EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 9:06 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
"......prevent the sow crushing the piglets."

Yes, we know. We are saying that this practice is cruel. It is a practice which produces a lot of bacon.


Preventing piglets from being crushed is cruel? So allowing piglets to be crushed would not be cruel?


Sows don't crush their young anymore than we do.


I do not think the statistics support this claim.

Quote:
I guess if we were being intensively raised, we would need to be confined too. Our farmers would not like us to roll onto our young. Who wants to destroy their product?


The cruelty claim is not related to this line of thought.

Some factors are discussed here:


http://stud.epsilon.slu.se/1435/1/blomberg_m_100621.pdf

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 9:17 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
The cruelty claim is not related to this line of thought.

Some factors are discussed here:

http://stud.epsilon.slu.se/1435/1/blomberg_m_100621.pdf[/quote]

The cruelty claim? Is it only a "claim"? You may provide as many studies as you please, but even current society is basically corrupt. Imagine what the animals endure under such a system!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 10:09 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
The cruelty claim is not related to this line of thought.

Some factors are discussed here:

http://stud.epsilon.slu.se/1435/1/blomberg_m_100621.pdf


The cruelty claim? Is it only a "claim"?


Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the concensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.

Quote:
You may provide as many studies as you please, but even current society is basically corrupt. Imagine what the animals endure under such a system!


Imagination is a large part of your claim, which means you will probably never change your belief because you merely created said belief from your imagination. Those who look at things such as evidence and statistics will not be swayed by your personal beiefs either.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 5:33 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
Preventing piglets from being crushed is cruel? So allowing piglets to be crushed would not be cruel?



Sows don't crush their young anymore than we do.

Quote:
I do not think the statistics support this claim.


There are no statistics on how often humans crush their young when confined because humans aren't intensively farmed. I suppose if we were all crowded together, we too would have to be confined into crates in order that we don't roll over onto our newborns and crush them.

I guess if we were being intensively raised, we would need to be confined too. Our farmers would not like us to roll onto our young. Who wants to destroy their product?

Quote:
The cruelty claim is not related to this line of thought.


What line of thought wold that be?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 6:02 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
Imagination is a large part of your claim, which means you will probably never change your belief because you merely created said belief from your imagination.


I created a "belief"? You mean, I sit here in my living room and imagine such things? Please Wayne. I'm attempting to have a conversation with Coby whose responses are much more coherent

Quote:
Those who look at things such as evidence and statistics will not be swayed by your personal beiefs either.


Uh-huh. Evidence. Facts. That's exactly where I'm going. Come along if you want, but refrain from academic ideologies and theories please .... especially when they are so divorced from the actual. Let's hear what the front line workers are experiencing as opposed to the academic theories.

"So our animals can't turn around for 2.5 years that they are in stalls? .... I don't know who asked the sow if she wanted to turn around." National Pork Production Council.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 6:05 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
Farrowing is giving birth and then feeding the piglets where crates are used to prevent the sow crushing the piglets.


Yes Cobie, farrowing is giving birth and then being immobilized for a month as the sows feed the piglets. Farrowing ensures that the pigs don't roll over onto their piglets because they are all so close together anyway and not something that would be needed if they were not being intensively raised to begin with .... so that people could consider these animals a source of protein that happens to taste good and is featured in many dishes and recipes.

So, after the sows have given birth and farrowed for a month, what do they do? Go out and have a mud bath? The story continues, doesn't it? What happens next for the sows Cobie?

This, Cobie, is where we left off ......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 10:14 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Preventing piglets from being crushed is cruel? So allowing piglets to be crushed would not be cruel?



Sows don't crush their young anymore than we do.


The statistics for wild hogs do not support this claim

Quote:
Quote:
I do not think the statistics support this claim.


There are no statistics on how often humans crush their young when confined because humans aren't intensively farmed.


It is the statistics based on wild hogs that do not support your claim.


Quote:
Quote:
The cruelty claim is not related to this line of thought.


What line of thought wold that be?


Food production. The specifis question was concerning the perception of cruelty to protect young or to allow them to be crushed. If both are cruel the discussion is merely a red herring in the attempt to say food production is cruel.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 10:26 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Imagination is a large part of your claim, which means you will probably never change your belief because you merely created said belief from your imagination.


I created a "belief"? You mean, I sit here in my living room and imagine such things?


That is what you said. Imagine what the animals endure under such a system!

and you did not want to consider any facts.

You may provide as many studies as you please, but even current society is basically corrupt.

Quote:
Please Wayne. I'm attempting to have a conversation with Coby whose responses are much more coherent


Yes, they were more coherent than yours.

Quote:
Quote:
Those who look at things such as evidence and statistics will not be swayed by your personal beiefs either.


Uh-huh. Evidence. Facts. That's exactly where I'm going.


Then why do we have to imagine anything if there are factual references? How is current society basically corrupt without any references to support said claim?

Quote:
Come along if you want, but refrain from academic ideologies and theories please ....


Facts that are not connected to academic ideologies and theories? It seems that you are not wishing to deal with actual facts but your beliefs which will be called "facts" to make them sound better.

Quote:
especially when they are so divorced from the actual. Let's hear what the front line workers are experiencing as opposed to the academic theories.


You mean those folks who go undercover to illustrate the cruelty they "know" exists?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2014 12:05 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:23 pm
Posts: 257
I have lost the thread here.. but one thing did strike me: Human offspring can be at risk - of suffocation if very young babies sleep with their parents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:34 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Cobie wrote:
I have lost the thread here.. but one thing did strike me: Human offspring can be at risk - of suffocation if very young babies sleep with their parents.


It doesn't strike you that there is usually room for pigs too? Like human mothers, pigs would also give room for piglets to nurse. It would be stupid for us to roll onto our off spring/babies We wouldn't do that and neither would they. But we have confined them for the purpose of economics. Their product has become an item (s) in the market place.

Kind of sweet that you have lost the thread. There are people here who would love to derail this conversation. We were talking about pigs, sow crates, and gestation crates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:26 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Preventing piglets from being crushed is cruel? So allowing piglets to be crushed would not be cruel?


Simply weird comment.

Sows don't crush their young anymore than we do.


The statistics for wild hogs do not support this claim

Do we eat wild hogs? When did we do this? Did we hunt them?

Quote:
Quote:
I do not think the statistics support this claim.


There are no statistics on how often humans crush their young when confined because humans aren't intensively farmed.


It is the statistics based on wild hogs that do not support your claim.

You're weird. There are no statistics based on wild hogs.


Quote:
Quote:
The cruelty claim is not related to this line of thought.


What line of thought would that be?


Food production. The specifis question was concerning the perception of cruelty to protect young or to allow them to be crushed. If both are cruel the discussion is merely a red herring in the attempt to say food production is cruel.


Let us know about your red herring ... it is easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:46 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Imagination is a large part of your claim, which means you will probably never change your belief because you merely created said belief from your imagination.


I created a "belief"? You mean, I sit here in my living room and imagine such things?


That is what you said. Imagine what the animals endure under such a system!

Of course that's what I said! Who couldn't or wouldn't imagine their situation? It's exactly a point to consider. Are you able to imagine what their lives are like?

You may provide as many studies as you please, but even current society is basically corrupt.

Quote:
Please Wayne. I'm attempting to have a conversation with Coby whose responses are much more coherent


Yes, they were more coherent than yours.

Okay. That's what I mean. It's a discussion.

Quote:
Quote:
Those who look at things such as evidence and statistics will not be swayed by your personal beiefs either.


Uh-huh. Evidence. Facts. That's exactly where I'm going.


Then why do we have to imagine anything if there are factual references? How is current society basically corrupt without any references to support said claim?

Exactly. Why imagine when the truth is before us? How is current society corrupt? Without any reference? Do you need it?

Why wouldn't you imagine their lives? Its called empathy and is considered part of intelligence. Do you need a peer-reviewed essay to prove it? If you had a peer reviewed study, would that awaken you? Why are you dependent on such authority anyways? Can you not see the actuality of how corrupt the system is without seeing some kind of reference? What kind if science do you need?

Quote:
Come along if you want, but refrain from academic ideologies and theories please ....


Facts that are not connected to academic ideologies and theories? It seems that you are not wishing to deal with actual facts but your beliefs which will be called "facts" to make them sound better.

But it is you who are insistent on theories and ideologies, when in fact, there is a reality which you are not willing to look at. You want to hide behind facts and theories in order to make it all seem better.

Quote:
especially when they are so divorced from the actual. Let's hear what the front line workers are experiencing as opposed to the academic theories.


You mean those folks who go undercover to illustrate the cruelty they "know" exists?


Not just those folks ... but they have elucidated the reality of the situation. Their actions have been heroic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:59 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Preventing piglets from being crushed is cruel? So allowing piglets to be crushed would not be cruel?


Simply weird comment.

Sows don't crush their young anymore than we do.


The statistics for wild hogs do not support this claim


animal-friendly wrote:
Do we eat wild hogs? When did we do this? Did we hunt them?


Not sure what connection eating has to do with it other than it is the basis for your dislike. One of the studies was done in central Spain and did require the death of all of the pigs involved with the study.

Quote:
Quote:
I do not think the statistics support this claim.


There are no statistics on how often humans crush their young when confined because humans aren't intensively farmed.


Quote:
Quote:
It is the statistics based on wild hogs that do not support your claim.


You're weird. There are no statistics based on wild hogs.


"Sex allocation in a polygynous mammal with large litters:
the wild boar” by Pedro Fernandes-Llario, Juan Carranza and Patricio Mateos-Quesada


The results of the study show that the ratio of sexes, males/females equaled to 0.523. It shows the sows invest more in male than female offspring, regardless of the condition of the sow herself. The piglets in the best condition, often males, got the front teats, being the highest yielding ones. From this follows that the less dominant piglets, often females, had to spend more time by their hind, less producing teats, and were therefore more likely to get crushed. This would presumably indirectly influence the litter sex ratio in the direction of a majority of males such as was seen in the study.


Quote:
Quote:
The cruelty claim is not related to this line of thought.


What line of thought would that be?


Quote:
Quote:
Food production. The specific question was concerning the perception of cruelty to protect young or to allow them to be crushed. If both are cruel the discussion is merely a red herring in the attempt to say food production is cruel.


Let us know about your red herring ... it is easy.


The fact you had to ask whether the wild hogs studied were eaten, even though it has no bearing on the outcome, further supports this view.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Imagination is a large part of your claim, which means you will probably never change your belief because you merely created said belief from your imagination.


I created a "belief"? You mean, I sit here in my living room and imagine such things?


That is what you said. Imagine what the animals endure under such a system!


animal-friendly wrote:
Of course that's what I said! Who couldn't or wouldn't imagine their situation? It's exactly a point to consider. Are you able to imagine what their lives are like?


You are imagining rather than finding the facts so your imagined situation will never be affected by mere facts because that is what you want as an situation. Your imagination just follows your minds wishes.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Those who look at things such as evidence and statistics will not be swayed by your personal beiefs either.


Uh-huh. Evidence. Facts. That's exactly where I'm going.


Then why do we have to imagine anything if there are factual references? How is current society basically corrupt without any references to support said claim?


Quote:
Exactly. Why imagine when the truth is before us?


But the truth is not before us, your imagination induced reality is all that you have presented.

Quote:
How is current society corrupt? Without any reference? Do you need it?


For this context, yes, I do.

Quote:
Why wouldn't you imagine their lives? Its called empathy and is considered part of intelligence. Do you need a peer-reviewed essay to prove it?


You need facts to base your imagined life upon or it is merely the fantasy that you have presented based on your beliefs and clouded by the belief that eating animals is wrong.

Quote:
If you had a peer reviewed study, would that awaken you?


It would help if you had any facts to support your beliefs, yes.

Quote:
Why are you dependent on such authority anyways?


Because anyone can imagine anything and claim it to be true and facts give us the actual truth.

Quote:
Can you not see the actuality of how corrupt the system is without seeing some kind of reference? What kind if science do you need?


The real type of science where facts replace beliefs and assumptions based on beliefs.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Come along if you want, but refrain from academic ideologies and theories please ....


Facts that are not connected to academic ideologies and theories? It seems that you are not wishing to deal with actual facts but your beliefs which will be called "facts" to make them sound better.


But it is you who are insistent on theories and ideologies, when in fact, there is a reality which you are not willing to look at. You want to hide behind facts and theories in order to make it all seem better.


You mean the "reality" of waht you have imagined based upon your beliefs surrounding animals? That is not a reality for anyone other than you.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
especially when they are so divorced from the actual. Let's hear what the front line workers are experiencing as opposed to the academic theories.


You mean those folks who go undercover to illustrate the cruelty they "know" exists?


Not just those folks ... but they have elucidated the reality of the situation. Their actions have been heroic.


To you perhaps, but I have read too much about the way some of the "heroic people" have set up the situations they "uncover" because they too "know" the "true reality" and view any means as justification to the end, even lying.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:14 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
The cruelty claim? Is it only a "claim"?

Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.


"Cruelty is a subjective determination"

Sure Wayne.

Quote:
" ...so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel."


This is obviously a very weak argument. Society changes and the determination of what is cruel changes alongside. I think we ALL know what cruelty is. During the time of slaves there were folks who knew what cruelty was. It wasn't subjective at all and did not depend on consensus. In other words, even when the majority agreed on exploitation, it didn't mean it was okay or right or correct. Just because the "majority" agrees obviously does not mean that what is current practice is correct.
Quote:

In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.

]Can you explain this statement? Are you saying that because the majority goes along with current practices, the majority must be correct in doing so? And must therefore be logical?

Housing thousands of animals in confinement for the purpose of doing business, subjecting these said entities to unnatural lives, castrating them without anesthetic, confining them for unreasonable time when their natural instinct is to wander, or at least get to feel the sun on their bodies ....


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group