasonable.

That's the definition of unreasonable: you fail to understand reason.

"so mecha, my advise to you is to stop being so one-sided. and no, i'm not saying my point of view is the only right."

Don't worry; I'm pretty sure no-one is saying your point of view is right.

 

[CptStern]

clarity for clarity's sake (I hate this topic): animal neglect/abuse is systematic in corporate farms however it's more about profit margins that lead to overcrowded conditions or inhumane processing procedures than acts of deliberate cruelty


for the most part family owned farms are for the most part cruelty free because their animals are their livelihood

 

[Mechagodzilla]

There are problems but, at the same time, we rely on the corporate farms to exist at this point.
The "systematic abuse" frankly isn't too much worse than the average family farm, and mostly a result of weak government regulation.

They could use more regulation, but so could lots of things.
I'd rather have the tax money go to something that benefits real people.

 

[Raeven0]

Well if you're not willing to focus on the animal side of things... why not focus on the human side?

Ooh, sources! I love sources.

If the workers are truly underqualified, underpaid, and overworked, then I suppose that needs to be fixed, doesn't it? Replacing them with machinery would be easiest, but I doubt machinery can perform some of the more complex tasks involved in animal preparation. Perhaps the meat-slaughtering industry needs a formal investigation followed by a swift punch in the face. Interpret that how you will.

but just complaining about it isn't going to do anything more than someone who just complains about murder.

They wouldn't have to complain if I were dictator of the earth. ;o

I'd rather have the tax money go to something that benefits real people.

I am open to the idea of tax money being used to help the workers (if, as we are assuming, their conditions are consistently terrible).

 

[CptStern]

regulating the industry would have real world effects pretty much immediately ...many of our strains of avian flu originated in corporate farm livestock as does many forms of bacteria that leads to stomach related prblems in humans such as salmonella


I was listening to an interview on cbc last night with a U of T professor of something or other who was talking about the decline in quality in food due to the overabundance of corporate owned farms ..as an example he said that in order for a person to get the same amount of nutrients from a tomato today in comparison to the 1950's we'd have to eat 6 tomatoes. He says that nutritional content in all farmed food is far less than even a decade ago ..mostly due to farming methods perfected by corporate farms.

Family run farms are disappearing ..in the 1930's 70% of canadians sustained themselves through farming ..today that number is 2% ....family farms simply cannot compete against corporate run farms, the price/cost squeeze effectively drives them out of business

 

[Raziaar]

regulating the industry would have real world effects pretty much immediately ...many of our strains of avian flu originated in corporate farm livestock as does many forms of bacteria that leads to stomach related prblems in humans such as salmonella


I was listening to an interview on cbc last night with a U of T professor of something or other who was talking about the decline in quality in food due to the overabundance of corporate owned farms ..as an example he said that in order for a person to get the same amount of nutrients from a tomato today in comparison to the 1950's we'd have to eat 6 tomatoes. He says that nutritional content in all farmed food is far less than even a decade ago ..mostly due to farming methods perfected by corporate farms.

Family run farms are disappearing ..in the 1930's 70% of canadians sustained themselves through farming ..today that number is 2% ....family farms simply cannot compete against corporate run farms, the price/cost squeeze effectively drives them out of business

And that is all very, very sad. I am surprised we live as long as we do, what with all these health issues. Can you imigine if we maintained the medicines we have... but went back to the food quality of over a hundred years ago?

 

[jverne]

"so avoiding pain is not rational or logical in real life situations (because i do agree that pain is nothing from a material POV, but we are talking about real life)?"

Avoiding all pain is impossible. Reducing pain is good, but relatively low on the scale of importance. I've already pointed this out repeatedly.

"if it is why then couldn't it be used as an argument?"

???

"so you're basicaly saying that everything less developed than humans has no right to feel emotions and thus is allowed to be killed without "dignity"?"

That's very nearly the opposite of what I said.

So I ignored your stupidest posts. I'll try not to do that in the future.

"as far as i can see, he didn't accounted for the unneccesary measures to kill these animals, like sliting troath because meat tastes better. or animals for fur, wich nowdays synthetics make it obsolete."

First off, it's not my duty to respond to every single thing you say, especially if what you say is stupid. In this case though, I had already stated that abuse isn't good.


"but i'm willing to forget about that. one thing that i can't stand is his extremism. [...] in the 9/11 thread he labeld me as a conspiracy theorist, even when i said it a million times i'm not."

Now why would I call you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

Oh, right. Because you had theorized a conspiracy surrounding 9/11.
Also, weren't you complaining about insults just now?


"now his first reaction was accusin me of animal lover, vegetarian and PETA supporter (altough not very directly)"

I'm seeing a bit of a trend here.
"I am offended by things that no-one has seen happen, but which I assume happen anyways!"

"[...] i think he is somewhat implying that i'm acting out on emotion not reason"

It's not implied. When every single thing you say in a post is a logical fallacy, it is a fact that you aren't being reasonable.

That's the definition of unreasonable: you fail to understand reason.

"so mecha, my advise to you is to stop being so one-sided. and no, i'm not saying my point of view is the only right."

Don't worry; I'm pretty sure no-one is saying your point of view is right.[/QUOTE]

first three are fine...

fourth...nope...you missed the point of that question...i belive you were trying to say that pain cannot be used as an argument, due to its emotional origins and not being rational. yes or no? and explain

"That's very nearly the opposite of what I said. "

please do me this favour and post your quotes where. i'm having a little hard time finding them. no pun intended


"First off, it's not my duty to respond to every single thing you say, especially if what you say is stupid. In this case though, I had already stated that abuse isn't good."

yes do explain why i'm stupid, otherwise i'll take this as an insult.

i tottaly apologize for calling you stupid without a real argument in the previous thread. but calling you stupid doesn't prove i'm a conspiracist. rather insultive that conspiracist.


nope...i think i posted some examples, so you didn't think i was an animal lover, vegi or PETAphil?


"It's not implied. When every single thing you say in a post is a logical fallacy, it is a fact that you aren't being reasonable.

That's the definition of unreasonable: you fail to understand reason."

mecha, you better start argumenting, because that isn't worth two cents and not to mention insult.

"Don't worry; I'm pretty sure no-one is saying your point of view is right."

this is an insult and by the way missed the point. i wanted to make sure i was not forcing you my opinion, but it seem i have to be more clear.

There are problems but, at the same time, we rely on the corporate farms to exist at this point.
The "systematic abuse" frankly isn't too much worse than the average family farm, and mostly a result of weak government regulation.

They could use more regulation, but so could lots of things.
I'd rather have the tax money go to something that benefits real people.

i'm glad we're on the same side at least once once...
and yes so could alot of thing but don't you think that this case focus more on individuals, that lets say 9/11? this is a everyday thing, that is quite intimate compared to others?

 

[Raeven0]

Can you imigine if we maintained the medicines we have... but went back to the food quality of over a hundred years ago?

Then we would have even more old people. Ick. And we'd have to raise the retirement age.

 

[Raziaar]

Then we would have even more old people. Ick. And we'd have to raise the retirement age.

I view it as people having richer, fuller lives, and not dying needlessly by the filth we've produced for ourselves.

They could use more regulation, but so could lots of things.
I'd rather have the tax money go to something that benefits real people.

It does benefit real people. The links I provided earlier mention how the lack of regulation and the strict policy on speed more than efficiency, leads to feces/mucous/etc/etc contaminated food which in turn ails the people.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i belive you were trying to say that pain cannot be used as an argument, due to its emotional origins and not being rational.

You believe wrong.

do explain why i'm stupid

The constant confusion when reading my posts, plus consistent use of logical fallacies to make arguments that don't make sense.

but calling you stupid doesn't prove i'm a conspiracist.

See, here's another example of the confusion.
-You say "why do you think I'm a conspiracy theorist"
-I show the post where you theorized that George Bush let the towers get knocked down unpunished for money, and then used the CIA to cover up the evidence.
-You get confused and think I'm only talking about your bad attitude.

nope...i think i posted some examples, so you didn't think i was an animal lover, vegi or PETAphil?

I think you've got a whole other set of problems.

mecha, you better start argumenting, because that isn't worth two cents and not to mention insult.

You are quantifiably wrong on a regular basis, mostly because you get confused and/or use logically invalid arguments.
That's reality. Take it or leave it.
If being wrong insults you, then try not saying things that are incorrect.

yes so could alot of thing but don't you think that this case focus more on individuals, that lets say 9/11? this is a everyday thing, that is quite intimate compared to others?

What?

 

[jverne]

You believe wrong.

The constant confusion when reading my posts, plus consistent use of logical fallacies to make arguments that don't make sense.

See, here's another example of the confusion.
-You say "why do you think I'm a conspiracy theorist"
-I show the post where you theorized that George Bush let the towers get knocked down unpunished for money, and then used the CIA to cover up the evidence.
-You get confused and think I'm only talking about your bad attitude.

I think you've got a whole other set of problems.

You are quantifiably wrong on a regular basis, mostly because you get confused and/or use logically invalid arguments.
That's reality. Take it or leave it.
If being wrong insults you, then try not saying things that are incorrect.



What?

if you want to sound credible quote, don't just say i'm being what i'm being. so i have to belive on your word? i'm not confused, you're putting words in my mouth.

nope never said bush got money from the terrorist attacks, and besides even you don't know it.

please don't just throw out words, you're just being low.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

lol, sif ban pets, my cat has the easiest life, if it's not spending 20 hrs of every day finding a sunny spot to sleep, he's eating food that he gets every day, with 0 effort by himself. He also eats mice/weasels/stoats for recreation. and the occasional native bird...

[edit] it's probably obvious, but i didn't read the last 10 pages.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

if you want to sound credible quote, don't just say i'm being what i'm being. so i have to belive on your word? i'm not confused, you're putting words in my mouth.

nope never said bush got money from the terrorist attacks, and besides even you don't know it.

Look, it's not my fault if you sound insane.

You say george bush killed people on 9/11 and then say you're not a conspiracy theorist.

You say that I repeatedly call you a member of PETA when I never have.

You repeatedly make reference to crying cows and out-of-context video footage (and more) as appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies and then get insulted when I call you illogical.

You repeatedly blank out on things I've said and ask me questions I've already answered.

So you ask me to constantly remind you of things - which are already recorded in posts - that you've already read less than a day ago.


Honestly, what's the deal?
If you aren't terribly confused, then what is going on?

 

[jverne]

Look, it's not my fault if you sound insane.

You say george bush killed people on 9/11 and then say you're not a conspiracy theorist.

You say that I repeatedly call you a member of PETA when I never have.

You repeatedly make reference to crying cows and out-of-context video footage (and more) as appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies and then get insulted when I call you illogical.

You repeatedly blank out on things I've said and ask me questions I've already answered.

So you ask me to constantly remind you of things - which are already recorded in posts - that you've already read less than a day ago.


Honestly, what's the deal?
If you aren't terribly confused, then what is going on?

insane?...hmm you ceartenly can't be the judge of that.

mope never said he killed people on purpuse, i said he somewhat forgot about everything and by accident more people got killed, than his deepest evil foughts might have predicted. it was not intentionaly staged, no. never said that.

nope you haven't REPEATEDLY called me a PETA member, but once is enough.

mecha, have you slept the whole time? i made the video as documented evidence of actuall unnecessary animal slaughter and treatment.
it was never a PETA thread, untill you showed up.

look what you said when i asked you if the video footage was real:

"No, it isn't real.
Reality isn't edited into a two-hour film and broadcast with a message. Context and intent influence every media presentation. Media is never created in a vacuum."

dude, what is the matter with you? why do you keep basing your arguments on a political agenda...nobody is talking about that.

have you even watched the video on mute if you like, because without sound it just apears as a random ogrish video.

i said to qoute yourself because, those answers could not be found, i didn't just naively asked to, you know!?

this is a debate, you are atcing far more offensive than me, some of your posts contain elitist insults, like i'm some kind of underling:

"Boo."

"Boo!"

"First off, it's not my duty to respond to every single thing you say, especially if what you say is stupid. In this case though, I had already stated that abuse isn't good."

"When every single thing you say in a post is a logical fallacy, it is a fact that you aren't being reasonable.

That's the definition of unreasonable: you fail to understand reason."

"Don't worry; I'm pretty sure no-one is saying your point of view is right."

dude...i really didn't expect such unargumented claims, from someone like you. at least i took the time to find them and not just post some claims that somebody does have to belive my word for it. on the contrary you call my posts logical fallacies and say you have already answered why. i looked but most of them are nowhere to be found.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

When I say the video is made by PETA, that means the video is made by PETA. Not that you are a member of PETA.

Do you understand the difference between yourself and a videotape?


When you say George Bush commited "white crime" by allowing 9/11 to occur, that is a conspiracy theory and not a fact.

Do you understand why that is a conspiracy theory?


Proper context in documentation is required to make a logical argument. The video contains no context. The video, even if you mute it, is not a logical basis for an argument.

Do you understand why the video is not a logical basis for an argument?


When you are not using a logical argument, you are not using reason. If you strongly refuse to use a logical argument, you are being unreasonable.
You refuse to use a logical argument, so you are unreasonable.

Do you understand why I say you are being unreasonable?

 

[jverne]

When I say the video is made by PETA, that means the video is made by PETA. Not that you are a member of PETA.

Do you understand the difference between yourself and a videotape?


When you say George Bush commited "white crime" by allowing 9/11 to occur, that is a conspiracy theory and not a fact.

Do you understand why that is a conspiracy theory?


Proper context in documentation is required to make a logical argument. The video contains no context. The video, even if you mute it, is not a logical basis for an argument.

Do you understand why the video is not a logical basis for an argument?


When you are not using a logical argument, you are not using reason. If you strongly refuse to use a logical argument, you are being unreasonable.
You refuse to use a logical argument, so you are unreasonable.

Do you understand why I say you are being unreasonable?

you tried to throw me in the same basket as PETA, which angered me.


second, yes that is no fact. so maybe i don't fully understand what conspiracy means...if one of your claims is not fully supported by a fact, then you are a conspiracy theorist? i agree that is a logical fallacy but not a conspiracy. so generally speaking if you make logical fallacies you are considered a conspitacy theorist?


third...you are still missing the point. so killing a pig with 3 shots in the head instead of one canno't be used as an argument on inefficent killing methods, because this part of the clip is integrated with other unconnected cocntent? so what if i dissect each part of the movie so that everything is in context?
but i agree that in the state as it is it can be considered out of context, because it is too random.

as for statistical documentation, the video shows i think at least 3 US farms, practising more or less the same methods, which implies that this is more systematical than random or coincidential. as far as i can see you have 0 proof of the opposite.

as you can see i'm being reasonable and most of my claims are being backed up by fact.

 

[Ludah]

Three farms do not support the idea of anything being systematic. And you're fallaciously trying to shift the burden of proof onto somebody else. You need to provide evidence of systematic slaughter/cruelty. Again, three farms does not cut it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

1 - No I did not. I think you're in an entirely different basket.

2 - Yes, if you use logical fallacies to claim human intent in a politicized event where none is proven to exist, that's a conspiracy theory almost by definition.

3 - You can't and won't provide full context for the movie. That would require times, places, dates and a fairly substantial knowledge of the average event and the regulations imposed.
You will need this for each clip.
Then you would need to compare and contrast that information with similar results taken from other farms on a national scale.

4 - Your idea of "statistical documentation" is full-on terrible. If the three farms were simply chosen at random, you might have a very weak case, but the three you mention were specifically chosen for their brutality and scare-factor.
Again, you are totally ignoring context. The important thing is what happens at the other 99.9% of farms that weren't selected for their arguable brutality.


"as you can see i'm being reasonable and most of my claims are being backed up by fact."

Facts you've presented in your last post:
-You are angry.
-You use logical fallacies.
-Three farms abuse animals.

Logical fallacies and/or errors:
-At least ten, but likely more.

 

[jverne]

1 - No I did not. I think you're in an entirely different basket.

2 - Yes, if you use logical fallacies to claim human intent in a politicized event where none is proven to exist, that's a conspiracy theory almost by definition.

3 - You can't and won't provide full context for the movie. That would require times, places, dates and a fairly substantial knowledge of the average event and the regulations imposed.
You will need this for each clip.
Then you would need to compare and contrast that information with similar results taken from other farms on a national scale.

4 - Your idea of "statistical documentation" is full-on terrible. If the three farms were simply chosen at random, you might have a very weak case, but the three you mention were specifically chosen for their brutality and scare-factor.
Again, you are totally ignoring context. The important thing is what happens at the other 99.9% of farms that weren't selected for their arguable brutality.


"as you can see i'm being reasonable and most of my claims are being backed up by fact."

Facts you've presented in your last post:
-You are angry.
-You use logical fallacies.
-Three farms abuse animals.

Logical fallacies and/or errors:
-At least ten, but likely more.

what basket would that be?

Conspiracy theorist:

"A conspiracy theory is a theory that claims an event or series of events is the result of secret manipulations by two or more individuals or an organization, rather than the result of a single perpetrator or natural occurrence. Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of events, and proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic."

i don't think i was zeolous and illogical.

illogical:

"Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below). However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments."

so you need someone who has to decide what is logical and what not? surley it must be a third party, which you mecha are most ceartenly not.


ok, maybe i don't have the full documentation and i cannot provide exact details, maybe they could. it would be in their interest to do that. don't blame me for that. but you have even less evidence.

we sem to be constantly exchanging fallacies:

"6: Argument From Ignorance:
Claiming that lack of evidence for one scenario is instead evidence for another scenario (without additional evidence for the other scenario) invalidates the claim."

but thing is that there are 3 evidences to prove my (altough statistical somewhat weak), but you have 0 evidence to show the 99.9% uses humane methods and why they werent selected.

theres one more fact as stern previously mentioned, that the number of farms is decreasing and joining together. therfore the 3 farms might present way more than 0.1% of the population, especialy if they choose the 3 major ones. i think they even mention the reputation of the farms they visited, have to watch it again sometime.


so therefore you are more illogical this time around.

 

[KagePrototype]

/bangs head on desk

 

[Ludah]

but thing is that there are 3 evidences to prove my (altough statistical somewhat weak), but you have 0 evidence to show the 99.9% uses humane methods and why they werent selected.

You don't ****ing get it, do you.

 

[jverne]

wiki:

FUR

"The animal most commonly farmed for its fur is the mink. As of 2003, Denmark had the largest fur-farming industry, with 35% of world production. [citation needed]

After the initial success of anti-fur campaigns in the 1980s and 1990s, in recent times the popularity of fur clothing appears to be increasing again around the world. [citation needed] This growing demand has led to the development of extensive fur farming operations in countries such as China, where activist groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have raised concerns about what they allege is the inhumane treatment of animals (animals are skinned while alive, as there is no regulation against doing so) and the nature of slaughterhouse practices."

"The methods used for killing the animals vary, the most common methods (defined as humane) are clubbing, followed by shooting, asphyxiation, and electrocution, where one electrode is attached to the inside of the mouth, and the other inserted into the anus. A car battery provides sufficient current to kill a fox in 10 to 12 seconds. In some countries without animal protection legislation, a heated rod is inserted into the anus, damaging the internal organs and causing fatal hemorrhaging. [citation needed]

Other methods include poisons (particularly strychnine and plant killers), and neck breaking. On some farms, car or truck exhaust is used, and some animal-protection groups claim that animals can survive and awaken during the skinning process."



PIGS

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Ethics/uk-my-of.htm


HORSES

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3173




there is hard to find statistical evidence on this which speaks volumes why. but anyway, where evidence leaked it almost everytime proved that these farms are "dirty".

 

[kirovman]

Because leaking how good conditions in farms are would hardly be newsworthy, would it?

 

[jverne]

Because leaking how good conditions in farms are would hardly be newsworthy, would it?

or how bad.

so:

"1: Anecdotal Evidence:
Informal personal accounts taken as conclusive are not valid when they are unverified by other, valid information."

"2: Complex Question:
A question is invalid if the question presupposes the validity of unproven claims."

 

[Raziaar]

* A year-long undercover investigation by Care for the Wild International (CWI), Swiss Animal Protection and EAST International of fur farms in China's Hebei Province revealed that before they are skinned alive, animals are pulled from their cages and thrown to the ground before workers bludgeon them with metal rods or slam them on hard surfaces, causing broken bones and convulsions but not always immediate death. Other animals watch helplessly as workers make their way down the row.
* Many animals are still alive and struggling desperately when workers flip them onto their backs or hang them up by their legs or tails to skin them. Video evidence shows workers on these farms cutting the skin and fur from an animal's leg while the free limbs kick and writhe. When the fur is finally peeled off over the animals' heads, their naked, bloody bodies are thrown onto a pile. Some of the animals are still alive, hearts beating for as long as 10 minutes after they are skinned. One investigator recorded a skinned raccoon dog on the heap of carcasses who had enough strength to lift his bloodied head and stare into the camera.
* On these farms, foxes, minks, rabbits, and other animals pace and shiver in outdoor wire cages, exposed to driving rain, freezing nights, and, at other times, scorching sun. Disease and injuries are widespread, and animals suffering from anxiety-induced psychosis chew on their own limbs and throw themselves repeatedly against the cage bars.
* There are no regulations governing fur farms in China—farmers can house and slaughter animals however they see fit.
* A growing number of international fur traders, processors, and fashion designers have gradually shifted their business to China, where the absence of restrictive regulations makes life easier and profit margins broader.
* Fur from China ends up in virtually every mall in America, on jackets and other garments with fur collars, trim, and lining. A survey of U.S. retail outlets reveals that many mass-market fur-trimmed garments carry the "Made in China" label. However, since raw fur pelts often move through international auctions before being sewn in other countries, the final product may also read, "Made in Italy," or, "Made in France" making it impossible for consumers to know where the fur originates.

Hmm... it'd be nice if we could get one of our members from china on these forums to go visit one of these 'chinese fur farms'.

 

[Ludah]

Jverne, you are the last person to be throwing around accusations of logical fallacies. I don't think you even understand the two you just made.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, you are the last person to be throwing around accusations of logical fallacies. I don't think you even understand the two you just made.

yes i do.

he implied that good news are not newsworthy

it was his opinion that cannot be verified or valid.

the second is just an addition to the first.


EDIT (18.6, 23:20):



one of the biggest kosher farms in US

http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=popper20060315958


again horses

http://www.texasmonthly.com/textalk/article?sid=3524



instructions to slaughter animals:

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E/x6909e09.htm


and some more slaughtering:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1082144747837_77553947


edit#2:

after reading some of this i began to wonder what the **** do we eat. fecal matter is cleaned up by presurized water that pushes the bacteria more deeply in the flesh instead of cleaned properly with other methods (manual,...). hmm...as if it wasn't enough that the animals are killed inhumanely, we also eat shit litteraly.