EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:50 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:18 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:
You cannot legislate via pure emotions, which means you will not make much in the way of what you might consider progress.


Emotions? Who said anything about that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:06 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:
You cannot legislate via pure emotions, which means you will not make much in the way of what you might consider progress.


Emotions? Who said anything about that?


You have provided noting in the way of evidence resorting to conjecture of feelings, which is emotional.

_________________
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 Jun 11, 2016 7:03 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:
You cannot legislate via pure emotions, which means you will not make much in the way of what you might consider progress.


Emotions? Who said anything about that?


You have provided noting in the way of evidence resorting to conjecture of feelings, which is emotional.


I have no idea what you're talking about. You will have to be more clear.

36 hours is not factual?
36 hours is emotional?
Where is the conjecture in that?

Again, if you were privileged enough to be on a 36 hour flight (which isn't likely, for who would subject a person to that?) ... complete with reclining seats, a meal and movie to distract you .... We might empathize with you as we met you at the airport.

You might be in need of some form of respite after such a trip.

Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?

Will you tell me that your trip was only 4 hours without food and water and rest?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:49 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 cannot legislate via pure emotions, which means you will not make much in the way of what you might consider progress.


Emotions? Who said anything about that?


animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You have provided noting in the way of evidence resorting to conjecture of feelings, which is emotional.


I have no idea what you're talking about. You will have to be more clear.

36 hours is not factual?


It is factual as it is a measure of time, the reason for it being unacceptable for the limit is emotional at best. One who requires it may not go this period without oxygen because one will die. One can go for much longer without nitrogen.

Quote:
36 hours is emotional?


The assumption of feelings associated with it is emotional

Quote:
Where is the conjecture in that?


Where is the EVIDENCE? Not in this video. Not presented anywhere so far.

Quote:
Again, if you were privileged enough to be on a 36 hour flight (which isn't likely, for who would subject a person to that?) ... complete with reclining seats, a meal and movie to distract you .... We might empathize with you as we met you at the airport.


That would be emotional would it not?

Quote:
You might be in need of some form of respite after such a trip.

Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?


One may want a meal and some rest but one can go without for longer without need to do either.

Quote:
Will you tell me that your trip was only 4 hours without food and water and rest?


I will tell you that is an emotional presentation. What are the measurable effects that would impact at each level that makes one less acceptable?

"How would you feel" is an emotional appeal.

_________________
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 Jun 19, 2016 8:28 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:
You cannot legislate via pure emotions, which means you will not make much in the way of what you might consider progress.


Emotions? Who said anything about that?


animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You have provided noting in the way of evidence resorting to conjecture of feelings, which is emotional.


I have no idea what you're talking about. You will have to be more clear.

36 hours is not factual?


It is factual as it is a measure of time, the reason for it being unacceptable for the limit is emotional at best. One who requires it may not go this period without oxygen because one will die. One can go for much longer without nitrogen.

Quote:
Yes, it is a measure of time! 36 hours in transport without the usual human distractions is quite a considerable measure of time. Especially loaded up so closely. Neither oxygen nor nitrogen is an issue. (???)

You bring up nitrogen now? Oxygen? Who said anything about either?

36 hours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:50 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Yes, it is a measure of time! 36 hours in transport without the usual human distractions is quite a considerable measure of time.


But we are not dealing with humans and that is where your emotional position fails.

Quote:
Especially loaded up so closely.


Not very closely in the video though. In fact, I have passed a transport three days this past week and all three time showed the hogs lying down presumably asleep. A few had snouts protruding while others had ears and most were just visible at the floor level.


Quote:
Neither oxygen nor nitrogen is an issue. (???)


Neither is your 35 hours without some defined reason other than you don't like it because you would not like it if it happened to you.

Quote:
You bring up nitrogen now? Oxygen? Who said anything about either?


It was to point out that without some supporting reason periods of time are useless.

_________________
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 Jun 25, 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
You might be in need of some form of respite after such a trip.

Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?


[
Quote:
quote]One may want a meal and some rest but one can go without for longer without need to do either.
[/quote]

Is that your answer?
Animals can do either? We could do that too? We may want a meal and some rest for as may hours and days, but could go longer.
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:11 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:
Yes, it is a measure of time! 36 hours in transport without the usual human distractions is quite a considerable measure of time.


But we are not dealing with humans and that is where your emotional position fails.


But i am human.
AND SO ARE YOU.

Quote:
Especially loaded up so closely.


Not very closely in the video though. In fact, I have passed a transport three days this past week and all three time showed the hogs lying down presumably asleep.

Presumably asleep?
isn't that a nice thought? Wouldn't we like to believe? it wouL


few had snouts protruding while others had ears and most were just visible at the floor level.




Quote:
Neither oxygen nor nitrogen is an issue. (???)


Neither is your 35 hours without some defined reason other than you don't like it because you would not like it if it happened to you.

Quote:
You bring up nitrogen now? Oxygen? Who said anything about either?


It was to point out that without some supporting reason periods of time are useless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:32 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 might be in need of some form of respite after such a trip.


Yes, but more likely you would want rather than need if you were young and in relatively good shape.

Quote:
Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?


If you replaced "need" with "want", no. That would be likely. A need claim, however, has no evidence to support it.


Quote:
Quote:
One may want a meal and some rest but one can go without for longer without need to do either.


Is that your answer?


Yes, that is the answer I gave.

Quote:
Animals can do either?


Yes. They can. There are references to longer periods prior to the regulations being enacted to support this.

Quote:
We could do that too?


Yes, the magic 3's come to mind for survival. We can go 3 minutes without air, 3 hours in a harsh environment without shelter, 3 days without water if we have everything else, and 3 weeks without food if we have everything else.

Quote:
We may want a meal and some rest for as may hours and days, but could go longer.


Yes, many have done so in more harsh conditions.

_________________
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 Jun 25, 2016 6:41 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:
Yes, it is a measure of time! 36 hours in transport without the usual human distractions is quite a considerable measure of time.


But we are not dealing with humans and that is where your emotional position fails.



animal-friendly wrote:
But i am human.
AND SO ARE YOU.


But neither of us are being transported are we? You are discussing something as if you were experiencing it, but you are not.

Quote:
Quote:
Especially loaded up so closely.


Not very closely in the video though. In fact, I have passed a transport three days this past week and all three time showed the hogs lying down presumably asleep.


Quote:
Presumably asleep?


Yes, as I could not confirm while driving down the highway, but they had the appearance of sleeping hogs just like the sleeping dog in the seat beside me. At least until she smelled the hogs and looked out of the window.

Quote:
isn't that a nice thought?


It was a direct observation. One made a few times since as well.

Quote:
Wouldn't we like to believe?


Are you suggesting I did not see the truck load of hogs or that they were all dead or otherwise incapacitated?

_________________
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: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:28 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?

Quote:
If you replaced "need" with "want", no. That would be likely. A need claim, however, has no evidence to support it.


Good thing we were absolutely NOT talking about 'absolute' need for 'absolute' survival then. We are talking about something else and always have been. And, of course, you know that, but are distracting from the conversation as it suits your argument. But why are you arguing?

After the possibility of 36 hours of travel without food, water or rest, whether human animal or pig, you only "want' some rest, food or water. You wouldn't "need" it. After all, people have gone longer and still lived. Look at Ghandi, for instance. This is what you are saying?

Quote:
One may want a meal and some rest but one can go without for longer without need to do either.


Is that your answer?

Quote:
Yes, that is the answer I gave.


I know it's the answer you gave and it's a cop out. It's a denial of the pain and suffering these animals are forced to endure. Why should they, or you, have to endure more than 8 hours without succor? How is this ethical? This issue is not only about survival. How much profit would the farmer lose it it was? Economically, the farmer makes more money per trip.
Cram them in. Don't stop for water and food and rest. Some may die, most will suffer. Doesn't matter. They are units. Gotta pay the mortgage and send the kids to college.

Quote:
There are references to longer periods prior to the regulations being enacted to support this.


That is no consolation to either animal or human animal. There is also record of black humans enduring long ocean journeys with just enough food, water or rest NOT to die ..... and they survived as much as economically feasible without death. Again, this issue is NOT about survival on the journey, it is about just enough survival to get to the slaughter house. It's about the economics of it.


Quote:
Yes, the magic 3's come to mind for survival. We can go 3 minutes without air, 3 hours in a harsh environment without shelter, 3 days without water if we have everything else, and 3 weeks without food if we have everything else.


So what? Why we would we subject another living being to bare survival in such discomfort? Push them to the ultimate limits before death? Wayne, you evidently do not get it.

Wayne, is it possible that you will get it or just keep arguing like those who will ride that river til the end. You will see the evidence, but argue with personal anecdotes about those happy sleeping and comfortable pigs who are JUST as comfy as your dog in the passenger's seat of your car.

Quote:
We may want a meal and some rest for as may hours and days, but could go longer.


Yes, we could GO longer. Not the point. Never was.

C'mon Wayne. None of us here are stupid. Can't you do better?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:01 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?

Quote:
If you replaced "need" with "want", no. That would be likely. A need claim, however, has no evidence to support it.


Good thing we were absolutely NOT talking about 'absolute' need for 'absolute' survival then. We are talking about something else and always have been. And, of course, you know that, but are distracting from the conversation as it suits your argument. But why are you arguing?


Because you are making claims unsupportable by any evidence. Children say they "need" the latest technology, when in reality they merely WANT it. Just as you have tried to replace want with need. It is a common misrepresentation and usually based on the desire to impart a greater weight to one's claims than is really generated.

Quote:
After the possibility of 36 hours of travel without food, water or rest, whether human animal or pig, you only "want' some rest, food or water. You wouldn't "need" it. After all, people have gone longer and still lived. Look at Ghandi, for instance. This is what you are saying?


Yes, that is the difference between a "need" and a "want".

Quote:
Quote:
One may want a meal and some rest but one can go without for longer without need to do either.


Is that your answer?

Quote:
Yes, that is the answer I gave.


I know it's the answer you gave and it's a cop out. It's a denial of the pain and suffering these animals are forced to endure.


You have evidence of this "pain and suffering"? You assume it based on the insertion of yourself into that situation, which is not accurate or correct. Most people would not be comfortable in a hog wallow, but hogs are happy with it.

Quote:
Why should they, or you, have to endure more than 8 hours without succor?


I have gone longer for various reasons. Travel is one which makes it more difficult.

Quote:
How is this ethical?


Some will say nothing involving an animal is ethical. How do we determine the real ethics? Wait, we do by majority consensus do we not?

Quote:
This issue is not only about survival.


Then the term "need" would have to be removed from the discussion would it not?

Quote:
How much profit would the farmer lose it it was?



You tell me. You are proposing the change so you should have the data to support the proposal unless you are the Leave Britain group that just made stuff up.

Quote:
Economically, the farmer makes more money per trip.


Unless the hogs are stressed and then they may lose weight and being paid per pound makes that a loss.

Quote:
Cram them in.


Not supported by any evidence INCLUDING your initial video.

Quote:
Don't stop for water and food and rest.


Where and how often should this happen? Is it more stressful to load and unload to give food, water and rest, or to continue on for a few more hours? You are supposed to have this information to support your proposal.

Quote:
Some may die,


This is supported by what data?

Quote:
most will suffer.


This is supported by what data?


Quote:
Quote:
There are references to longer periods prior to the regulations being enacted to support this.


That is no consolation to either animal or human animal. There is also record of black humans enduring long ocean journeys with just enough food, water or rest NOT to die ..... and they survived as much as economically feasible without death. Again, this issue is NOT about survival on the journey, it is about just enough survival to get to the slaughter house. It's about the economics of it.


You are going off on assumptions and beliefs with nothing to support it than your own words. I can say you are wrong and we have cancelled each other out. Evidence is what makes one point stronger than the other and you have no evidence presented.


Quote:
Quote:
Yes, the magic 3's come to mind for survival. We can go 3 minutes without air, 3 hours in a harsh environment without shelter, 3 days without water if we have everything else, and 3 weeks without food if we have everything else.


So what? Why we would we subject another living being to bare survival in such discomfort?


To keep them from death comes to mind, but you seem to be ignoring that.


Quote:
Push them to the ultimate limits before death? Wayne, you evidently do not get it.


No, I do not get the emotional and unsupported claims you expect everyone to accept just because.


Quote:
Wayne, is it possible that you will get it or just keep arguing like those who will ride that river til the end. You will see the evidence, but argue with personal anecdotes about those happy sleeping and comfortable pigs who are JUST as comfy as your dog in the passenger's seat of your car.


That was personal experiences which refutes your claims of them "being packed in" for example. You have provided even less information to support your claims because even the video refutes many of them.

Quote:
Quote:
We may want a meal and some rest for as may hours and days, but could go longer.


Yes, we could GO longer. Not the point. Never was.


Then the "need" was not accurate but just a misdirection.

Quote:
C'mon Wayne. None of us here are stupid. Can't you do better?


You should take your own advice here and try to do something other than tell us your feelings.

_________________
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 Jul 02, 2016 4:28 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:
Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?

Quote:
If you replaced "need" with "want", no. That would be likely. A need claim, however, has no evidence to support it.


Good thing we were absolutely NOT talking about 'absolute' need for 'absolute' survival then. We are talking about something else and always have been. And, of course, you know that, but are distracting from the conversation as it suits your argument. But why are you arguing?

Quote:
Because you are making claims unsupportable by any evidence. Children say they "need" the latest technology, when in reality they merely WANT it. Just as you have tried to replace want with need. It is a common misrepresentation and usually based on the desire to impart a greater weight to one's claims than is really generated.


The example of children "wanting technology" is a terrible example in light of this situation. You are minimizing a much more egregious situation with such a trite example of children living in a consumerist society.

After the possibility of 36 hours of travel without food, water or rest, whether human animal or pig, you only "want' some rest, food or water. You wouldn't "need" it. After all, people have gone longer and still lived. Look at Ghandi, for instance. This is what you are saying?

Quote:
Yes, that is the difference between a "need" and a "want".
One may want a meal and some rest but one can go without for longer without need to do either.


Is that your answer?

Quote:
Yes, that is the answer I gave.


I know it's the answer you gave and it's a cop out. It's a denial of the pain and suffering these animals are forced to endure.
Quote:

You have evidence of this "pain and suffering"? You assume it based on the insertion of yourself into that situation, which is not accurate or correct. Most people would not be comfortable in a hog wallow, but hogs are happy with it.


Of course I have evidence. You could too, if you had a look. Inserting myself into that situation is neither accurate nor is it inaccurate. But first, if people can survive in a hog hollow, barely or otherwise, what's the problem? According to you, they may prefer a condo with air conditioning but that is want vs. need. They don't actually "need' it in order to survive.

Why should they, or you, have to endure more than 8 hours without succor?

Quote:
I have gone longer for various reasons. Travel is one which makes it more difficult.


NOT a good comparison. Especially without air conditioning when hot, or heating when cold!
Which you had. You knew you could get some ribs when you landed. You probably looked forward to a shower and some bed rest. These things made difficult and long travel more do'able. Just not a good comparison.

Quote:
How is this ethical?


Quote:
Some will say nothing involving an animal is ethical. How do we determine the real ethics? Wait, we do by majority consensus do we not?


Some will say "nothing involving an animal is ethical" is not what this conversation is about. Stay focused and DO NOT change the subject.

Quote:
This issue is not only about survival.

Quote:
Then the term "need" would have to be removed from the discussion would it not?


We have removed it. The "want vs. need" issue is defunct. So go ahead and remove the term "need". As has been discussed, humans can survive in hog hollows and black skinned people have survived very long journeys with just enough sustenance to keep them alive and pay dividends.

Economically, the farmer makes more money per trip.

Quote:
Unless the hogs are stressed and then they may lose weight and being paid per pound makes that a loss.


But it's only a loss against the ultimate gain of shipping BULK. The hog production line will take their losses, rather than forking out for additional trucks and drivers, which of course would be more humane than economical. This is obvious.

Quote:
Cram them in.

Quote:
Not supported by any evidence INCLUDING your initial video.


But supported by your dog in the passenger seat and this lovely truck you saw?

Don't stop for water and food and rest.

Quote:
Where and how often should this happen? Is it more stressful to load and unload to give food, water and rest, or to continue on for a few more hours? You are supposed to have this information to support your proposal.


It's there Wayne. Look for it. If you dare. Might be upsetting. It was and is for me. Maybe I'm too "emotional" and not "intellectual" enough? Maybe I'm a f##k intellectual 'retard' because I get upset about how slaves were treated? If they survived long voyages with barely enough to keep them going (want vs. need), what's the problem? Will you give us another example of kids these days, who "want" more technology in order to minimize the situation of animals in transport who are grossly under protected for the "want vs need" bacon breakfasts?

Quote:
Some may die,

Quote:
This is supported by what data?


You could find it as easily as me, if you looked. But you don't want to see because you like the status quo. It's working out just fine for you and your dinner plate. It's easy, accessible, affordable, and tasty protein. Protein is everywhere, but you "want" it in a particular form. If you want to play the "need/want" card .....

Quote:
most will suffer.

Quote:
This is supported by what data?


Yeah, because they are all sleeping peacefully as they are being transported. Just like your dog. Lots of room to stretch out in the passenger seats of the world. Such a convenient belief. Anecdotally.

Quote:
There are references to longer periods prior to the regulations being enacted to support this.


That is no consolation to either animal or human animal. There is also record of black humans enduring long ocean journeys with just enough food, water or rest NOT to die ..... and they survived as much as economically feasible without death. Again, this issue is NOT about survival on the journey, it is about just enough survival to get to the slaughter house. It's about the economics of it.

Quote:
You are going off on assumptions and beliefs with nothing to support it than your own words. I can say you are wrong and we have cancelled each other out. Evidence is what makes one point stronger than the other and you have no evidence presented.


Again, if you look for it, you will find it. But you are not looking. And WHAT assumptions and beliefs? "There is also record of black humans enduring long ocean journeys with just enough food, water or rest NOT to die ..... and they survived as much as economically feasible without death." How much "emotion" is involved in these historical facts? Are we only allowed to talk "want vs need" in regards to humans? Can't broach the subject if animals are concerned?

After all, you only "want" bacon. Do you need it? does anyone? No. We want it though.

Quote:
Yes, the magic 3's come to mind for survival. We can go 3 minutes without air, 3 hours in a harsh environment without shelter, 3 days without water if we have everything else, and 3 weeks without food if we have everything else.



So what? Why we would we subject another living being to bare "survival" in such discomfort?


Quote:
To keep them from death comes to mind, but you seem to be ignoring that.



No, You seem to be ignoring it. Should we subject humans to 2:59 without air, harsh environment without shelter, water? Maybe we should subject humans to hog hollows. That will surely prevent them from death? And since so many pigs are DOA we haven't prevented death anyway. So the Magic 3 isn't very magical unless we are talking slaves or animals? Dividends? Economics? What we can get away with? This is your slant.


Quote:
Push them to the ultimate limits before death? Wayne, you evidently do not get it.


Quote:
No, I do not get the emotional and unsupported claims you expect everyone to accept just because.


Should we all go for the magic 3's for survival logarithm you provided? My claims are not unsupported, nor are they ONLY emotional. But they are emotional too, and there is nothing wrong with that since emotions and intellect are closely connected.

Wayne, is it possible that you will get it or just keep arguing like those who will ride that river til the end. You will see the evidence, but argue with personal anecdotes about those happy sleeping and comfortable pigs who are JUST as comfy as your dog in the passenger's seat of your car.

Quote:
That was personal experiences which refutes your claims of them "being packed in" for example. You have provided even less information to support your claims because even the video refutes many of them.


Your personal anecdote of "sleeping pigs" in transport who are enjoying their ride just like your pet dog in the passenger seat of your vehicle..... is ridiculous. You haven't looked at the situation. You probably don't want to look. I get it. It certainly is a little inconvenient. The evidence (which I have not yet supplied, and you have not yet looked for), is there. I can support my position easily. You want "evidence" that animals are suffering. You want "evidence' that they can't survive under the most horrendous conditions. You argue that they only need 2:59 hours and minutes of whatever is absolute necessity in order to "survive". (Which side of the debate would you have been on back in the days of the slave trade? Please don't answer that question, especially if you had land that needed to be tended and was convenient for you.) Pigs are not human, but just as convenient. Their needs should not be construed as "wants" as our children want more technology.

Quote:
We may want a meal and some rest for as may hours and days, but could go longer.


Yes, we could GO longer. Not the point. Never was.

Quote:
Then the "need" was not accurate but just a misdirection.


The want IS the need. Quality of life is an issue. If you don't think so, go live in a hog home. You would most likely "survive" there.

C'mon Wayne. None of us here are stupid. Can't you do better?

Quote:
You should take your own advice here and try to do something other than tell us your feelings.


No. I will continue to tell you my "feelings" because my "feelings" are an integral aspect of my intelligence. If you deny your "feelings", you are also denying your innate intelligence.

Why are emotions given such a bad rap? What would we be without them? Robots?

But even "logically", the food system we have now makes no sense. But it is part of the status quo, which you defend. But you are only defending it because you are arguing with me. And your dog doesn't mind car rides.

_________________
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


Report this post
Top


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:49 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Would it be too "emotional" of me to 'conjecture' that you might need a meal and some comfort? Some rest?

Quote:
If you replaced "need" with "want", no. That would be likely. A need claim, however, has no evidence to support it.


Good thing we were absolutely NOT talking about 'absolute' need for 'absolute' survival then. We are talking about something else and always have been. And, of course, you know that, but are distracting from the conversation as it suits your argument. But why are you arguing?

Quote:
Because you are making claims unsupportable by any evidence. Children say they "need" the latest technology, when in reality they merely WANT it. Just as you have tried to replace want with need. It is a common misrepresentation and usually based on the desire to impart a greater weight to one's claims than is really generated.


The example of children "wanting technology" is a terrible example in light of this situation. You are minimizing a much more egregious situation with such a trite example of children living in a consumerist society.


That is you OPINION and one for which you have provided no evidence to show that it is based on anything other than assumption.


Quote:
Quote:

You have evidence of this "pain and suffering"? You assume it based on the insertion of yourself into that situation, which is not accurate or correct. Most people would not be comfortable in a hog wallow, but hogs are happy with it.


Of course I have evidence. You could too, if you had a look.


I have looked. I have found no evidnece to support your claim and I have seen no such evidence presented by you.


Quote:
Inserting myself into that situation is neither accurate nor is it inaccurate.


It is inaccurate for evidence, which is the point you miss.

Quote:
But first, if people can survive in a hog hollow, barely or otherwise, what's the problem? According to you, they may prefer a condo with air conditioning but that is want vs. need. They don't actually "need' it in order to survive.


That is correct. They act upon their wants. That is why everyone does not live in the same type of shelter even in the same area. Some want large shelters and others nearby only want smaller less ornate shelters.


Quote:
Quote:
I have gone longer for various reasons. Travel is one which makes it more difficult.


NOT a good comparison. Especially without air conditioning when hot, or heating when cold!
Which you had.


Actually I did not. Air conditioning was not common in the vehicles at the time. One made due with a vent window to direct air into the cabin. Heaters were also a bit more fickle in operation especially in the older vehicles. Those old VW bugs would never get warm in winter because they were air cooled engines.

Quote:
You knew you could get some ribs when you landed. You probably looked forward to a shower and some bed rest. These things made difficult and long travel more do'able. Just not a good comparison.


Correct, I had the ability to know what was happening which is why inserting myself in the place of an animal which does not have that capacity is so very flawed.


Quote:
Some will say "nothing involving an animal is ethical" is not what this conversation is about. Stay focused and DO NOT change the subject.


Then do NOT claim it is or is not ethical just because it sounds good to you. The FACT is that ethics involving animals is not clearly supported by even those who agree with you on this subject. Ethics are NOT objective but clearly subjective determinations.


Quote:
Then the term "need" would have to be removed from the discussion would it not?


We have removed it. The "want vs. need" issue is defunct. So go ahead and remove the term "need". As has been discussed, humans can survive in hog hollows and black skinned people have survived very long journeys with just enough sustenance to keep them alive and pay dividends.

Quote:
Quote:
Economically, the farmer makes more money per trip.


Quote:
Unless the hogs are stressed and then they may lose weight and being paid per pound makes that a loss.


But it's only a loss against the ultimate gain of shipping BULK. The hog production line will take their losses, rather than forking out for additional trucks and drivers, which of course would be more humane than economical. This is obvious.


Ok, what are the cost figures to support this claim? How much more or less money is involved? What concentration of animals per square yard/meter area starts to result in the death of animals being transported on a consistent basis? What are the cost/benefit points from there to the current regulations?

Quote:
Quote:
Cram them in.

Quote:
Not supported by any evidence INCLUDING your initial video.


But supported by your dog in the passenger seat and this lovely truck you saw?


No, supported by the density of hogs per trailer I witnessed repeatedly.

Quote:
Don't stop for water and food and rest.

Quote:
Where and how often should this happen? Is it more stressful to load and unload to give food, water and rest, or to continue on for a few more hours? You are supposed to have this information to support your proposal.


It's there Wayne. Look for it. If you dare.


I am to find evidence to support your claims for what reason? I have seen nothing that would make that anything other than a wild goose chase at this point.

Quote:
Might be upsetting. It was and is for me. Maybe I'm too "emotional" and not "intellectual" enough?


Unless you were physically present that data should be something you could share as you know, evidence to support your claim?

Quote:
Maybe I'm a f##k intellectual 'retard' because I get upset about how slaves were treated?


Actually slaves are a different matter from hogs, but you should already know that.

Quote:
If they survived long voyages with barely enough to keep them going (want vs. need), what's the problem?



Actually, they did not get their needs met which is why so many died, but the travel time was weeks not hours and they were not sold by the pound but by the strong body and it was the strong who tended to survive the trip.

Quote:
Will you give us another example of kids these days, who "want" more technology in order to minimize the situation of animals in transport who are grossly under protected for the "want vs need" bacon breakfasts?


Sure, if you want. I have asked for evidence to support your claim of "grossly under protected" with no avail, but I do try to accommodate.

Quote:
Quote:
Some may die,

Quote:
This is supported by what data?


You could find it as easily as me, if you looked.


Telling me to look up your evidence is an old trick in debates. If I do not find said evidence it is my fault for not looking hard enough so your claim can still stand? No, if YOU cannot support YOUR claim by evidence you provide your claim is not worthy of consideration.


Quote:
But you don't want to see because you like the status quo. It's working out just fine for you and your dinner plate. It's easy, accessible, affordable, and tasty protein. Protein is everywhere, but you "want" it in a particular form. If you want to play the "need/want" card .....


You do not want to provide the evidence because it does not show what you want to believe?

Quote:
Quote:
most will suffer.

Quote:
This is supported by what data?


Yeah, because they are all sleeping peacefully as they are being transported. Just like your dog. Lots of room to stretch out in the passenger seats of the world. Such a convenient belief. Anecdotally.


Yes it is a series of anecdotal incidents, but far more evidence that you have provided to show that "most will suffer" transport.

Quote:
Quote:
There are references to longer periods prior to the regulations being enacted to support this.


That is no consolation to either animal or human animal.


There is no consolation for an animal because there is no process in their brains. Humans are a different matter and cannot be compared as you are trying to do.

Quote:
There is also record of black humans enduring long ocean journeys with just enough food, water or rest NOT to die ..... and they survived as much as economically feasible without death. Again, this issue is NOT about survival on the journey, it is about just enough survival to get to the slaughter house. It's about the economics of it.


Then you should have evidence of the economics, but I fail to see how the animals are concerned with economics at all. It sounds a lot like an attempt to affect the economics so as to reduce the consumption period.


Quote:
Quote:
You are going off on assumptions and beliefs with nothing to support it than your own words. I can say you are wrong and we have cancelled each other out. Evidence is what makes one point stronger than the other and you have no evidence presented.


Again, if you look for it, you will find it.


Again, if you have already found it why should I waste my time trying to find it again if you want to convince me of the accuracy of your claims?


Quote:
But you are not looking.



No, because I have looked in the past and had this discussion in the past with people who did the very same thing. They made claims and told me that I needed to find the evidence. When I could not they said I must not have looked hard enough or I would have found it. I determined that anyone who could not provide evidence for their claims probably never had that evidence when they made their assumption or they would have shared it.

Quote:
And WHAT assumptions and beliefs?


That most of the animals will suffer. That some number will die. There are many presented here by you.


Quote:
"There is also record of black humans enduring long ocean journeys with just enough food, water or rest NOT to die ..... and they survived as much as economically feasible without death." How much "emotion" is involved in these historical facts?


Unless hogs are people there is a HUGE difference in the comparison. It seems you have gotten stuck on trying to make hogs equal to slaves, which is inaccurate on so many levels but also demeaning toward people who were and are kept as slaves.


Quote:
Are we only allowed to talk "want vs need" in regards to humans? Can't broach the subject if animals are concerned?


How do you determine what an animal "wants"? If you ask them what will they answer?

Quote:
After all, you only "want" bacon. Do you need it? does anyone? No. We want it though.


Yes, but we do need animal products as part of a natural diet. You know those things so many people say we "need"?


Quote:
So what? Why we would we subject another living being to bare "survival" in such discomfort?


All animals in the wild are subject to this bare survival. How do you know there is "discomfort" other than making that assumption?


Quote:
Quote:
To keep them from death comes to mind, but you seem to be ignoring that.



No, You seem to be ignoring it. Should we subject humans to 2:59 without air,


If there were a reason to do so, but you seem to be randomly putting the option out.

Quote:
harsh environment without shelter, water?


Ever see some of the reality TV shows on survival? They do just that.

Quote:
Maybe we should subject humans to hog hollows. That will surely prevent them from death?


Not supported by any evidence or even basic logic.

Quote:
And since so many pigs are DOA we haven't prevented death anyway.


"So many"? How many is that exactly? Pure numbers, percentages of transport, whatever data you have.

Quote:
So the Magic 3 isn't very magical unless we are talking slaves or animals? Dividends? Economics? What we can get away with? This is your slant.


Just pointing out your errors in trying to make your slant seem real.


Quote:
My claims are not unsupported, nor are they ONLY emotional.


I looked back on the discussion and found no evidence to support your claims other than to ask "how would you feel in this situation", which is only an emotional support.


Quote:
But they are emotional too, and there is nothing wrong with that since emotions and intellect are closely connected.



Yes, there is something wrong with using emotion as evidence unless you are willing to accept opposing emotions as being just a s valid.

Quote:
Wayne, is it possible that you will get it or just keep arguing like those who will ride that river til the end. You will see the evidence, but argue with personal anecdotes about those happy sleeping and comfortable pigs who are JUST as comfy as your dog in the passenger's seat of your car.


My anecdotes are all that I have since YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.


Quote:
Quote:
That was personal experiences which refutes your claims of them "being packed in" for example. You have provided even less information to support your claims because even the video refutes many of them.


Your personal anecdote of "sleeping pigs" in transport who are enjoying their ride just like your pet dog in the passenger seat of your vehicle..... is ridiculous.


How so? If they were "packed in" as you claimed there would be no room for them to lie down and sleep. I personally experienced them sleeping on several occasions which does nto support your claim. You have not provided any evidence to show they are "packed in" as you have claimed.

Quote:
You haven't looked at the situation.


Yes, I have. That is why I knew you were making assumptions rather than working with any real evidence.

Quote:
You probably don't want to look. I get it. It certainly is a little inconvenient.


More incorrect assumptions.

Quote:
The evidence (which I have not yet supplied, and you have not yet looked for), is there. I can support my position easily.


Yet you have not even after repeated requests to do so. That makes your position look much less credible.

Quote:
You want "evidence" that animals are suffering.


Yes, that is the basic process for making a claim, which is being abel to support it with some type of evidence.

Quote:
You want "evidence' that they can't survive under the most horrendous conditions.


No, I want evidence to support your claim they are subjected to "the most horrendous conditions", which you have never provided.

Quote:
You argue that they only need 2:59 hours and minutes of whatever is absolute necessity in order to "survive". (Which side of the debate would you have been on back in the days of the slave trade? Please don't answer that question, especially if you had land that needed to be tended and was convenient for you.) Pigs are not human, but just as convenient. Their needs should not be construed as "wants" as our children want more technology.


Misrepresenting my statements indicate that you either do not understand or do not want to deal with the true statements.

Quote:
Quote:
We may want a meal and some rest for as may hours and days, but could go longer.


Yes, we could GO longer. Not the point. Never was.

Quote:
Then the "need" was not accurate but just a misdirection.


The want IS the need.


No, that is a clear misrepresentation. A need is clear. A want is subjective. You are dealing with pure subjective claims.

Quote:
Quality of life is an issue.


Based on what criteria? A hogs? A humans? They are not the same but you continue to try to say they should be treated the same.

Quote:
If you don't think so, go live in a hog home. You would most likely "survive" there.


Maybe after you travel with a couple of hog trucks ... in the back with the hogs to see if you die.

Quote:
C'mon Wayne. None of us here are stupid. Can't you do better?

Quote:
You should take your own advice here and try to do something other than tell us your feelings.


No. I will continue to tell you my "feelings" because my "feelings" are an integral aspect of my intelligence. If you deny your "feelings", you are also denying your innate intelligence.


If I used my emotions in this discussion I would dwell on the misrepresentations as an attempt to insult my intelligence, which would do no good in such a discussion. As it is I just try to get that evidence you claim to have but will not release for whatever reason.

Quote:
Why are emotions given such a bad rap? What would we be without them? Robots?


Emotions are what allow us to be bigots, abusers of others, criminals, and the like.

Quote:
But even "logically", the food system we have now makes no sense.


That is due to no planning in the past and the advent of the economy of scale. The food has ALWAYS had to be transported to cities but once the majority of the population became urban the system changed without notice.


Quote:
But it is part of the status quo, which you defend. But you are only defending it because you are arguing with me. And your dog doesn't mind car rides.


No, you are making claims I know to be inaccurate and I am pointing out the errors in what little you present as evidence of your opinions.

_________________
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 Jul 07, 2016 4:53 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
Telling me to look up your evidence is an old trick in debates. If I do not find said evidence it is my fault for not looking hard enough so your claim can still stand? No, if YOU cannot support YOUR claim by evidence you provide your claim is not worthy of consideration.


No trick required .... ever. Hope you weren't looking for the number of bacteria in a petrie dish. You want "lab" evidence" or much stronger anecdotal evidence than your dog in the passenger seat?

Quote:
If you replaced "need" with "want", no. That would be likely. A need claim, however, has no evidence to support it.


Good thing we were absolutely NOT talking about 'absolute' need for 'absolute' survival then. We are talking about something else and always have been. And, of course, you know that, but are distracting from the conversation as it suits your argument. But why are you arguing?

Quote:
Because you are making claims unsupportable by any evidence. Children say they "need" the latest technology, when in reality they merely WANT it. Just as you have tried to replace want with need. It is a common misrepresentation and usually based on the desire to impart a greater weight to one's claims than is really generated.


The example of children "wanting technology" is a terrible example in light of this situation. You are minimizing a much more egregious situation with such a trite example of children living in a consumerist society.

Quote:
That is you OPINION and one for which you have provided no evidence to show that it is based on anything other than assumption.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-l ... -1.2820563

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.

"Animals are often transported thousands of kilometres without any food, water, shelter or any protection from the elements."
And these conditions appear to be taking their toll. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says between two and three million animals die during transport every year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1211566/

Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.

The greatest animal suffering observed in the study occurred on long journeys - especially in freezing weather. Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.

Geoff Urton, the farm animal welfare co-ordinator at the British Columbia SPCA, said Canada's regulations are more than 30 years old and need to be updated. "There is really good evidence that the current standards are not adequate to actually protect the animals," said Mr. Urton.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT

1. Unacceptable numbers of animals, particularly chickens, die during transport.
This most often happens when the birds are moved over long distances and in inclement weather.

2 to 3 million: The number of animals that arrive dead every year at Canadian slaughterhouses.

2. Animals are transported in overcrowded conditions.

Transporters pack between seven and 16 chickens into crates that are a half-metre square, and cows have arrived at processing plants with sores on their backs from brushing against the roof of the truck.
6% to 89%: The increase in number of animals covered with salmonella after being kept in crowded conditions for 40 minutes, according to a Texas Tech University study.

Severely injured and sick animals are transported in contravention of federal regulations.

Animals are arriving at slaughterhouses and auctions emaciated, weak, crippled and with severe injuries.
The number of sheep a farmer brought to be slaughtered at Princeton Meat Packers in Woodstock, Ont., that had injuries so severe, they should never have been transported.

4. Severely compromised animals are transported and left to suffer for prolonged periods, sometimes days.

The World Society for the Protection of Animals says many incidents may be in violation of federal or provincial animal cruelty laws.
58: The length of time, in hours, one crippled cow was left alive on top of a pile of dead animals in Lethbridge, Alta.

5. A shortage of trained animal welfare inspectors, particularly veterinarians, puts animal health and welfare at risk.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors are not authorized to euthanize animals or relieve their suffering for humane reasons, and few animal inspectors are veterinarians or trained to address animal welfare problems during transport.

Drivers appear to be unaware of regulations, including their right, indeed, their responsibility, to refuse to transport an injured animal. Some drivers didn't even know how many animals they had aboard their truck.

http://www.hsi.org/world/canada/work/tr ... google.ca/

According to the government department responsible for enforcing transport standards, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), between two and three million animals die during transport every year. Most of these animals are chickens—either broiler chickens, raised for meat, or spent hens, laying hens who are no longer seen as productive.

Suffering in transport

Transport is an inherently stressful event for any farm animal given their natural sensitivities to new places, loud and unfamiliar sounds, changes in temperature, and being placed into close proximity to other animals.

Within Canadian borders, ruminants such as horses, sheep and cattle can be transported for up to 52 hours with no access to food, water, rest, or protection from extreme heat and cold; pigs for 36 hours; and newly hatched chicks can be transported for up to 72 hours with no access to food or water. Rest periods need only be five hours and there is no maximum time limit to an animal’s total journey time.

Animals transported in Canada are often overcrowded in trucks, causing poor ventilation and air quality, over-heating, trampling and injury, and forcing animals to sit or lie in their own excrement.

Inadequate government regulations and inspections

A lack of enforcement of current regulations is placing animals at risk of not even being assured minimum standards of protection.
HSI/Canada is highly concerned about the infrequency of inspections of transport vehicles, loading and unloading procedures, as well as the lack of properly trained CFIA inspectors.

CFIA considers spent laying hens to be compromised animals (fragile animals who should only ever be transported with special care and provisions). While CFIA standards require that no more than one percent of broiler chickens arrive DOA (dead on arrival) at their destination, the requirement for spent laying hens is four percent, allowing for their transport despite acknowledging that these animals are less likely to survive the stresses of their journey.
According to CFIA inspection reports, however, trucks have been known to arrive well over these limits, with hundreds of dead chickens—sometimes up to 30 percent of the animals on board.


Under CFIA regulations, transporting “downer” animals, animals who are unable to stand or walk due to stress, injury, illness, or fatigue, is banned. However, according to CFIA records, instances of animals being dragged onto and off transport trucks still occur.
Transporting downer animals is not only problematic from a welfare perspective, but also poses serious food safety concerns.
In 2010, CFIA was given a “D” by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, for failing to meet its obligations under Canada’s Access to Information Act.

http://cfhs.ca/farm/transportation/

Canada’s current animal transport regulations are decades old and inadequate by modern standards. They allow cattle and sheep to be transported for up to 52 hours continuously with no food, water or rest. Pigs, horses and birds can be transported for up to 36 hours. And there is no requirement for animal transporters to have any training on how to handle animals humanely or to drive safely with them on board.
In comparison, in the European Union, most species are not permitted to be transported for longer than 8 hours, unless transporters meet several conditions that preserve animal welfare on longer trips. Regulations that set out maximum loading densities to prevent overcrowding are strictly enforced.


And your argument to the very old, out dated, and inhumane transport laws in Canada is:
Quote:
"Ever see some of the reality TV shows on survival? They do just that."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group