EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:46 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:57 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:

Except for the ones in the video not pushing to get to the water, of course. :-


There are pigs pushing for water. Why is that?


There were also pigs NOT pushing. Why is that?

Quote:
Might it be because they are thirsty?


Might be they were curious about what was being pushed toward them too.

Quote:
And how uncomfortable is it to travel for long distances without food or water in heat waves?


These were not travelling in a heat wave though. You can assume a lot if you wish but the facts of THIS case do not support it.

Quote:
Even Canadian ones? Yes, even Canada gets heat waves.


If you call 80 F a heat wave, I suppose. The temperature records for the location are there for anyone to see and there was no heat wave at anytime during the month.

_________________
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 May 02, 2016 5:53 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:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Except for the ones in the video not pushing to get to the water, of course. :-


There are pigs pushing for water. Why is that?


There were also pigs NOT pushing. Why is that?

Quote:
Might it be because they are thirsty?


Might be they were curious about what was being pushed toward them too.

Quote:
And how uncomfortable is it to travel for long distances without food or water in heat waves?


These were not travelling in a heat wave though. You can assume a lot if you wish but the facts of THIS case do not support it.

Quote:
Even Canadian ones? Yes, even Canada gets heat waves.


If you call 80 F a heat wave, I suppose. The temperature records for the location are there for anyone to see and there was no heat wave at anytime during the month.


The Canadian laws allow pigs to be transported to up to 36 hours without food or water and in this regard, Canada is lagging. Can you imagine travelling even a quarter of this distanc in 80 degree temperatures, or 0 degree temperatures? Of course 80 degrees is a heat wave when you are travelling such long distances/hours without food or water. No wonder those animals were in need of water. So basic.

No hit from your logic can cure this or justify it and no amount of the survival argument is going to get you there either.

These animals are forced to endure ridiculously inhumane practice as a means of human employment.

And the conversation is a bit boring because "temperature records" and the interpretation of them in regard to the actual experience of these animals is nit-picking and a distraction from the actual fact of what these animals really do experience on their way to slaughter. I believe you are arguing that animals are generally quite comfortable on their way. They are not. Some of them arrive quite sick and some already dead. How do you imagine the ones who arrived feel? Maybe frightened and confused? But not for long ..... and that is no consolation.


Last edited by animal-friendly on Mon May 02, 2016 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 6:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
The Canadian laws allow pigs to be transported to up to 36 hours without food or water. In this regard, Canada is lagging. Can you imagine, in 80 degree temperatures, or 0 degree temperatures? Of course 80 degrees is a heat wave when you are travelling such long distances/hours without food or water. No wonder those animals were in need of water. So basic.


Well, when you can say that 80 degrees F is a heat wave, you have gone off into the ether and left reality behind.

Quote:
No hit from your logic can cure this or justify it.


Of course not, you have already decided that it is unacceptable and would probably do so no matter the changes in the legislation.

Quote:
Dazzle me with your brilliance Wayne, but no amount of justification can justify this.
These animals are forced to endure ridiculously inhumane practices as a means of human employment. Cheap.


I know there can be no justificatgion for you because you already made up your mind and closed it tight.

Quote:
And the conversation is a bit boring because "temperature records" and the interpretation of them in regard to the actual experience of these animals is nit-picking and a distraction from the actual fact of what these animals actually experience on their way to slaughter.


The ACTUALLY experienced temperatures of no more than 80 degrees F because there were no temperatures for that location higher for the entire month.


Quote:
I believe you are arguing that these animals are actually quite comfortable on their way. They are not. Some of them arrive quite sick and some already dead.


Really? How many of these particular animals arrived dead? If you have that data you know which date it was they were shipped and we can get the exact maximum temperature for the trip through town. Perhaps there were none dead but merely "quite sick" as you said. That number would also be of interest for this shipment for the same reasons.

_________________
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 May 02, 2016 9:02 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:
The Canadian laws allow pigs to be transported to up to 36 hours without food or water. In this regard, Canada is lagging. Can you imagine, in 80 degree temperatures, or 0 degree temperatures? Of course 80 degrees is a heat wave when you are travelling such long distances/hours without food or water. No wonder those animals were in need of water. So basic.


Well, when you can say that 80 degrees F is a heat wave, you have gone off into the ether and left reality behind.

When I was growing up, I remember that 78* was hot. We didn't huddle together in those days of 78* sun temps. We sought shade. 80* is hot. Call it 80*or call it a heat wave, or call it simply hot. 80* is 80* by all names.

Nowadays, I am used to much hotter temps, but I still don't choose to travel in either temp, and I am not terribly interested in even shaking hands with another human when both of us are in such climes for such long distances and so huddled together.

Quote:
No hit from your logic can cure this or justify it.


Of course not, you have already decided that it is unacceptable and would probably do so no matter the changes in the legislation.

You have also decided. We both have. Are we aiming to change each others minds? Yes and no. Discussion is all and good.

Quote:
Dazzle me with your brilliance Wayne, but no amount of justification can justify this.
These animals are forced to endure ridiculously inhumane practices as a means of human employment. Cheap.


I know there can be no justification for you because you already made up your mind and closed it tight.

My mind is open & I would hope yours is too. It's the only way.

Quote:
And the conversation is a bit boring because "temperature records" and the interpretation of them in regard to the actual experience of these animals is nit-picking and a distraction from the actual fact of what these animals actually experience on their way to slaughter.


The ACTUALLY experienced temperatures of no more than 80 degrees F because there were no temperatures for that location higher for the entire month.

Wow! Seems you missed my point. Whether it was 75 degrees, or eighty ....... or 2. By Canadian standards, which are lagging, we are seeing dead animals upon arrival (DOA), from heat exhaustion or from cold. It's happening. It's a fact.

Quote:
I believe you are arguing that these animals are actually quite comfortable on their way. They are not. Some of them arrive quite sick and some already dead.


Really? How many of these particular animals arrived dead?

Oh right. I guess I got carried away there. You are asking about the particular as I am describing the probability in a system of both mass slaughter and mass transportation. (bacon/sausage for breakfast, ham or salami for lunch, chicken, steak or pork chops for dinner!). Cultural conditioning keeps the conveyor belts running. It's an industry ya know ... a cog in the machinery of an economic system we can't blame God for.

"Of the 700 million farm animals killed each year in Canada, nearly every one will undergo transport at least once in its life. According to reports by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), three million animals die during transport every year. The suffering these animals endure is unfathomable. According to the Humane Society International Canada, the conditions of these transport trucks offer poor ventilation, and expose animals to outdoor temperature extremes. Often animals cannot lie down during long journeys, and can overheat. Overcrowding on trucks is another factor, which leads to some animals getting trampled and killed. The journey also subjects animals to decrease in airflow, as well as high ammonia levels, and poor air quality."

If you have that data you know which date it was they were shipped and we can get the exact maximum temperature for the trip

You use the word 'shipped'. You ask about the maximum temp. 80* isn't enough under these conditions for animals to be "shipped"? What is it for general cargo?

through "town." you say? The animals only had to cross "town" you say? Oh well then ... Let's not talk about the highways, cities with their traffic and noise and confusion, traffic lights stalling movement, long delays, etc.

Perhaps there were none dead but merely "quite sick" as you said. That number would also be of interest for this shipment for the same reasons.


Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), "three million animals die during transport every year".
And we didn't agree that the trip was only through "town" since it included a highway or two, plus a lot of other confusion.
So what about this particular "shipment" that was given water?

Perhaps you would prefer this interpretation: The pigs were naturally curious about the offering. Pigs are curious. They weren't thirsty at all. They took the water thinking it was food of any kind because pigs like food of any kind. It turned out to be only water which the pigs guzzled because they were simply curious about food. They weren't thirsty at all, and their guzzling of the water only indicated a natural curiosity of food. We don't know how long this particular 'shipment' had been travelling, but it was ONLY the outer edges of this particular 'shipment', the ones who happen to have been situated by the windows, who were thirsty. The ones who were not near the window were obviously not thirsty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 9:02 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
animal-friendly wrote:
The Canadian laws allow pigs to be transported to up to 36 hours without food or water. In this regard, Canada is lagging. Can you imagine, in 80 degree temperatures, or 0 degree temperatures? Of course 80 degrees is a heat wave when you are travelling such long distances/hours without food or water. No wonder those animals were in need of water. So basic.


Well, when you can say that 80 degrees F is a heat wave, you have gone off into the ether and left reality behind.

Quote:
When I was growing up, I remember that 78* was hot. We didn't huddle together in those days of 78* sun temps. We sought shade. 80* is hot. Call it 80*or call it a heat wave, or call it simply hot. 80* is 80* by all accounts.

Nowadays, I am used to much hotter temps, but I still don't choose to travel in either temp, and I am not terribly interested in even shaking hands with another human when both of us are in such climes for such long distances and so huddled together.

Quote:
No hit from your logic can cure this or justify it.


Of course not, you have already decided that it is unacceptable and would probably do so no matter the changes in the legislation.

Quote:
You have also decided on your position. We both have. Are we aiming to change each others minds? Yes and no. There's not much that either of us can do as individuals anyway, but discussion is always good. The wisdom is always in the question. There can be no conclusion.


Quote:
Dazzle me with your brilliance Wayne, but no amount of justification can justify this.
These animals are forced to endure ridiculously inhumane practices as a means of human employment. Cheap.


I know there can be no justification for you because you already made up your mind and closed it tight.

Quote:
My mind is open & I would hope yours is too. It's the only way to tango.


Quote:
And the conversation is a bit boring because "temperature records" and the interpretation of them in regard to the actual experience of these animals is nit-picking and a distraction from the actual fact of what these animals actually experience on their way to slaughter.


The ACTUALLY experienced temperatures of no more than 80 degrees F because there were no temperatures for that location higher for the entire month.

Quote:
Wow! Seems you missed my point. Whether it was 75 degrees, or eighty ....... or 2. By Canadian standards, which are lagging, we are seeing dead animals upon arrival (DOA), from heat exhaustion or from cold. It's happening. It's a fact.


Quote:
I believe you are arguing that these animals are actually quite comfortable on their way. They are not. Some of them arrive quite sick and some already dead.


Really? How many of these particular animals arrived dead?

Quote:
Oh right. I guess I got carried away there. You are asking about the particular as I am describing the probability in a system of both mass slaughter and mass transportation. (bacon/sausage for breakfast, ham or salami for lunch, chicken, steak or pork chops for dinner!). Cultural conditioning keeps the conveyor belts running. It's an industry ya know ... a cog in the machinery of an economic system we can't blame God for.


Quote:
"Of the 700 million farm animals killed each year in Canada, nearly every one will undergo transport at least once in its life. According to reports by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), three million animals die during transport every year. The suffering these animals endure is unfathomable. According to the Humane Society International Canada, the conditions of these transport trucks offer poor ventilation, and expose animals to outdoor temperature extremes. Often animals cannot lie down during long journeys, and can overheat. Overcrowding on trucks is another factor, which leads to some animals getting trampled and killed. The journey also subjects animals to decrease in airflow, as well as high ammonia levels, and poor air quality."

If you have that data you know which date it was they were shipped and we can get the exact maximum temperature for the trip

Quote:
You use the word 'shipped'. You ask about the maximum temp. 80* isn't enough under these conditions for animals to be "shipped"? What is it for general cargo?

through "town." you say? The animals only had to cross "town" you say? Oh well then ... Let's not talk about the highways, cities with their traffic and noise and confusion, traffic lights stalling movement, long delays, etc.


Perhaps there were none dead but merely "quite sick" as you said. That number would also be of interest for this shipment for the same reasons.[/quote]

Quote:
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), "three million animals die during transport every year".
And we didn't agree that the trip was only through "town" since it included a highway or two, plus a lot of other confusion.
So what about this particular "shipment" that was given water?

Perhaps you would prefer this interpretation: The pigs were naturally curious about the offering. Pigs are curious. They weren't thirsty at all. They took the water thinking it was food of any kind because pigs like food of any kind. It turned out to be only water which the pigs guzzled because they were simply curious about food. They weren't thirsty at all, and their guzzling of the water only indicated a natural curiosity of food. We don't know how long this particular 'shipment' had been travelling, but it was ONLY the outer edges of this particular 'shipment', the ones who happen to have been situated by the windows, who were thirsty. The ones who were not near the window were obviously not thirsty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 9:47 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
I also meant to give you this to check out ..... http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-l ... -1.2820563

"Thousands of farm animals are transported across Canada every week. But the conditions they experience are regulated by rules that are decades old, and according to many, inhumane.

Canada's regulations governing the transportation of farmed animals date back to 1975. They currently allow for cattle to be in transit for 52 hours without access to food or water, while the maximum for pigs and chickens is 36 hours."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2016 10:16 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:
Well, when you can say that 80 degrees F is a heat wave, you have gone off into the ether and left reality behind.


When I was growing up, I remember that 78* was hot. We didn't huddle together in those days of 78* sun temps. We sought shade. 80* is hot. Call it 80*or call it a heat wave, or call it simply hot. 80* is 80* by all accounts.


How many of your friends, family, or neighbors died from those 78 degree temperature "heat waves"? They must have been devastating.

Quote:
Nowadays, I am used to much hotter temps, but I still don't choose to travel in either temp, and I am not terribly interested in even shaking hands with another human when both of us are in such climes for such long distances and so huddled together.


I can see where such a personal preference could be construed as being deadly ..... if you ignore reality.



Quote:
Quote:
Of course not, you have already decided that it is unacceptable and would probably do so no matter the changes in the legislation.


You have also decided on your position.


Not at first. I had to dig up the data in order to form a reasoned conclusion.

Quote:
We both have. Are we aiming to change each others minds? Yes and no. There's not much that either of us can do as individuals anyway, but discussion is always good. The wisdom is always in the question. There can be no conclusion.


The conclusion is made by the authorities using similar information as I found.


Quote:
Quote:
I know there can be no justification for you because you already made up your mind and closed it tight.


My mind is open & I would hope yours is too. It's the only way to tango.


Yet you did not seek out information from which to draw a conclusion, but took the video at face value and assumed.


Quote:
Quote:
The ACTUALLY experienced temperatures of no more than 80 degrees F because there were no temperatures for that location higher for the entire month.


Wow! Seems you missed my point. Whether it was 75 degrees, or eighty ....... or 2. By Canadian standards, which are lagging, we are seeing dead animals upon arrival (DOA), from heat exhaustion or from cold. It's happening. It's a fact.


It may be happening but the video used to support your position does not do so.


Quote:
Quote:
Really? How many of these particular animals arrived dead?


Quote:
Oh right. I guess I got carried away there. You are asking about the particular as I am describing the probability in a system of both mass slaughter and mass transportation. (bacon/sausage for breakfast, ham or salami for lunch, chicken, steak or pork chops for dinner!). Cultural conditioning keeps the conveyor belts running. It's an industry ya know ... a cog in the machinery of an economic system we can't blame God for.


When you use something as evidence to support your position which does not do so, it makes you and your position seem less than honest. Since this video really does not support your claims above, why not provide evidence which does?


Quote:
"Of the 700 million farm animals killed each year in Canada, nearly every one will undergo transport at least once in its life. According to reports by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), three million animals die during transport every year. The suffering these animals endure is unfathomable. According to the Humane Society International Canada, the conditions of these transport trucks offer poor ventilation, and expose animals to outdoor temperature extremes. Often animals cannot lie down during long journeys, and can overheat. Overcrowding on trucks is another factor, which leads to some animals getting trampled and killed. The journey also subjects animals to decrease in airflow, as well as high ammonia levels, and poor air quality."


Source? Evidence? Certainly not this video.

Quote:
Quote:
If you have that data you know which date it was they were shipped and we can get the exact maximum temperature for the trip


You use the word 'shipped'. You ask about the maximum temp. 80* isn't enough under these conditions for animals to be "shipped"? What is it for general cargo?


What is it you are trying to say? That 80 degrees is too hot for shipment of pigs? There are generally no temperature limits for general cargo, which is why they use box containers instead of ventilated trailers.

Quote:
through "town." you say? The animals only had to cross "town" you say? Oh well then ... Let's not talk about the highways, cities with their traffic and noise and confusion, traffic lights stalling movement, long delays, etc.


That was where the video you provided was taken, in town. That is where the problem was claimed to be documented, but was not.

Quote:
Perhaps there were none dead but merely "quite sick" as you said. That number would also be of interest for this shipment for the same reasons.


Quote:
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), "three million animals die during transport every year".
And we didn't agree that the trip was only through "town" since it included a highway or two, plus a lot of other confusion.


Would that be NONE dead and NONE "quite sick" according to your evidence?


Quote:
Perhaps you would prefer this interpretation: The pigs were naturally curious about the offering. Pigs are curious. They weren't thirsty at all. They took the water thinking it was food of any kind because pigs like food of any kind. It turned out to be only water which the pigs guzzled because they were simply curious about food. They weren't thirsty at all, and their guzzling of the water only indicated a natural curiosity of food. We don't know how long this particular 'shipment' had been travelling, but it was ONLY the outer edges of this particular 'shipment', the ones who happen to have been situated by the windows, who were thirsty. The ones who were not near the window were obviously not thirsty.


None appeared to "guzzle"water, but several seemed to ignore the water bottles completely. That is the evidence from the video.

_________________
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 May 02, 2016 10:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
I also meant to give you this to check out ..... http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-l ... -1.2820563

"Thousands of farm animals are transported across Canada every week. But the conditions they experience are regulated by rules that are decades old, and according to many, inhumane.

Canada's regulations governing the transportation of farmed animals date back to 1975. They currently allow for cattle to be in transit for 52 hours without access to food or water, while the maximum for pigs and chickens is 36 hours."


and the European temperature requirements from this article are listed as 41 -86 degrees F +41 degrees F, which means the shipment in the video was well withing the temperature limits for the "best" system quoted .....

_________________
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 08, 2016 8:41 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:
I also meant to give you this to check out ..... http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-l ... -1.2820563

"Thousands of farm animals are transported across Canada every week. But the conditions they experience are regulated by rules that are decades old, and according to many, inhumane.

Canada's regulations governing the transportation of farmed animals date back to 1975. They currently allow for cattle to be in transit for 52 hours without access to food or water, while the maximum for pigs and chickens is 36 hours."


Quote:
and the European temperature requirements from this article are listed as 41 -86 degrees F +41 degrees F, which means the shipment in the video was well withing the temperature limits for the "best" system quoted .....


You still refer to these animals as "shipment". Interesting. Also interesting that you have a "best" system quoted.
Good going if you continue to justify this practice. I get it. Our ancestors needed it so now we do this. Is this your argument?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 11:27 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:

You still refer to these animals as "shipment". Interesting.


They are being shipped are they not. Troops are shipped overseas too. Your point is?

Quote:
Also interesting that you have a "best" system quoted.


You were the one claiming the Canadian requirements were not as good as the European and this shipment met the European temperature requirements, which is all we can know about the shipment from the video information and outside data.


Quote:
Good going if you continue to justify this practice. I get it.


You are trying to vilify it based on your personal emotions, I am pointing out the errors in your presentation.

Quote:
Our ancestors needed it so now we do this.


Actually I believe our ancestors raised their own so there was not the need for transport except for sea voyages and colonization.

Quote:
Is this your argument?


No, my argument is that your evidence fails to support your argument.

_________________
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: Tue May 10, 2016 7:21 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:

You still refer to these animals as "shipment". Interesting.


They are being shipped are they not. Troops are shipped overseas too. Your point is?

That neither pig nor human should be perceived as objects/shipment. The way we treat the environment is the way we treat each other is the way we treat animals is the way we treat each other and the environment, etc. Completely interrelated. How dare we "ship" humans? Is life so cheap?

Quote:
Also interesting that you have a "best" system quoted.


You were the one claiming the Canadian requirements were not as good as the European and this shipment met the European temperature requirements, which is all we can know about the shipment from the video information and outside data.

Quote:
Good going if you continue to justify this practice. I get it.


You are trying to vilify it based on your personal emotions, I am pointing out the errors in your presentation.

You point out the status quo. (Is that emotional? If so, you are guilty of emotionalism). In that, you are in error. I challenge the status quo. The status quo is in need of an overhaul, yet you defend it. Nothing to see here folks, just another concerned individual.

Quote:
Our ancestors needed it so now we do this.


Actually I believe our ancestors raised their own so there was not the need for transport except for sea voyages and colonization.

Our ancestors hunted and gathered, with most of the food source obtained through gathering. Our later ancestors discovered agriculture which included the raising of livestock. That's how it was, so no issue with it. No issue with history. But our ancestors did NOT do what we are doing now with animals and would probably roll over in their graves if they could possibly imagine what was to become of animals in the current situation. It's rather dismal, (understatement).

Quote:
Is this your argument?


No, my argument is that your evidence fails to support your argument.


Weak in the face of evidence. Oh yes, you want to know how these "particular" pigs enjoyed their "particular" ride.
Because bacon. Apparently it's all the rage these days. Very hip.

So you want to know if any of this "shipment" died en route? Maybe not, but maybe so. It's not unusual for animals to die while being transported. What of the others who don't die? Might they suffer? Might they be thirsty or hungry? Could it be possible that this journey is quite awful? This is the status quo that you uphold. Because tasty. See it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 8:07 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:

They are being shipped are they not. Troops are shipped overseas too. Your point is?


That neither pig nor human should be perceived as objects/shipment. The way we treat the environment is the way we treat each other is the way we treat animals is the way we treat each other and the environment, etc. Completely interrelated. How dare we "ship" humans? Is life so cheap?


You have to stretch the definition of the term to find such an opposition, but that is what some do.

Quote:
Quote:
You are trying to vilify it based on your personal emotions, I am pointing out the errors in your presentation.


You point out the status quo. (Is that emotional? If so, you are guilty of emotionalism). In that, you are in error. I challenge the status quo. The status quo is in need of an overhaul, yet you defend it. Nothing to see here folks, just another concerned individual.


Unless you are saying that everything must change for some reason, you are deflecting from the point. Your opposition to the status quo is based on emotions. Opposing or defending the status quo is not automatically emotional because .... GASP .... facts and data may be used.


Quote:
Quote:
Actually I believe our ancestors raised their own so there was not the need for transport except for sea voyages and colonization.


Our ancestors hunted and gathered, with most of the food source obtained through gathering. Our later ancestors discovered agriculture which included the raising of livestock. That's how it was, so no issue with it. No issue with history. But our ancestors did NOT do what we are doing now with animals and would probably roll over in their graves if they could possibly imagine what was to become of animals in the current situation. It's rather dismal, (understatement).


Really? You do realize how animals were treated PRIOR to the animal welfare laws right? There was a reason for those laws not just doing something to be doing it.

Quote:
Quote:
No, my argument is that your evidence fails to support your argument.


Weak in the face of evidence. Oh yes, you want to know how these "particular" pigs enjoyed their "particular" ride.
Because bacon. Apparently it's all the rage these days. Very hip.


No, you claim the PARTICULAR video of the PARTICULAR shipment shows abuse due to shipment during some type of heatwave, which was not recorded in the weather records.

Quote:
So you want to know if any of this "shipment" died en route? Maybe not, but maybe so. It's not unusual for animals to die while being transported. What of the others who don't die? Might they suffer? Might they be thirsty or hungry? Could it be possible that this journey is quite awful? This is the status quo that you uphold. Because tasty. See it?


Your video is of this shipment and supposedly shows the "horrible abuse" so yes, you should show something which is both "horrible" and "abuse" other than personal dislikes and vague generalizations.

_________________
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: Tue May 10, 2016 9:39 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:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

They are being shipped are they not. Troops are shipped overseas too. Your point is?


That neither pig nor human should be perceived as objects/shipment. The way we treat the environment is the way we treat each other is the way we treat animals is the way we treat the environment, etc. Completely interrelated. Yet we "ship" humans? Is life so cheap?


You have to stretch the definition (in Order to send your offspring there). of the term to find such an opposition, but that is what some do.

Only "some"? Too bad. Do you really regard our sons as fodder? Are they nothing more than cattle? Will you allow then to sign up for the military?

You are trying to vilify it based on your personal emotions, I am pointing out the errors in your presentation.


You point out the status quo. I don't find anything original in it. In that, you are in error. I challenge the status quo. The status quo is in need of an overhaul, yet you defend it. Nothing to see here folks, just another concerned individual. [/quote]

"Unless you are saying that everything must change for some reason, you are deflecting from the point."

I AM SAYING saying that EVERYTHING must change! And that is the point exactly!

Your opposition to the status quo is based on emotions. Opposing or defending the status quo is not automatically emotional because .... GASP .... facts and data may be used.

Quote:
Quote:
Actually I believe our ancestors raised their own so there was not the need for transport except for sea voyages and colonization.


Our ancestors hunted and gathered, with most of the food source obtained through gathering. Our later ancestors discovered agriculture which included the raising of livestock. That's how it was, so no issue with it. No issue with history. But our ancestors did NOT do what we are doing now with animals and would probably roll over in their graves if they could possibly imagine what was to become of animals in the current situation. It's rather dismal, (understatement).


Really? You do realize how animals were treated PRIOR to the animal welfare laws right? There was a reason for those laws not just doing something to be doing it.

Quote:
Quote:
No, my argument is that your evidence fails to support your argument.


Oh yes, you want to know how these "particular" pigs enjoyed their "particular" ride.
Because bacon. Apparently it's all the rage these days. Very hip.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 10:16 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:


You have to stretch the definition (in Order to send your offspring there). of the term to find such an opposition, but that is what some do.


Only "some"? Too bad. Do you really regard our sons as fodder? Are they nothing more than cattle? Will you allow then to sign up for the military? [/quote]

Just because you try to change the definition of the term does not make it so. The term applies to both people and other things. It has done so for a long time.


Quote:
Quote:
"Unless you are saying that everything must change for some reason, you are deflecting from the point."


I AM SAYING saying that EVERYTHING must change! And that is the point exactly!


Ok, arrest folks for making videos such as this, lock them up for extended periods of time and confiscate the equipment they use. That is a change I am sure you would oppose. You want SOME things to change, ONLY those things you want to change, and in a the direction YOU want them to go. If everything should change we should also be looking to outlaw vegans as a change.

_________________
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 May 16, 2016 5:17 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
animal-friendly wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
The Canadian laws allow pigs to be transported to up to 36 hours without food or water. In this regard, Canada is lagging. Can you imagine, in 80 degree temperatures, or 0 degree temperatures? Of course 80 degrees is a heat wave when you are travelling such long distances/hours without food or water. No wonder those animals were in need of water. So basic.


"Well, when you can say that 80 degrees F is a heat wave, you have gone off into the ether and left reality behind."

Except the temperature was only part of the picture.

How would we like to be in transport for 36 hours without food or water in whatever temperature?

Gonna compare this treatment to other countries?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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