EnviroLink Forum

[

And then go to a police officer and tell him about the philosophical woes of our society? Cuz cops will prove it? You are looking at the legality while some of us are looking at the morality. Laws are not always moral. Who made up laws?



In order to feed ducks this way, we must contain them in cages and then dole out feeding. We must strip them of their freedom to feed when they see fit. We see them as liver. They would fly out of their cages if they could. They would not opt to be force fed by tubes and they would not like to be then killed after their organs were harvested. What was your question again? Do I have evidence that feeding is cruel?



But we are saying that it s cruel. And it is also difficult to legislate against cruelty.



But humans are not kept in cages against their will during this process. In fact, they willfully allow for it because they know, or at least hope, this process will heal them. While they undergo such treatment, they even have visitors. The intent is obviously quite different.

You are the one who keeps bringing in humans and what they would think or feel. When I then point out that humans too, may be tube fed, it instantly becomes different - don't shift the goal posts. Is it cruel to tube feed a bird? This is completely outside whether one should produce foie gras, or cage birds, or eat animals. I am still waiting for an answer.

No Cobie. It was in fact, you, who introduced humans and what they would think or feel. I was talking about geese. You said:

"When I then point out that humans too, may be tube fed, it instantly becomes different ....."

AND

"Human beings are tube fed in many a hospital; not only are their esophagi far less elastic than birds', humans have strong gag reflexes as well. But is it painful? No. Does it hurt having a tube in? No. Is it therefore likely a bird's much more accommodating esophagus could not accommodate a tube inserted only at the top?"

How can you say I am the one who keeps bringing in humans and what they would think or feel when it was you who introduced the human element? I am only responding. I am talking about geese!

You go on to say:

How would you like me to respond? Should I call 911? Because the "big" farms as well as the small, are harming animals for no other reason than ..... ? Making a living, taste buds, economy, etc?



Okay Cobie. So if we have a mule or camel that is worked from the moment they have legs, and until they die, they have not been enslaved? Did they have a natural life, ever? Can't you see they have been enslaved even if they are of another species and have not been able to write anti-abuse laws for themselves?



When you rely on the present system to vindicate your actions, are you not hiding behind what is legal and lawful? You have stated that "If you can show proof of animal cruelty, then to go to the authorities is a moral and ethical obligation." But this is not much different from your advice that one should call the police who are eating fois gras or having a break at McDonalds.



Yeah, I know what you meant and mean ..... call 911? Or shall we now go to the "authorities"? I am attempting to engage you on moral grounds and as such, I am questioning legal grounds. You, on the other hand, are reliant on the laws. This is quote disappointing because, as we have seen historically, legality does not equate to morality.



Am I trying to "win" the argument? No. I am simply trying to be a rational voice amongst an economy and system which sees an advantage and profit of treating live animals as nothing more than objects. This is not a battle of egos.



Instead of "weasling out of it", I am actually holding you to task. The word "weasling" has no punch.



Because of economics and because animals have become like furniture in our economic agreement. And because people and politicians desire a voice.



Large scale cruelty to animals ARE involved Cobie. They are involved in the name of profit. Animals, who can experience pain and fear, are caught up in this economy.



I started it in regards to geese. You started it in regards to humans.

You would have to show that you were "right" (aka 'legal') to have whipped your boy (or raped your girl) in other times. Why do you put so much emphasis on the legality of exploitation?

If you think the issue is moral, there is no discussion. I have no moral problem with using animals for food, as long as the animals' welfare is not compromised. This does not mean that no animal will ever suffer any stress or even some pain - these are, after all, part of life, for animals (wild and domestic, for wild animals probably more so)and humans (even for our children). A life without any stress whatsoever is bad for animals since they lose their natural need for vigilance and awareness, BTW. So I will not buy "cage" eggs, since they do affect welfare of the animals significantly. But I do not mind "barn" eggs even though the animals may be stressed because of having to actually cope with social environments; a "natural" stress if within limits. I don't mind meat since in Australia beef is grassfed and at best finished in feedlots for a limited time only, and killed quickly. I don't mind milk, since bull calves are raised for meat; and bees produce plenty of honey to let me have some, to mention just a few food items. OTOH, I am well aware that producing vegatarian food also kills animals in its production. I ride a horse that has been gelded, but lives out in a large paddock with companions; my cats are all desexed and live indoors, a price they have to pay for being otherwise looked after well, and acknowledging (on my part) that the birds in my garden are entitled to a life, too. In this context, having foie gras occasionally is just a treat, and I can do that because I think there is no cruelty in tube-feeding a bird, since birds show no evidence of pain when fed. So if you think it is cruel, by all means oppose it. But unless you actually have proof it is cruel, I see no reason why production of it ought to be forbidden, or people lectured to because they eat it, or any other animal product.

Are we finally here? Are we finally able to put away notions of calling in the "authorities" when we see needless animal suffering and cruelty at the hands of humans? That took some doing. And yes, it is a moral question. And yes, morality gets mixed in with legality just as slavery has. I know you don't like to link the two, but it is clear that what is immoral is often legal, both currently and historically.



Neither do I .... and I have already said so. But it seems we are arguing about what constitutes "welfare". Your idea of welfare seems to be much more encompassing of current conditions around housing, transport, quality of life, etc, than mine. I have a much stricter view of what should be legal, according to morality, largely because I can see that the entire industry is based on the commodification of animals in a capitalistic system whereby animals are seen as money-makers and objects in what has become a massive industry.



I do not argue that life should be devoid of struggle or pain. How could I when it is a fact? Yet I disagree that wild animals suffer more than farmed animals just as I would disagree that wild children were not better off being wild than they were when instituted. ie: aboriginals of both North America and Australia/New Zealand. I would much prefer to be a gazelle whose life was ended by a lioness than a sow confined to a gestation crate for 2 1/2 years. And getting back to geese, I would much prefer to be a goose leisurely stuffing myself along a lakeshore with grass and seeds before a long flight, than a goose confined to a cage for years on end and stuffed by a tube at someone else's whim.



Cobie, how can a pig who is stressed by its confinement days on end, with no means of escape, have a need for vigilance? How can a goose be vigilant when it is locked up in a cage against its natural inclination to feed when and where it wants to? When I am imprisoned, the only thing I need to be vigilant about is when the next harm will come, which has nothing to do with the natural order of survival in the wild, which does indeed require vigilance and awareness.



I eat eggs too, but only when I happen to be in the country and can buy from the farmers whose chickens I can actually see. Unfortunately, the chicken/egg industry is huge and largely unquestioned, especially by the consumer.



Animals are naturally sociable. Not sure what you mean here? They are stressed when they are crammed in together, just as humans are.



You're not going to like the analogy, but you probably wouldn't have minded slaves if they were not whipped and only used to enhance the plantation's economic well being. Meat is part of our present day economy. What would happen if it wasn't? Or if was a fraction? Would we all die just as the slave-holders of the American South thought they would if they were no longer able to have slaves? (They couldn't imagine a world without slaves.)



So you don't mind eating meat in Australia. What happens when you go to other regions of the world? Do you then become vegetarian?



Beef and honey ..... I DO mind milk products because bull calves are often slaughtered early and without much quality of life. This also hurts the mothers whose instinct is to mother. Some dairy farmers have decided to muzzle the infants, so that they are unable to get the milk nurturance from their mothers. It is heart breaking to watch the young follow their mothers around looking for food and nurturance.



Yeah Cobie. I am also aware of it. Large, industrial farms are similar to large industrial fisheries that take out huge amounts of species in order to get the prized catch. The entire system is destructive. It is a system that we are all caught up in and which we have caught up not only animals, but also the entire environment. But look how we treat each other. The way we treat each other is the way we treat animals and is the way we treat the environment. They are not separate.



Very responsible of you. Thank you for keeping your cats indoors. Mine go out, but they are 'belled' because I am concerned about the bird population.



Geese show no evidence of pain when fed? Really? How do you even know that? What do you know about their quality of life? How about the fact that they are caged until fed? Or the fact that they have no movement and don't see the light of day? Most of them cannot even exercise themselves. They can't move around as they normally would. Do you contest that fact?

[/quote]

Ask the slave for proof that the way he is being treated is cruel. Did it do him any good? If you can't see it, how can you see it now? It is, actually, a shift of paradigm. You want some kind of "proof" that a goose would rather be free than be caged? Really?

If you would simply come clean, you would admit that animals have become caught up in the economic system that we have created.

I leave you with this Cobie ...

http://www.sousa-labourdette.com/

Eat fois gras if you wish, but understand that confinement is cruelty. When geese enjoy a quality of life when they are completely free, .... we then have a delicacy in tune with nature. Will you adjust your definition according to the care shown in the video? Or will you continue to defend the industry that makes easy money? If you defend both small and large scale operations, you agree to unnecessary cruelty. And you are not the only one.

Simple explanation:

If Animal Friendly does not approve that action is cruel. End of story.

Now all we need is for the rest of the world to conform to her moral decision because no other person or culture has the right to make a moral determination on their own.

(facts do not matter in this belief system or the stresses of merely being a chicken, for example, outside of a solid enclosure would be known and considered)

_________________
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

I conform to her moral decision.

_________________
'Where mercy, love and pity dwell, there God is dwelling too'

http://holy-lance.blogspot.com

Good for you. Now she only need a few billion more to conform to her will.

_________________
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

I don't need a single individual, let alone a few billion, to conform to "my will", because that would be impossible, obviously. Nor do I need to conform to the present day situation. As I said, go ahead and eat fois gras or whatever else your taste buds demand. I am not here to impose or demand that anyone "conform" to anything at all. People are free to make any moral determination they like, in spite of the cultures in which they find themselves. We are all free to make moral determinations. The beauty of free will is that we do not have to conform. It's just that, we are influenced by our particular cultures/societies, yet we do not have to agree with the crowd.

What do you think Cobie? Do you agree with Wayne that my position is a way to make the rest of the world conform to my moral decision because no other person or culture has the right to make a moral determination on their own?

What did you think of the video? Did you watch it? Do you think it is plausible as a way to enrich people's lives in the capitalist system we function under as well as a way to honor animals and their welfare in the best possible way we can? I'm sure that if we all did it this way, the price would go up. Is it okay that prices would go up for a delicacy, kind of like the price of champagne? Neither fois gras nor champagne are necessary, but both are included in the GDP of every country. How can we do it humanely?

The conform is correct, as you have stated you believe the treatment is "cruel" and thus you would attempt to convince others as well. Is that not the "agitation" of which you spoke? The act of convincing people to conform to your beliefs? There are many ways to get people to conform and laws are but one. Conversion of beliefs is another. That is why religions proselytize.



It is if you want the animals to be treated differently.



That influence is a type of conforming, just as people conform to new religious beliefs or new beliefs over what is pretty in fashion based upon the beliefs of others.



Does it matter? Since you said you were not seeking for anyone to conform to anything ....

_________________
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

Don't be tricked by the word "conform". None of us are conforming, nor can we possible ask the entire world to agree or conform to a discussion which is meant to be a moral discussion. We are hopefully having some kind of intelligent conversation. Wayne used the word 'conform", but we are not doing that. I do agree that this is a moral conversation over a legal one though.



And if we happen to be conformists, we will agree to religion, regardless of it's particular name or who is proselytizing. If we are conformists we will agree to the laws, regardless of morality, in whatever decade or age, even if they are immoral. If we don't use our intelligence, we will agree. If we are not conformists, or in other words, if we are thinking beyond both law and religion, there is no amount of proselytizing or "but everyone is doing it" that could possibly sway us, because we are using our intelligence.

I don't need a single individual, let alone a few billion, to conform to "my will", because that would be impossible, obviously.



I DO want animals to be treated differently but I would hate for anyone to "conform" because to do so would NOT be acting intelligently. If people would act intelligently, instead of conforming, we just might be able to create a more just society in every direction. If people would stop conforming, there would be a total revolution which would have no need of violence. As is, too many have conformed with the present day situation where animals are horribly abused in confinement situations, and then transported as if they are mere objects rather than living beings, with no food or water. Why has this been allowed? Because these cruel practices have become "normalized" and conformed to.

I am not here to impose or demand that anyone "conform" to anything at all. People are free to make any moral determination they like, in spite of the cultures in which they find themselves. We are all free to make moral determinations. The beauty of free will is that we do not have to conform. It's just that, we are influenced by our particular cultures/societies, yet we do not have to agree with the crowd.



Influence can sometimes bring about agreement/conforming, but if we are aware of our propensity to be influenced, we will not conform. When the awareness of how we are influenced is there, we might be more able to act intelligently and therefore conform less. But conditioning is a much deeper form of influence. And we have all been conditioned to accept even very brutal aspects of our particular cultures both presently and historically. If we can see how our ancestors accepted the influences of their cultures, we might also be able to see how we accept ours.

Again, I ask if we must use animals towards the GDP of our country's economy, how can we do it humanely?



Does it matter how we treat animals? Does it matter that we treat animals humanely? I am definitely attempting to ask that people STOP conforming, and one needs only intelligence for that, which we all innately possess.

Merriam Webster's definition of conformity:

[b]"behavior that is the same as the behavior of most other people in a society, group, etc."

(Most people "conform" to our present day treatment of animals. They don't ask questions. They conform.)

"the fact or state of agreeing with or obeying something"

(Obedience is devoid of intelligence. We can objectively see how our ancestors f##k up, but it is less obvious how we are f##k up.)

I'd say it's high time we had a little disobedience. It' time to move on, progress, evolve, think outside the box. Enough of this conformity!

We internalize many norms. We are unaware of alternative modes of behavior and we may realize that to violate norms may result in our incurring punishment while conformity produces rewards. As members of a society we continuously undergo socialization. Many of these norms we internalized and so we accept them without any thought or question.

It usually does not occur to us that alternative standards exist. Norms constitute guideposts. They represent the social tools that enable us to relate ourselves to others and to meet our daily needs, especially the need to belong. Our conformity may be product of our realization that to do otherwise is to incur punishment while conformity produces rewards. The rule breaker is met with hostility and ostracism.

We love to "belong", and to take a stand against the "norm" is to risk above said hostility and ostracism. Fear is another factor in obedience.

Conformity is a natural human instinct because we all want to belong. It's quite normal and I do not have an issue with it. I see it, I am aware of it, I count on it. And this awareness is key.

I wonder ... who was the very first person to say that slavery should be questioned, even though the laws and the general consensus was in agreement with those archaic practices? Who dared to NOT belong and to go against the grain? Unfortunately it created a horrible war. We don't need that. We just need intelligence and the ability to stand apart from, and alone from, the general consensus. In doing so, we might question this idea of "conformity'.

It may not be possible to get the whole world to conform, but that does not mean you are not trying to do so by presenting your case in the discussion.



You have now changed the meaning of the word and taken it to the absolute, which is a logical fallacy called False Dichotomy. You now say we must either conform to everything or nothing.



However, you state it, you WANT as many people to conform to your will as possible because that is the only way to achieve the change you seek.



Not many people would say that agreeing with their views "would NOT be acting intelligently" if they actually were interested in chamge.



It seems you are not using the correct definition of the term or you do not understand what you are saying. If people stopped conforming in all cases as you seem to be indicating there would be no civilization or society.



Clearly you are confused.

Conform:

: to be similar to or the same as something

: to obey or agree with something

: to do what other people do : to behave in a way that is accepted by most people



But we do have to get the crowd to agree with us IF we are seeking a change.



You are making no sense what so ever with this.



It depends on whose definition of "humanely" one uses. We cannot use yours as that would be conforming and if we all have a different definition we cannot meet them all.



You are asking them to stop conforming with the status quo and conform to a new stanard.



Not "conform" why pick a different term?



You ignore all of the other definitions available? You use a different term and pick a specific portion of the definition to claim I am incorrect in the usage? The personal addition to the definition is not accurate or correct either. There is no indication that conforming means blind or unthinking action.





And what of the other portion of the definition you so quickly ignored? You do not wish people to AGREE with your views?



Anarchy is such a wonderful thing. If you change the definition often enough you can convince yourself of your position, but you have just indicated your desire to argue no matter what.



I am glad that you seem to believe you are the only one thinking, but that thought is inaccurate.



You are correct, I do not think that we should ever agree with your views.



Try using the definition in my use correctly in the future please.



If none had agreed with that first person or conformed to their position, it would not have mattered. That means this long rant has been for naught.

_________________
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

You are very short on understanding Wayne, probably deliberately obtuse.

I will not spend the time explaining to you how people who are concerned about environmental, animal and human degradation and exploitation, are nothing more than a bunch of conformists.

Have a lovely day.

Right, because those people who are concerned about those issues WANT people to agree with them and dislike the less than ethical changing of definitions to make them seem like anarchists.

Since this is the meaning given my use in context.

Conform:

: to agree with something

_________________
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

"behavior that is the same as the behavior of most other people in a society, group, etc."

Most people "conform" to our present day treatment of animals. They don't ask questions. They simply conform.

You ignore all of the other definitions available?

What? Are there other definitions available? Denotations and connotations? Even so, most people conform.

You use a different term and pick a specific portion of the definition to claim I am incorrect in the usage? The personal addition to the definition is not accurate or correct either. There is no indication that conforming means blind or unthinking action.

But it's really easy when everyone else is doing it. We agreed to slavery. We conformed then. We conform now. Or do we? You might check your dictionary, and while you do so, remember that the word is not the actual thing.