Redstate

Did you read Will's column?

I guess the key question, as posed in the column, is "Why is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference?"

And cows are dinner. If we were Korean we would have a different view of puppies. The same goes for other cultures and other species.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Not all animals are created equal. Replace the word livestock with any kind of bug and you'll see how ridiculous the argument is. We value some animals more than others. It doesn't really matter why. Is it now un-PC to see a goldfish as less worthy of life than a horse?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

There is room on this earth for all of Gods creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.

I realize this is a values issue and people will hold different opinions, but I do think that people should reasonably consistent in the application of their own values. If someone says that there should be no laws (or other public pressure) against animal cruelty to puppies -- e.g., if a guy wants to put his puppy in a microwave that's his right -- or if every day American businesses are putting many thousands of puppies in microwaves and someone regards that as "priority #785", then, while my values are quite different, at least that person is not being inconsistent. However, if he would favor laws to prevent such cruelty to puppies and would consider it a higher priority than #785, then he is, at best, not apply his values consistently unless he has a good answer to the question posed in the column: "Why is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference?"

Everyone, please stop feeding the troll until he learns some manners.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The above comment was meant to be addressed to COWBOY (I forgot to use Reply function)

I don't give a damn about your puppies and livestock comparisons. The most honest, hardworking, patriotic people I know work the land, raise their families, pay taxes and build and support the communities they live in. I don't need a bleeding heart liberal PETA promoter lecturing me about the evils and immorality of raising livestock. I know nothing about you but will bet you wouldn't know BS if you stepped in it. The feeding and care that goes into a successful operation is something you probably don't understand. You must take good care of them. So BrooksRob, before you start in on me you make sure that the goods you are buying are not produced in sweat shops or with child labor and are all environmental friendly. Make sure that all the goods on shelves don't have a negative impact on humans. After you have accomplished that come talk to me about livestock and I'll educate you.

As I said, I wasn't expecting a serious comment. Oh well, I tried.

Thank you. And please do so with extreme prejudice when you do. I almost get the feeling from looking at a few recent sign-ups that this was a concerted, group effort. The post about Darfur was timed to coincide with The New Republic's latest issue on -- you guessed it! just that subject, and I have the feeling we're seeing a group effort when I look at a few of the other "new faces" from the past 10 days.

I am unaware of any New Republic article or column on this topic, and I am not part of any "group effort" in any way, shape or form. I know nothing about any other "recent sign-ups". I realize you may not believe me, but the best I can do is state that clearly.

All the posts he makes are in pretty much the same vein as his diaries.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Aren't the lives of a few American soldiers a small price to pay to save millions of innocent pigs?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Well said. Thank you.

so stop acting like we are. Just because I don't buy into the left wing propaganda of PETA doesn't mean that we're all cruel to animals. Actually, I'll stick my record up against PETA's any day of the week. I have two cats that I love and care for, they're well fed (too well fed, lard-butts). I have never killed thousands of cats and dumped them in a shopping mall parking lot dumpster, but PETA has.

We're not "dismissing the idea," we're already kind to animals and don't need to be lectured about it.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

PETA. Neither was George Will's article defending PETA. If you believe in being kind to animals and believe that we(specifically you) don't have a problem with it than I respect your position. But some on this thread seem to be arguing that there is no moral obligation to be kind to animals. They make it sound like if we slowly skin cows alive and they wouldn't care. For example one poster said that God gave us responsibility to conserve not to care. This as I tried to point is not the position of the bible.
I come from cattle country. In Nebraska the cows outnumber the people 10 to 1, and I come from central Nebraska where this ratio is probably much higher. I know ranchers that care about their cows, and I believe that they would argue against this nonsense about God not giving us a responsibility to care. I also totally understand animosity towards PETA, and PETA trying to make regualations that would make ranching impossible. I believe ranching may actually be the humane thing for the animals. I am not arguing for changing policy, just that we should remain open to the idea if it is shown that our policies are not humane.

It sends you to a web site run by a vegitarian organisation. They have a slight bias against raising animals to begin with. The quote from the article that I reposted above describes farming practices that just plain don't exist.

The whole article was written based on lies that George Will was fed. There's no other way to put it. Visit a few farms. Find out how animals are actually raised before you start suggesting that we conservatives are cold hearted SOB's.

Yes, we WILL make jokes that sound cruel when PETA types start telling us to quit eating meat because of the cruelty in the way the animals are raised. It because they are just plain so far wrong, there's no way to take them even a LITTLE seriously.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

No one is representing PETA or its extreme views here, and no one is defending their extreme tactics, so let's dispense with that straw man.

And just because we are not cruel (and are in fact, quite kind and protective) of our domestic animals does not mean we should dismiss the possibility that thousands of other animals are suffering cruel treatment every day and that it's worth discussing if this situation fits with our values. If there were factories across the nation doing the same things to cats as are being done to pigs and other animals (and I don't mean slaughtering, I mean the kind of treatment described in Will's column and elsewhere), would you be equally dismissive? That's all I'm asking. My point is the same as George Will's: I think that, unless there's some compelling reason not to, we should apply a single standard (yes, adjusted for the ability of different animals to suffer, to the extent that we can assess it via brain structure and activity or other means). If there is a compelling reason not to do so, I'd like to hear it.

And no one is "lecturing" anyone. I saw a column by a conservative columnist whom I respect, and with whom I agree on this issue, and I have posed a simple question -- the puppies vs. livestock question from the column -- to ask how those who disagree with me reconcile their position with the values that lead them to believe in legal protection for puppies (or cats). If anything in my tone came across as "lecturing", my apologies. That was certainly not my intention.

Perhaps you should look at the article you linked us to.
The source of the cruel treatment of our food information is a web site run by a vegitarian organization. I didn't follow the link beyond that but I would NOT be surprised if these a link to PETA behind them.

As I said, the examples of cruelty they produced are just laughable. Those are farming practices that don't exist.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

OK, now we're having a real discussion. If -- IF -- the claims of cruelty are/were unsubstantiated, then there is no current problem. We can discuss whether these claims are completely true, totally untrue, or somewhere in between. That's very different from saying that is just doesn't matter even if cruelty IS taking place. Of course, if you ARE saying the latter as well, there's no point in fact-checking on the validity of the claims because it would be moot to you even if they are true. So if I may ask, IF, just for the sake of argument, these claims were largely true, would you consider it worthwhile to discuss the possibility that we should pass laws to prevent such cruelty?

Farmers are in business to make money. They don't make money by using farming practices that produce unhealthy animals or kill large numbers of them.

There is no need to pass laws to protect against something that isn't happening (other than to add more cost to the business of farming to prove compliance with useless laws).

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Before I spend time fact-checking and providing info, I'd like to know if there's no point to it. If I may request again, I'd be interested in your answer to my question. I think the question is clear and straight-forward, but if any clarification is required, please let me know.

checking before posting this. If you're not a shill for PETA on this matter, then you've been pwned by them.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Could you please take just a few seconds and answer my question? This is my third request.

People are starving in the third world. Opening farm raised animals in pens and using things like growth hormones makes food animals grow more quickly and can increase their food value.

So, in order to forestall a humanitarian crisis in third world countries by feeding millions of people who might otherwise starve, would you support "corporate farming" even if some people thought the methods were cruel to animals?
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I would see a thousand monkeys skinned alive to save one African child but if it can be done and at the same time be humane to animals, that would be ideal.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

were no dog pounds or animal shelters the dogs we owned were working dogs that lived outside and were not family members. While they were companions in the field if they became roamers, or started to chase livestock they were put down. An unwanted litter was put to sleep. This should be no problem for you partial birth abortionists. Now that there is no reason for you and I to discuss the puppies vs. livestock issue let me explain why we come off as radical and will give no ground. You people don't stop at a reasonable boundary. You will take your first court victory and trot it before some furry faced liberal judge, claim it as a precedent and start to run the entire livestock industry through the courts. Its the same with gun control. I may agree to ban RPG's and then you turn it into any shoulder fired weapon and come after my hunting rifle. You don't want compromise you want control and that makes you the enemy.

Who in the world is "you people"? And why do you assume that anyone who thinks the issue of possible cruelty to livestock is worth discussing is in favor of partial-birth abortion? And why do you presume an extremist agenda on my part, particularly when I've explicitly disassociated myself with extremists (PETA)? Can't we just discuss the issue respectfully instead of branding (pardon the pun) someone "the enemy"? It sounds like you have more relevant experience on matters that relate to this issue than most do, including me, so I hope you're willing to point out where you think assumptions are incorrect (e.g., that the supposed cruetly is not really occurring because...) or some other flaw in my thinking on this issue. I'd like to learn from you on this issue if you give me a chance.

You provided a link to an article that is making an assertion of cruelty. The source of that assertion is a vegetarian site that has a strong bias against animal husbandry.

Their description of the farming practices are just laughable. NO farmer raises livestock that way. Their description of pigs as "foraging animals denied straw" is ridiculous on the surface since pigs are not ruminant animals (not to mention that straw is not used as a food source for ruminants because of it's low nutritional value).

Get real. If you want to create controversy, at least pick something that has a little truth to it.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

See my comment below (I forgot to use Reply function)

The problem is who makes up the rules. Is a hot brand allowed? Cold branding is just starting to be used but not widely on cattle yet. A brand is required BTW on public grazing permits. What about castration, earmarks and de-horning. The calves are back to their normal spunky selves in a day or two but the branding corral would freak out a lot of folks. Big city politicians passing laws on this scares the hell out of me. I don't tell my neighbors how to run their cattle and I don't want you to tell me how to run mine.

Fair enough. I'm glad we agree (I think) at least on the principle that there can be such a thing as cruelty to livestock and that such cruelty would be objectionable. And I would infer that you don't object to the idea of ANY laws designed to protect against practices that you think any reasonable, well-informed person would consider cruel (correct?), but that, as a practical matter, you believe that the making of such laws would likely end up in the wrong hands and it would go too far either initially or eventually (a slippery slope). Do I understand your view correctly?

Leaving a horse tied without food or water for a couple of days requires someone to take action and we do. Normal ranching practises are not cruel IMO but would be to some. So no I don't concede that we are being cruel. I do object to any laws for the reasons stated above.

With respect, I want to make sure my question is clear. Are you objecting to ANY laws aimed at preventing cruelty to livestock? I realize your position is that ranchers are generally responsible and are not cruel to the livestock, that they have no incentive to do so, and also that there's a good chance that laws, in practice, could end up unreasonable, but does that mean there should be no laws whatsoever? Is there no practice that would be so cruel in the eyes of any reasonable, well-informed person that you would want to see it banned? Again, I'm not asserting in this comment that such a practice is taking place (that's another aspect of this discussion), I'm just posing what for you would be a hypothetical to see where you stand on principle. If it helps, assume you're the President and Congress is filled with ranchers. (just trying to get past practical objections to focus on the principle first)

If I had a nickel for everyone of your "ifs" and "hypotheticals" I could afford a real leather couch and a steak dinner at Ruth's Chris.

We have many topics that aren't full of if's and hypotheticals to discuss. Do your fact finding search first. Then come back and present your findings and opinion.

Your incessant question in a vacuum is getting irritating. Know your audience. You'll quickly wear out your welcome by beating a dead horse.

If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents

Shouldn't there be a law against it (assume people actually do such things)? 8*)

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Pretty good pun. I'm just trying various ways to sort out the issue, because there's more than one way to skin a cat.

already. We might try pruning what laws we have back rather than looking for sob stories to base bad new ones on.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

My comment above was intended for BrianH (I forgot to use Reply)

prevent this sort of farming practice. The answer is no. These practices don't exist so there is no need for additional laws to prevent them.

If you are asking if there is a need for additional animal cruelty laws, then again no. There are already existing laws in most (all?) states that cover animal cruelty.

Now, I've answered your question. Please go do some research and post an apology for falling for this crap from the left.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I think you must know that you obviously have NOT answered my question, and I have to presume at this point that there is at least a chance that it is deliberate. I'll try a fourth time by pasting the question below:

If -- IF -- the claims of cruelty are/were unsubstantiated, then there is no current problem. We can discuss whether these claims are completely true, totally untrue, or somewhere in between. That's very different from saying that is just doesn't matter even if cruelty IS taking place. Of course, if you ARE saying the latter as well, there's no point in fact-checking on the validity of the claims because it would be moot to you even if they are true. So if I may ask, IF, just for the sake of argument, these claims were largely true, would you consider it worthwhile to discuss the possibility that we should pass laws to prevent such cruelty?

There is no need for laws to protect against actions that DO NOT OCCUR. The only reason to pass laws against actions that DO NOT OCCUR is to add a regulations to the practices and give the government more control.

And I DID answer your question. If such practices were occurring, there are EXISTING LAWS to protect against animal cruelty in every state that I've lived in and I assume in every state.

Now, if you'd like to discuss this further, please do the research you should have done before posting such garbage. Then come back and post your "mea cupla".

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

OK, so you don't object in principle to laws aimed at preventing cruelty to livestock, correct? I know you said that such laws exist; I just want to be sure you're saying that you think those laws SHOULD exist, so please confirm.

If that IS what you're saying, then it's time for me to fact check and try to find sources that neither of us would consider biased or at least that you wouldn't (Any suggestions?). I don't know exactly how soon I'll find good info, but I'll try to find time to research over the next couple of days.

But please confirm re: question above.

are needed. Cowboy's example of the horse left tied without food and water is a (thankfully rare) example of when they are needed.

But he also made a point that you will need to address too. There are practices that may appear cruel to you or to others who don't know anything about farming that are not cruel and have valid reasons for the practices. Can you tell the difference? Do you know enough about farming or livestock to know if what you find in your research is true, half true or just recycled PETA garbage?

I gave a few examples of why I thought the claims quoted in Will's article were false just on the surface. It was obvious to me that the person who wrote such things had no clue about pigs or how they're raised. If you can't spot outright lies, will you be able to pick out the more subtle stuff?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

OK, so we agree that in principle some such laws are appropriate. Now, as you say, I have to do some research. And yes, COWBOY's point regarding the possibility of poorly-informed legislators (or pressure groups) seems like a valid concern. So next step is for me to fact check. If you have any recommended sources, please let me know. And if (big IF) we can agree on particular key facts, then we can (if you guys wish) discuss trade-offs (cost/benefit, etc.) in principle, and practical considerations (e.g., in practice, would Congress or States do more harm than good).

As a note, if I turn out to be mostly wrong on the facts, I won't hesitate to admit it. I'm not here to "win" arguments, and I do my best to put my ego aside.

The Ag department of Texas A&M or any other school with a decent agricultural program. I'm not overly trusting of most liberal arts professors, but the ag departments usaually have sensible people.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Thanks. I'll start there. It may take a couple of days to get back with my findings (I've been spending way too much time on RedState since I discovered it a couple of weeks ago -- anyone else feel a slight addiction?). One question I should ask, though, is if you consider the alleged practices on that web site that George Will refered to to be cruel enough to warrant a ban? If you can tell me which practices fit that standard, I can contact Ag departments to ask if the claims are true. Can you do that for me?

made the stuff up. It's fiction. Might I suggest you instead look over standard animal husbandry practices and come back and tell us what you think is cruel. We'll then try to explain the reasons for such practices if we know them and tell you why they are not cruel (I may not have specific expertise in say chicken farming, but someone here probably does).

Cowboy gave castration as an example. Some would say it's cruel, though often the same people who would balk at castrating a calf would frown if you didn't nueter your dog.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

positive to protect animals. Let's stop castrating cattle and sheep and pigs and start neutering them.

I feel better now.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Is pretty humane. I have helped out on branding day before. I was the guy making the “calves” go down the chute. The castration was pretty tame. Couple of rubber bands and in a couple of weeks the little guys just fall off. However taking care of horns and hot branding is a little traumatic for the cows but in the end it’s not that big of a deal. The problem is that some of the industrial sized meat producers use practices that create problems on top of problems.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

Well, what I think is cruel is not going to mean much to you and I'll end up wasting time checking on some practice, finding out it is indeed occurring, and having you tell me you don't consider it cruel. We have a situation here in which (1) I think we've agreed that it's possible for SOME practices to be so cruel as to warrant being banned, and (2) you contend that the kind of practices referred to in George Will's column and on the web site mentioned www.factoryfarming.com are NOT occurring. I'm willing to put in some time to do some fact-checking, but I need to know what specifically to check. So it seems more sensible, if you wouldn't mind doing so, for you to specify at least a few practices that are claimed by that web site that you (a) consider so cruel that you believe they warrant a ban and (b) consider to be fraudulent claims. Then I can fact-check those claims. Otherwise I'll be chasing my tail, so to speak. Fair enough?

I will address the chicken claims since I have been studying it recently. They talk about cutting off the beaks of the birds “with out atheistic. This may seem cruel but it isn’t any worse than a circumcision and I would bet much less painful then dehorning a calf.

Why do they do it? The main reason is so that they don’t peck each other to death. In high stress flocks such as in these warehouses where there is not enough space and nothing for the bird to do they will amuse themselves by pecking at each others feet. Once one is bleeding they go into a pecking frenzy and soon you have a dead bird…. It’s not pretty. Another problem associated with the close quarters in industrial bird farming is as you can imagine disease can become an epidemic quickly. They all end up breathing each others feces (no avoiding it even in “organic” farming but much much worse industrially) which spreads diseases like wild fire. Therefore all birds are medicated like crazy to keep disease from killing the flock. On the whole this is not too inhumane but personally I don’t want to eat chickens raised like this. Unfortunately for most other options are not readily available and don’t get me started on how inhumane spinach is treated.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

Thanks. That's informative. Are there any alleged practices claimed by that web site that -- IF true -- you think should be banned?

just what I said you would waaaaaaay up thread. You are going to scratch, poke, prod, chew and pound away untill you get someone to say that X is unacceptable. Then you will go after Y and Z by the time they get X out there mouth. Then its back to A B C and on and on and on. You do gooders will then not stop untill you have a giant set of regs on livestock that will make you feel good. Just quit eating meat. If you really want to feel good get a ban on killing the unborn.

What I'm doing is called exploring and discussing an issue. You should try it sometime.

You have been trying all day to get someone to answer a "what if" question. Here's a couple of straight questions.
Are you a vegetarian?
Do you use any animal products? Shoes belt wallet?

If so, are you contributing to animal cruelty?

I'm giving up my hope of having a real discussion with you, but just to answer your questions (which should be no prerequisite for you to answer my questions, which you are afraid to answer for some reason) in order: No, Yes, Yes, Possibly.

Call me whatever names you want now, but I don't see any point in continuing this dialogue with you if you aren't really interested in a serious discussion.

No I will not support any law that tells a man what to do with his own property. If his practices become bad enough his neighbors will shun him and he will end up out of business. I have dropped off feed to a neighbor as a hint that their rations were lacking. They were not stockmen and just didn't know any better. These people are usually tired of their venture and will sell the animals if you make an offer. This just doesn't happen with real stockmen who take excellent care of their animals. Its a business. As for the mega feeders, weight gain is their money and traumatized animals don't gain weight. So if they push it too far they will also fail. I'm not saying bad things don't happen sometimes but I don't trust our elected stiffs to decide. It usually works itself out. I don't like to interfere. I hate abortion but I wont start bombing clinics.

Thanks. I respect that argument. Please see my comment below and let me know if you agree with statements 1, 2, and 4 (I think 4 is your view, but let me know).

YES, there are practices going on here that violate PETA. I am calling PETA on you for beating a dead horse.

If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents

it doesn't take a "high-stress" environment for chickens to peck each other to death. Let three hang out in your living room for a week, one will likely end up dead.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

That is true there are a lot of factors that can influence pecking. Like I said above any sign of blood is almost death warrant. I also mention boredom. If they don’t have to forage for food at all they will start using their beaks for something else. Steps can be taken to prevent this from happening. My objection really isn’t the cutting off the beak (that is just laziness / efficiency on part of the industry). I object to the over crowding in general and the techniques used to counter the disease problem it incurs.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

I have stated that the claims made in the article are false and why. Frankly the web site has absolutely NO credibility and I don't plan to come up with hypotheticals that I might object to. I don't see the point in banning fantasies.

Go take a look at current farming practices and tell us what YOU think is cruel. Find stuff that is really happening and we
can talk.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I don't know how to be much clearer, but I'll try. I'm asking you which of the practices CLAIMED on that web site, IF TRUE, you would consider cruel enought to warrant being banned. That's the whole idea of me checking on whether or not the claims are true, right?? Come on, let's be serious. I'm really shaking my head here wondering if you really didn't understand my previous comment (or didn't really read it) or if you are just trying to be difficult. I thought we were finally getting somewhere, and that our disagreement came down to whether or not claims of particular practices by that web site, which, IF true, would constitute sufficient cruelty to be banned, were true or fabricated claims, and that it would be up to me to check on it. Why did you backtrack? Do you understand what I'm saying now and why it makes sense as a next step?

based on false claims. Why don't YOU find a practice that you consider cruel enough to be banned and research it. Find out if the claims made on the web are true.

Then come report to us.

If you find that some cruel practice is in fact true, tell us about it and I'll be glad to discuss it. Frankly I'm not too interested in debating whether fictional practices should be banned.

Yes I understand what you are saying. Do you understand what I'M saying? You are pushing for SOMETHING that aught to be banned. I'm telling you that no current farming practice falls into the category of cruel.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

This is silly. You can't possibly think that your approach is more sensible. Your suggesting that I research a number of alleged practices, and if I find that they are indeed occurring, to THEN try to convince you that they are occurring, and only THEN probably find out that you don't consider that practice to be cruel anyway (or at least not cruel enough to deserve banning). All I'm asking you to do, by contrast, is to take a quick look at some of the practices CLAIMED by that web site and tell me which ones YOU think should be banned IF they are actually taking place (even if you don't believe that they are taking place).

The only way your approach is a fair suggestion is if you place infinite value on your time and zero on mine. I'm willing to put in some time to do fact-checking, but your suggestion is clearly unreasonable. If somehow you don't see that and you insist upon that approach, no thanks.

I don't see the need for any legislation beyond the existing animal cruelty laws. I don't believe that there are any normal farming practices that are cruel.

I can make up things that I think would be unacceptable, but THAT would be silly. If you insist, I think that breaking the legs of cattle and rolling them twice a day in order to make them tender is sufficiently cruel to warrant legislation, if you can find farmers using such a method.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Is that something that is claimed on that web site? If not, and if you are really trying to get somewhere here, can you just click the link, find a few practices that you would think should be banned IF THEY WERE really occurring, and let me know what they are? That's all I'm requesting.

I had no doubt you could just imagine something (e.g., breaking cows legs), but it serves no purpose to throw that out, and I think you know that's not what I was suggesting.

missing the point. The point is that if you are sure that the practices which it has been claimed are happenning are not happening than it makes no more sense to discuss on the basis of those claims than what it makes to argue on the basis of your imagination.

See comment down thread, it is getting too congested up here.

Heh! no thanks

/Longhorn fan

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

ha ha it has been awhile since I heard a good Aggie joke. My brother is an Alumnus.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

it did ten million dollars of improvements.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

He fell out of the tree.

yuk.yuk.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(According to Plato)

They are forcing the pigs to listen to rap music while wearing a pair of women's panties on their heads.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

do the ranchers/farmers wear the women's panties on their heads, or the pigs?

Gitmo guests.

for HinzSight!

You should trek to Iowa, under the guise of a "political report" and get the lowdown on this scandal. Pictures of midwesterners holding their pitchforks, standing in front of a barn, with panties on their heads. Or their pigs, what the heck. It's a good story either way!
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

because it improves the product and because we can.

right?

roll them once twice a day?

you need to have a masseuse come in and give the critter a massage every night.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

-

To think of a single food item that isn't improved by bacon.

Thus ends my list.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Belgian waffles w/ deep pockets, chopped pecans, butter pecan ice cream, warmed syrup and BACON!!!!

Let the moaning begin!
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Just note that I refuse to address the silly George Will article you referenced because there isn't a sensible theory of rights under which animals have some with respect to humans. Get back to me when you've surmounted this difficulty.

Also, I would note that Denis Leary had this observation about the discrepancy in the treatment of animals a long time ago, except that his was pithier, funnier, and more profane.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I was never as enamored of his "method" as are you, in fact it usually is just an exercise in dueling hypothetical and neither solves anything or convinces anyone.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I’ve read Socrates and he is as annoying as this guy ;)
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

Sometimes it can be annoying when someone challenges you to examine whether or not there is inconsistency among your beliefs or in your application of your beliefs to an issue. There's certainly much less risk of being annoyed if you just assume your position and rationale are perfectly logical and leave it at that. And if that's someone's preference, he/she should avoid any discussion that raises uncomfortable questions.

Leftists are REAL good at raising all sorts of challenging questions, but I have never, ever been enlightened by one.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

LOL. At this point I have to laugh at the presumptuous -- and false -- labeling. I think there's a very strong correlation between those who resort to labeling and those who lack confidence in their ability to defend their position (and whose only goal is defense of their position)

I was speaking about leftists of which I do not assume you are.

AND you really need to stop being so defensive and develop a thinner skin,

and also just for the record, I think labels are useful.

You see, I just disagree with you, I am not your moral or intellectual inferior, I just believe your nostrums and logic are all wet, Whats a matter, don't like having your beliefs challenged?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

And I would add, I reject the notion that concern for animals is inconsistent with conservative values. If I've gotten my facts wrong, or if my facts are not wrong but seeking a solution (e.g., via legislation) would, in practice, do more harm than good (as COWBOY contends -- and I respect that argument), that's a different matter than the question of principle, which should be the starting point.

...considering there exist zero of Socrates' "writings"?

here...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Some people even believe he was illiterate. I obviously meant Plato’s account of Socrates discussions. Good call.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

A question for you. Do you think that some reasonable practices used by farmers might be construed to look bad (evil) by those who have an agenda against them? If it was proven that they falsely claim cruelty where there was none then they lose credibility in all their arguments? Would a vegetarian have a good grasp of what is cruel compared to a farmer who lives with his stock?

Ok more than one question.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

Yes; Yes (or at least mostly); Generally no, other things equal.

Yes to 1, No to 2, which pretty much answers all the rest. You've not yet advanced any theory of rights under which animals have some, with respect to humans. I'm dying to hear you try. Until then, your hopeless floundering is just serving as a mild irritant to this entire site.

I, for one, can't fathom why this discussion is still going on at all.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

1. There are existing laws that cover animal cruelty (either livestock or pets).
2. Practices that appear cruel to someone who has no knowledge of the reasons for such practices, may not be cruel. (It looks VERY cruel to cut a dog's nails when they howl and the nail bleeds, but it's not cruelty, it's proper veternary care.)
3. Factoryfarming.com has an agenda. They put out false information. Their spin on everything is suspect.
4. Making laws against hypotheticals is borderline insanity.
5. I don't care if you think you have a moral high ground on the subject. If you don't have knowledge of the subject (IE raising animals for food), then all your moral objections are meaningless.

Learn about how animals are REALLY RAISED, then come talk about animal cruelty. I don't mind defending actual farming practices, but I refuse to defend fictional accounts.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I told you I'm willing to fact-check, but I need to know what to check for the purposes of this discussion. That's why I've asked you (repeatedly) to please visit that web site www.factoryfarming.com, tell me which ALLEGED practices on that site, IF THEY WERE TRUE, you think should be banned (or against which there should be other public pressure), and then I can try to find out if they are true or not. That's all I asked of you the other day. Otherwise, as I explained, it will take me a lot of time to find out things that you won't consider relevant anyway.

Also, if you're still interested in discussing this issue, can you give some quick answers to the questions I presented above (plus any you think I'm missing) so I'm clear on your entire view.

To address your statements, by number:
1) I agree.
2) I agree.
3) Perhaps. That's exactly what I want to fact-check.
4) I disagree (I think some laws are and should be made that ban practices that are not currently occurring -- e.g., banning human cloning) but that's not the point here anyway. I'm just asking you to point out to me which practices they allege, IF TRUE, should be banned so I can go fact-check.
5) I disagree that I have to have experience raising animals for food before I can be concerned about potential cruelty and have an opinion. My inexperience does mean, though, that I have to listen to those who do have experience when they dispute my assumptions, and that's what I've been doing. You say that the ALLEGED practices are either not taking place or are not really cruel. I'm willing to look into whether or not those alleged practices are taking place and whether or not they are cruel.

Fair enough?

Please respond to my comment above re: request for you to identify particular practices and request for you to answer my 8 questions above.

3. I pointed out above that their propaganda that was imbeded in the George Will piece was false. How much more fiction do you need?

4. You're against identical twins and think they should be banned? /snark off/ I'm not going to speculate on fictional things that should be banned. I'll say again, there are no currently accepted farming practices that should be banned. If you disagree tell us which ones should be banned.

5. I didn't say you needed experience raising animals. I said you needed KNOWLEDGE before you take a stand. I understand that being a city dweller, you have no oportunity to gain experience, but you DO have the oportunity to gain KNOWLEDGE. Quite a different proposition and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to KNOW something about a subject you want to regulate. That appears to be the problem with the vegitarians too.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm giving up on trying to have a real discussion/debate with you. Either you don't understand my simple questions, don't understand why those questions and the approach I'm suggesting is sensible, or your just pretending not to understand because you're concerned about being able to defend your position if we proceed (which would be unfortunate, because defending your position shouldn't be your only goal, and shouldn't be more important than legitimately discussing and issue and considering other points of view). Either way, I can't justify spending time continuing back and forth with you unless/until you are willing to proceed in a sensible way. If you've made a good-faith effort to understand and simply can't, I guess I can't hold that against you and I wish you well.

If you want to discuss animal cruelty, make a statement and I'll debate you (or just maybe agree with you). But what you are asking of me is to debate myself. I won't do that for you.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I can't help responding. I'll try again. Here's a recap of our dialogue:

1. I presented a web site that shows many alleged practices that I thought should be banned (or other pressure brought against).

2. You said any such alleged practices either (a) aren't really occurring or (b) aren't really cruel.

3. I ask you if you would think any of the alleged practices should be banned if they were occurring. You then refused to answer, just insisting that they weren't occurring, and I asked repeatedly and you repeatedly refused to answer.

4. I tell you I'm willing to fact-check to try to find out if particular practices are indeed occurring or not, but that I need to know which practices to check on, and it only makes sense, for the purposes of our discussion, for you to simply visit that web site and tell me which (let's say a few) alleged practices you would favor banning if they were occurring (even though you think they aren't occurring), so I can then spend time fact-checking on those practices. Otherwise, if I pick some of those alleged practices, I could spend a lot of time checking, and if I find out that they are indeed occurring and present the evidence to you, only then find out that you don't think those practices should be banned anyway. Do you get it?? Unless you're saying that you don't think that ANY of the alleged practices on that web site, IF true, should be banned, we have a disagreement over FACTS here. What makes more sense -- stop and think now -- for you to tell me upfront a few of those alleged practices that, if true, YOU think should be banned, and for me to try to find out if those practices are occurring or not, or for me to run around spending a lot of time checking on whatever alleged practices I pick which you may consider irrelevant because even if they are true, you don't think they should be banned. Again, don't you get it?? Before replying, stop a second. Read what I've just written. Read it again. Think. Then reply. If, that is, you're really serious about discussing this issue. As I said, the only way your suggested approach is sensible vs. my suggested approach is if you place infinite value on your time and zero on mine.