Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Is there a reason you are just now quoting your own posts from prior pages?
Not exactly. No.Why do you ask?
Just wondering if there was a reason or if it were just spam. Spam will be deleted per the instructions of the board management.
animal-friendly wrote:
Spam should be deleted. Of course.
But quoting my own prior posts is not spam, which is, I suppose, why they have not been deleted.
No, it was due to their being discussed. At this point one has been deleted and the other may still be.
Quote:
Quoting my own (and your) prior quotes is the way I am conversing with you.
But is says nothing new and is frankly a little confusing.
Quote:
Not exactly chronological, I know, but linear is not the only way. Sometimes it is constructive to circle back and back again, and then go forward, and then circle back (with the hope than we can again go forward).
A better way would be to indicate which portion of the prior discussion was of interest, not just post the same thing twice.
Quote:
For instance, will reiterate this particular exchange ..... "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.
And your reply was: "Suffering which again is not specified nor documented. It seems to say that if there is transport there must be suffering, which is an assumption unsupported by anything other than emotions."
Quote:
Is it really spam or is it simply circling back on a part of the total conversation that has not been adequately addressed? Is 52 hours in freezing weather 'unspecified suffering'?
Yes, as you have not specified what the suffering is nor have you provided any documentation of said suffering on the animals as a group. Do you believe keeping them in a barn in freezing weather causes suffering after some unspecified time?
Quote:
While it it is legal, it is undocumented?
The suffering you claim, yes. The transport time is not applicable until there can be shown what suffering occurs and when. It falls back to your apparent assumption that transport equals suffering because you believe you would be uncomfortable in such a situation, which is an emotional belief.
Quote:
HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE UNDOCUMENTED ..... if it is legal?
It there were sufficient documentation of actual suffering it probably would not be legal.
Quote:
And your response, "if there is transport there must be suffering"?
Yes, as you seem to intermix the two as you did above with the documentation questions.
Quote:
Noooo. Transportation MUST happen, but 52 hours without food, water, or rest? Would an assumption about those animals welfare legalities/allowances be too emotional for you?
Assumptions are poor points to use in changing established regulations. One can always assume anything but such decisions require facts and evidence.
Quote:
How presumptuous, really, is it, to 'kinda-sorta' presume that there might be suffering for an animal to be legally allowed to be transported in freezing weather without food, water or rest for 52 hours?
Given the rest of the facts, yes, it is. What is the "magic number" and why? 52 hours causes the assumption of suffering so go to 26 hours and cut the assumed suffering in half. Then you can assume that is too much and cut it in half again and again because the goal seems to be that transport is what you want banned because it also would cut the numbers of animals raised for food.
Quote:
Might one not be acting and thinking and behaving in a very rational context to object to such laws?
Not given the evidence presented.
Quote:
Who do you presume you are talking to?
Some one who has not given any evidence to support a proposal that hogs are suffering in a video or in the general transport. Who you are or are not does not matter, but what you have to show as evidence does.
Quote:
You are conversing with a logical human being, and logical human beings make allowances for emotions since the intellect and emotions are usually (hopefully) well connected.
That could be a point of debate as well.
Quote:
I have stated the facts of Canadian transport laws.
Yes, and no evidence as to why they should be changed, which would be the really important thing to do unless they do not need to be changed.
Quote:
I may circle back again to statement you have previously made on this thread. And if/when I do, it will not be spam.
That will remain to be seen since it will depend on how it is done. I would not suggest merely posting a previous post again especially more than once. There was some question the first time, but I doubt if a second would have any question.