Wayne Stollings wrote:
So you cite the incidence of the Passenger Pigeon as some kind of justification or rationalization for the present day violence? We never had restrictions before because the need was never there.
The reference was to refute your incorrect claim that animals had never been treated like this before. Animals, on average, have been treated much worse in the history of humanity, and the treatment now is much better on average. The need for restrictions has always been there, the impact of not having them was just better concealed in the past. That is why the creation of animal protection laws was so popular in the Victorian era, but the first known laws that resemble protection date back to Hammurabi.
Both "refute' and "incorrect" are words you shouldn't have begun with. Although they show a fighting spirit, they point to nothing at all.
The nothing they point to is the basis for your claim, which is why they were used.
It is impossible that animals have been treated much worse in human history than they are now.
And you have some evidence for this claim? No, you do not because it does not exist other than your assumption.
The breadth and depth of animals in industry is much greater now than it has ever been for obvious reasons.
You mean the breadth and depth is greater now than when the majority of the population were farmers which relied upon animals for labor and food without ANY oversight of the treatment of those animals? You are saying animals were treated better BEFORE any animal protection laws were enacted than after? That position makes no sense when approached logically.
They are much more tide up with the entire economic process than they ever were .... ever, in human history.
You mean when they were the major source of labor for transport and work in addition to the food source owned by the majority of the population, they were LESS tide up in the econominc process? How is that possible?
They are now inextricably linked up in industries never even dreamed of a few hundred years ago.
And delinked to other industries even some of those with which they were linked in the interim.
And the need for "restriction" as you put it, has always been there, but never, ever had we had so may restrictions as we do now and that is only because the industry has grown so large.
So the restrictions have done nothing positive? That is the only way the basis can be claimed. If the restrictions were always necessary but not in place the only way the situation could be worse now is for the restrictions to cause the problems you are claiming and thus are a reason to remove the restrictions.
Yet, we do not have enough restrictions and that is partly due to consumer taste which has been influenced by advertisement and propaganda.
You claim it was worse for animals priot to the restrictions but then claim more restrictions are needed. This refutes your basic claim that animals were treated worse prior to said restrictions.
To put it quite simply, the vast majority of the meat producing industry is unnecessary.
That is an opinion and one not shared by the majority of the population.
It really is that simple. You will debate it of course, but there is no rationalization which could possible justify this industry in real terms. It's an industry that is as fabricated as any .....
So the industry has always been irrational or did it become irrational at some point in time in your opinion?