knabe
Well-known member
dl, you are right, the animal right's people don't care, that's why their stated goal is to eliminate animals from man. It is their stated goal, no comprimise. i went and saw a foi gras producer who does not use an auger or a funnel, but raises a breed, muscovy duck that gorge themselves naturally. i buy it from them and i like it. here's a link to the british version.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/18/wfoie18.xml
the same could be said for veal, feedlots, any confinement situation, including housing developments.
i agree that temple grandin has done more for animal rights than anyone. she also is not an absolutist, or a zero tolerance person. the concerns become what is a noncontestable confinement square footage. animal welfare was one consideration when i purchased cattle in the first place. i took data for 3 years in a slaughterhouse and wanted a more stressfree situation at the end. to me, i'm kind of a doomsdayer about our population, as the more we become, the more we need perfect food growing systems with less margin for error. in 1950, there was 150,000,000 in the US. think about that. what's going to happen in 50 years, with no new dams, more expensive everything because it is "immoral" to have a static population. we won't because our economy is tied to growth and a ponzi scheme rather than profit. the only way society has shown over the millenia to reduce stress on resources is war. i'm not advocating war, i'm advocating static population as a valued moral imperative. even a reduction. the problem is the societies that don't adhere to this policy have already placed a greater stress on their countries and are coming here or whereever to places that have resources and infrastructures with more of a cushion than theirs with the same mentality. demographics usually triumphs, not always, but usually. so to me, the discussion is what is man doing here and where is he/she going?
i think actually that we have made DRAMATIC progress with animals and get zero credit, particularly when the goal is eliminating animals. if simply thinking something is cruel, what percentage of the population is required to limit that action? there is a religious sect in india i have mentioned before that have masks over their face to not inhale bacteria, and they wave brooms in front of them when they walk to not kill insects. they think having animals is cruel. this is the moral relativsm dilemna. using this logic, one can only move to no confinement, then no harvesting etc, unless one draws a line. people protested petting zoos at the state fair i went to and called it cruel. man is confined to the planet. this could be described as cruel.
in society today, we are ignoring cruelty to other human beings that are "normal" in their culture and claim who are we to limit their freedom. we need to understand them. this whole argument is about slippery slope. the framers of the constitution understood this conundrum better than any group of people in history when they argued that it is better for one guilty person to go free, than to send an innocent person to jail or something like that. if the criteria is perfection, i'm afraid we are in trouble. horse tripping is popular in my area, and it's getting more popular, as is cock fighting. we are importing that culture in massive numbers and are shocked they are upset with us that "we" whoever that is, don't like it. associations of like minded people is what solves these problems and defines a culture. Red has said that i invoke a lot of circular logic. to me, it is always about circular logic and where the arbitrary lines are. this is one reason i posted the pics of the slaughter of one of my steers. it's reality and some people think it's cruel. i "feel" i have canines and molars for a reason, i like plants and animals, and i'm an animal myself in harmony with animals, and just like other predators, am motivated to eat.
i guess at this point i have totally dodged the question. to answer it is succintly as possible, lead by example, as others have like ray hunt, temple grandin etc have. legislatively, i have no clue, it only took one mention of choice in a rhetorical manner to get a negative reaction.
I'm sorry this is so long.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/18/wfoie18.xml
the same could be said for veal, feedlots, any confinement situation, including housing developments.
i agree that temple grandin has done more for animal rights than anyone. she also is not an absolutist, or a zero tolerance person. the concerns become what is a noncontestable confinement square footage. animal welfare was one consideration when i purchased cattle in the first place. i took data for 3 years in a slaughterhouse and wanted a more stressfree situation at the end. to me, i'm kind of a doomsdayer about our population, as the more we become, the more we need perfect food growing systems with less margin for error. in 1950, there was 150,000,000 in the US. think about that. what's going to happen in 50 years, with no new dams, more expensive everything because it is "immoral" to have a static population. we won't because our economy is tied to growth and a ponzi scheme rather than profit. the only way society has shown over the millenia to reduce stress on resources is war. i'm not advocating war, i'm advocating static population as a valued moral imperative. even a reduction. the problem is the societies that don't adhere to this policy have already placed a greater stress on their countries and are coming here or whereever to places that have resources and infrastructures with more of a cushion than theirs with the same mentality. demographics usually triumphs, not always, but usually. so to me, the discussion is what is man doing here and where is he/she going?
i think actually that we have made DRAMATIC progress with animals and get zero credit, particularly when the goal is eliminating animals. if simply thinking something is cruel, what percentage of the population is required to limit that action? there is a religious sect in india i have mentioned before that have masks over their face to not inhale bacteria, and they wave brooms in front of them when they walk to not kill insects. they think having animals is cruel. this is the moral relativsm dilemna. using this logic, one can only move to no confinement, then no harvesting etc, unless one draws a line. people protested petting zoos at the state fair i went to and called it cruel. man is confined to the planet. this could be described as cruel.
in society today, we are ignoring cruelty to other human beings that are "normal" in their culture and claim who are we to limit their freedom. we need to understand them. this whole argument is about slippery slope. the framers of the constitution understood this conundrum better than any group of people in history when they argued that it is better for one guilty person to go free, than to send an innocent person to jail or something like that. if the criteria is perfection, i'm afraid we are in trouble. horse tripping is popular in my area, and it's getting more popular, as is cock fighting. we are importing that culture in massive numbers and are shocked they are upset with us that "we" whoever that is, don't like it. associations of like minded people is what solves these problems and defines a culture. Red has said that i invoke a lot of circular logic. to me, it is always about circular logic and where the arbitrary lines are. this is one reason i posted the pics of the slaughter of one of my steers. it's reality and some people think it's cruel. i "feel" i have canines and molars for a reason, i like plants and animals, and i'm an animal myself in harmony with animals, and just like other predators, am motivated to eat.
i guess at this point i have totally dodged the question. to answer it is succintly as possible, lead by example, as others have like ray hunt, temple grandin etc have. legislatively, i have no clue, it only took one mention of choice in a rhetorical manner to get a negative reaction.
I'm sorry this is so long.
